Hmmm, now in Samoa a lot of time will cover how much compensation will
be paid to the descendants of Slaves. Also how to calculate the amount.
One thing I notice that there is no idea of asking the primary slave
traders to pay anything.
In Africa the slaves were captured by neighboring tribes and
transported to the coastal slave markets.
Also many Europeans were captured by Arab slave traders and sold mainly
in Nth African slave markets, and remember the Barbary Pirates ?
They were still taking crews and passengers off ships right up till the
20th Century and some are still in business.
They did not stop until the US Navy turned up and told the Emir "Stop Now or Else !"
There were about one million European slaves taken all through the
Mediterranean from around Britain and even from Iceland !
Blondes apparently fetch the highest prices.
The Slav people of Europe and Russia were also raided for people and
this is why the people of those Balkan countries are known as Slavs.
The Romans also took slaves from anywhere.

So who is going to take up all their cases and how will their
dependents be compensated and who will do the calculation ?
That all points out the absurdity of it all.

As Western culture gets weaker and weaker, thanks to our gutless politicians, these stunts about compensation for slavery we were never involved in, to "climate change" we have no responsibility for, will become more common. The only people who can put a stop to it are voters.

Not just those places you mention Bezza. There are any number of nations who would or should pay reparations if such foolishness ever eventuated.

The vast majority of black slaves went to the Middle East rather than the Americas. Or more precisely a majority were sent in that direction but large numbers perished on the journey or died as a result of the Muslim practice of castrating the male slaves. A practice that resulted in death rates of up to 50%.

Of course, the Mongols took enormous numbers of slaves during their two centuries of rule.

India had enormous numbers of slaves right up to the point the Brits arrived. As did the Chinese.

The Aztec and Incas were essentially slave societies although many of those slaves were executed in the most grisly of fashions to appease the various gods.

The AmerIndians took slaves prior to the arrival of Columbus and continued to do so for centuries thereafter, especially after the introduction of the horse allowed some tribes to exert power over vast areas.

Aboriginals kept their women in effective states of slavery and sold them to Chinese traders long before Cook arrived and to whalers after contact.

Slavery is the norm in human society. It existed everywhere and always through recorded history and very probably long before that. The last two hundred years where slavery is abolished to some extent and abhorred by most peoples, is an anomaly in human history.

Yet the ignorant know only about white on black slavery over the past half a millennium. They should be ignored or gently educated, although I suspect most are ineducable.

Hi Bezza,

In September 1952 West Germany agreed to pay Israel 3 billion.
Furthermore, Holocaust survivors continue to receive restitution
payments to this day. From 1945 to 2018 Germany paid over 86
billion to these survivors.

We're told that the Allies took about $413 million worth of
reparations (both in money and goods) from their occupation
zones. In 1952 the London Agreement on German External Debts
assessed the final reparation figure at $3 billion.

The final payment was made on 3 October 2010 - settling German
loan debts in regard to reparations.

It's easier to obtain reparations when the event occurred
within living historical memory. It's also easier when there's
only a relatively few identifiable perpetrators. And it's
also easier when there's a limited number of victims and the
event occurred within a short period of time.

Some survivors of the Holocaust are still alive and the event
is within living historical memory. The main perpetrator -
Germany - is well known.

By contrast, more than 12.5 million Africans were shipped
across the Atlantic over more than 300 years. And the number
is even greater if we count those killed. None of these
victims are still alive and the historical memory is far
more distant.

However there's more at the following:

http://theconversation.com/holocaust-victims-get-reparations-so-why-not-descendants-of-trans-atlantic-slavery-164478

Well Foxy, one way to calculate the charge would be to take the average wage of black US citizens, take the average wage of Congo citizens and make the US ones pay the difference times 300 years.
You can make up hundreds of formulas to satisfy them all.

" more than 12.5 million Africans were shipped
across the Atlantic over more than 300 years."

The vast majority of that number went to South America and the Caribbean. Less than 5% went to what would become the USA. But the US is the one being told to pay up. Good luck getting money out of Brazil where the majority went.

"And the number
is even greater if we count those killed. "

The 12.5 million figure includes those who died enroute.

BTW less than 25% of the total were carried on British ships. Good luck getting money out of the Iberians who carried more than half of the Atlantic slaves.

Britain and the USA are being targeted to pay up because they've got the money and the hope is they have governments dopey enough to buy the warm inner glow of spending other people's money.

Bringing up slavery in the 21st. Century is just an excuse for another attack on the West. Those responsible are only interested in the slave trade conducted by white Westerners: not all the others, many of whom are still trading in, and enslaving, human beings.

Sadly, many people inside the West are falling for it. While they keep voting for the same trash who won't stand up for the West and face down its enemies, the bad guys will keep winning - as they are now.

Those responsible are only interested in the slave trade conducted by white Westerners: not all the others, many of whom are still trading in, and enslaving, human beings.
ttbn,
It certainly is indisputable that it is so !

Hi Foxy,

The last American negro was released from "slavery" in the form of penal servitude in the Deep South USA in 1942. The doco "Slavery By Another Name". Slavery created vast wealth in the Deep South, particularly the cotton industry by the mid 19th century.

Australia was not immune from "Slavery", many of the early convicts were simply slaves by another name, their crime was "being poor". Australians engaged in slavery, it's called "Blackbirding" today.

My Great Great Grandmother born a slave (about 1823-1891) on the island of Mauritius, a British colony at the time. Was transported to NSW, (fortunately for me, not to Cape Colony SA) aged about 12, in 1834 as a convict for life, (a very suspect attempted murder conviction, half day trial, with no witnesses called, only affidavits from the accuser, and a attending doctor, charging her with poisoning the tea of her mistress, the tea had been thrown out, the wife of the man who was probably her father, this was when she was aged about 10) eventually partially freed in Bathurst NSW, and allowed to marry in 1841. Later, she and her convict husband did rather well as farmers in the Wellington district of NSW. Decedents still own and farm the original property today. P/s Her cousin aged 12, was also convicted of the crime at the same time and also transported together to NSW. The cousin died of most likely TB in abject poverty, in the slums of Sydney in the 1860's.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for sharing. Family histories are fascinating
and often so inspiring - especially when it's your own.
I'd like to learn much more about mine - especially on
my mother's Russian side.

Prof. Rhonda E. Howard Hassmann has written a book -
"Reparations to Africa," in which she explains that one
reason for the difference between Holocaust reparations lies
in the considerable obstacles confronting those calling for
slave trade reparations.

I mentioned some of these obstacles in my previous post and I
gave the link from which they came. The link is worth a
read as it gives so much more information.

The professor explains that approx. 12.5 million Africans
were shipped across the Atlantic over more than 300 years.
She goes on to tells us that 10.7 million survived and actually
landed in the Americas.

She further tells us that "if you add people killed within
Africa due to the slave trade that figure could reach
30 million. And the number of descendants may well be in the
hundreds of millions".

She also says that "What's more, none of the direct victims of
the slave trade are still alive. Particularly for descendants of
the perpetrators of slavery, the historical memory is much more
distant than the Holocaust".

The end of the slave trade is worth a read
as is the centuries of atrocities as well as
some of the successful movements for
reparations to Africans for crimes committed during the colonial
period. The Herero are one ethnic group mentioned - living in
Southwest Africa, now Namibia, which was once colonized by
Germany.

Interesting trading.

It's outrageous that Paul should accuse Australia of practicing slavery. The convicts were sentenced to 7 years transportation and when they arrived here there weren't even any jails. Everyone was allowed to move freely about and many convicts, like Paul's forebears, established themselves as law-abiding and successful citizens.

The letters patent specifically forbade slavery in Australia, and transportation was an experiment in reform, which actually worked remarkably well.

Blackbirding did not amount to slavery either, and it was illegal. Crews found guilty were convicted, and some even hung.

There were large numbers of indentured labourers in Queensland, many from the Pacific Islands, although Europeans also came out on these terms as well. They came here voluntarily and worked-off the cost of their passage. They often repatriated money home. It's not so different from today where we have a large Pacific Island workforce in our agricultural industries, it's just that today our labour laws are more liberal for everyone than they were over 100 years ago.

The test as to whether indentured labour amounted to slavery came when the practice was ended. It turned-out that most of the labourers didn't want to go home and chose to stay here. Just as well, or Queensland would not do half so well at Rugby League without their descendants.

Australia has a history in this regard of which it can be justifiably proud.

Thalia Anthony, University of Technology, Sydney and
Stephen Gray, Monash University tell us:

"Prime Minister Scott Morrison asserted in a radio
interview that 'there was no slavery in Australia".

We're told that "This is a common misunderstanding
which often obscures our nation's history of
exploitation of First Nations people and Pacific
Islanders".

"Morrison followed up with - "I've always said we've
got to be honest about our history".

Unfortunately, his statement is at odds with the
historical record.

We're told that "This history was widely and publicly
documented among other sources, in the 2006 Australian
Senate Report "Unfinished Business: Indigenous Stolen
Wages,"

It's explained that - "Australia was not a "slave state"
like the American South". However we're told that
" slavery is a broader concept as Article 1, of the
United Nations Slavery Convention explains:

"Slavery is the status or condition of a person over
whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right
of ownership are exercised".

We're told that "These powers might include non
payment of wages, physical or sexual abuse, control
of freedom of movement, or selling a person like a
piece of property".

In the words of slavery historian - Orlando Patterson:

"Slavery is a form of "social death". We're told that:
"Slavery practices emerged in Australia in the 19th
century and in some places endured until the 1950s".

"Some 62,000 Melanesian people were brought to Australia
and enslaved to work in Queensland's sugar plantations
between 1863 and 1904. First Nations Australians had a
more enduring experience of slavery, originally in the
pearling industry in Western Australia and the Torres
Strait and then in the cattle industry".

There's much more at:

http://unaa.org.au/2020/06/13/was-there-slavery-in-australia-yes-it-shouldnt-even-be-up-for-debate/#:

"outrageous" me thinks not, convict transportation varied from 7 years to life. The reality was very few of those transported to Australia ever returned to England. Of the 162,000 transported between 1788 and 1867 about 40,000 were Irish political prisoners. So much for the, "experiment in reform" I suppose it reformed their political views. A choice between Australia and England as it was at that time, Australia wins hands down.

After the American Civil War economic conditions declined for Negroes in the Deep South, not reaching pre-war parity until the 1930's. Lynching and burning of negro property by red necks and racists become common post civil war.

"The letters patent specifically forbade slavery in Australia" that's particularly good news. There is more than one kind of slavery, economic slavery is as bad, or even worse if you have a benevolent master as a physical slave.

I would like to see proof of this "slavery" in Australia. Putting quotation marks around what some activist says doesn't necessarily mean that the activist is correct; it could just be her opinion.

The “link” reveals a lot of what appears to be hearsay and sensationalism to sell books. Were any of the “slaves” in Australia owned by the people who employed them, or were they merely subjected to working conditions and pay arrangements that appal us now, many years later.

There is a massive difference between enslavement and working conditions that appear abhorrent to us in the 21st. Century.

Foxy, that definition of slavery is so broad as to be meaningless. On that definition we were all enslaved during the COVID panic when we were confined to our homes and forced to take medical interventions.

I don't condone any of that, but to define it as slavery is nonsense.

On your definition of slavery it continues to this day in every country in the world.

What genius is going to work out which Arab tribe is going to pay how
much to the decendants of the Arab's slaves over the last couple of thousand years ?

One example of early slavery in Australia is John Macarthur who arrived from England in 1790. Macarthur was illegally granted free Aboriginal land and free convict labour to develop it at Parramatta in 1793 by the commander of the British occupation. Later Macarthur was illegally granted even greater amounts of Aboriginal land in the Camden district, all of which was cleared and developed by free convict labour. How does that differ from slavery in the Deep South of the US, other than Macarthur's slaves being totally a free acquisition and mostly white, while the US slaves were bought and paid for and black, by not much!

Convict Labour is what should be re-introduced for those who destroy what others have created. Perhaps a convict version of Adult Crime do Adult Work ?

Why is it that the past is always used with modern hindsight ? The argument of "free convict labour" doesn't appear to include that the convicts were fed. Money ? What would a convict do with money in 1825 inland Australia ? Same with the Indigenous. Food & clothing was provided by whoever had convicts working for them. There were more non-convicts who existed in much tougher conditions & they never committed any crimes.
We now have way more people engaged in crime yet they're not deemed criminal because they pretend to "work" but receive money for nothing in return when still young. Many receive more for achieving nothing than those who do.
The past is the past, make the present & better past instead of causing friction for the sake of causing unnecessary friction ! Those very people who exploit a bad past are now hell-bent & creating yet another bad past !

Starmer Britain is going to discuss reparations next year.

That's right. The country that stopped slavery (by white people at least) is thinking about slinging UK taxpayers’ money at people who have never themselves been slaves.

A UN "judge” has suggested that the British Commonwealth owes Caribbean countries 18 TRILLION pounds in reparations.

It's a pity that some people don't bother to learn what some words mean - in this case, slavery - before the start sounding off.

"We need a fearless commitment to telling the truth
of our shared past, the sometimes ugly uncomfortable
hard to talk about truth and written stories such as
the Aboriginal Workers are essential on this path to
truth telling".
(Queensland Minister Leeanne Enoch).

http://anu.edu.au/news/all-news/history-of-indigenous-work-sheds-light-on-australian-slavery

"Numerous historians, legal experts and government officials have
found that the controls imposed on Pacific Islander and First
Nations People essentially amounted to slavery".

http://smh.com.au/national/they-ruled-our-lives-what-impact-slavery-had-in-australia-20200630-p557ht.html

Slavery is defined by the United Nations Slavery Convention
as the status or condition of a person over whom any or all
of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are
exercised. The practices that took place in Australia align with
this definition.

There are numerous historical records - which
are available in national libraries and museums around the
country. In fact there is so much available
today through books, and archival collections. One has only to
have the interest to want to discover this wealth of information.

Discover about our convicts, our Indigenous People, Pacific
Islanders, the Melanesians, Indian and Chinese labourers and
much, much, more.

People can and often do - dispute history. History lies at the
core of every conflict. But a true and unbiased understanding
of the past offers the possibility of a better and improved
future for all. The distortion or manipulation of history in
contrast will only sow disaster - as we can see with what's
happening in the Middle East today.

They just don’t get it. Citing the opinions of people who think the same as they do doesn't make what they think correct.

Historical facts always prove deniers wrong!

It is important that people ought to get all the
information about an issue, not just limited
information and one opinion.

For deniers - it's a psychological response that helps
them manage information that makes them uncomfortable
and they don't want it to enter into their belief
system.

It's a way really for them to make things
make sense to themselves. A strategy to neutralize what
historians (and scientists) say.

" that definition of slavery is so broad as to be meaningless.".

Its now a standard practice used by those with an agenda rather than a reverence for the truth. Take a word, redefine it beyond recognition and then declare that the new definition is...well, definitive.

So you redefine 'slavery' so that what happened in Australia can be called slavery and then declare that since there was slavery here and slavery in the US confederacy, they are the same.

Orwell wrote about the bastardisation of the language in the service of false ideology. But the gullible continue to fall for it.

They do it all the time. Redefine 'genocide' so that you can equate what's happening in Gaza to what happened in Auschwitz.

Redefine 'woman' so that the person standing there with a cock, balls and a surfeit of testosterone can be called a sheila.

And now redefine 'slavery'.

Slaves in the US south could have their families ripped apart, the father sold here, the mother there, the kids somewhere else. Did that happen here? No - but let's pretend it's the same.

Those slaves could be bred like cattle with women being forced to carry babies from men with good genes. Did that happen here? No - but let's pretend it's the same.

The kids born to slave women were also slaves. Did that happen here? No - but let's pretend it's the same.

In the Middle East male slaves were regularly castrated like we castrate stallions and for the same reason. Did that happen here? No - but let's pretend it's the same.

In the Middle East attractive female slaves were put into sexual slavery in harems and brothels. Did that happen here? No - but let's pretend it's the same.

Its all intellectual dishonesty on a grand scale with not the slightest concern for the truth or integrity.

But they'll preen themselves as being otherwise.

No facts have been presented. Publicity for a book that the poster knows nobody here will read, and a report of wafflings in a left wing newspaper.

The poster is apparently not aware that few, if any, modern “historians” consult original documents, merely copying what others have written, and passing it off as ‘fact’.

To be credible, references and links need to provide evidence, or point to where evidence can be found, with information on how authors arrived at their conclusion: not just ‘Auntie Flo said’ and world of mouth answers to loaded questions.

For someone ‘claiming’ to be ‘trained’ in research and correct accreditation of information and its use, Foxy is full of crap.

Oh but if you use the new definition to point out that, if its applied to pre-contact aboriginal society, all aboriginal women were slaves, these purveyors of the new truth will shout 'racist' and avert their eyes with alacrity.

Did that happen here? No -
mhaze,
LGBTYXVZ & Labor/Green are doing that right now !

We're told that although there was no slave trade in
Australia, numerous historians, legal experts,
and government officials have found that the controls
imposed on Pacific Islanders and First Nations people
essentially amounted to slavery.

Stephen Gray writes in the "Australian Indigenous Law
Review" given in the second link I cited on page 4 of this
discussion:

"It is true that Australia was not a "slave state" in the
manner of the American South, nevertheless, employers
exercised a high degree of control over their Aboriginal
workers who were in some cases bought and sold as chattels.
Employers exercised a form of legal coercion over their
workers in a manner consistent with the legal interpretation
of slavery".

Yhrre's more at the given previous link.

"We're told that..."

No Foxy...YOU'RE told. The rest of us do proper research with an open and educated mind and reach the conclusion that calling what happened in Australia 'slavery' is a mere distortion of the language.

NB... going to TellMeWhatIWantToHear.com to find purported experts who distort the facts to suit the agenda isn't actual research.

I realize that for some on this forum, using
reputable, credible sources, presenting facts,
citing links, and expert opinions, is not acceptable.
Especially when these impact on their beliefs.

Not everyone is capable of taking an analytical
approach.

However, let's not forget that there is so much
material available to us today on our past history.
Our national and state libraries, our museums, and their
archival collections including their oral
collections, are easily accessible to anyone
interested in doing genuine research on the subject.

It may surprise many once they start their journey on
this path to learning. But it is a very worthwhile
trip - highly recommended to not only learn about the
past but about yourself as well.

Happy Research.

Well worth it.

Well worth it.
Foxy,
Too much sanitising of history in the past few decades ! Also, PC is misrepresenting a lot !