Slavery In Africa

Slavery In Africa
Ladies and gentlemen: I don't believe that anyone in this chamber would move to
disagree with the idea that slavery was an atrocity, committed from the
depths of the darkest parts of the human sole. Cruelty is the readiness to give
pain to others or lack of concern for their suffering. Pertaining to exactly
what the white man did to the black slaves. Slavery was not an institution of
neither economical nor a paternalistic system. It was a brutal, inhumane abuse
of mankind. Africans were seized from their native land, and sold into lives of
servitude in a foreign land. Indeed, it was a tragedy on such a scale that
cannot be measured nor quantified. And it is this very notion of tragedy, which
speaks to the matter of reparations for slavery. To be quite blunt, reparations,
even if they may be deserved, are not feasible under any system or economic
tangent. Not only would such an undertaking not remedy the situation, but it
would sink Africa and her people deeper into the cycle of poverty and oppression
that they have so struggled to free themselves from. While the arguments against
reparations may seem shallow or self-serving to advocates of such a system, upon
examination, the logistics of what to give, and whom to distribute it to,
preclude any potential benefits of such a system of indemnity and requite. The
point of the following critique is not to say that Africans were not mistreated,
nor that they are not worthy of reparations, but that perhaps reparations are
not an adequate solution to this situation, and certainly will only serve to
worsen. Aside from any philosophical or idea-based arguments against
reparations, there exist a number of logistical barriers to repaying blacks for
their suffering. Immediate questions arise in the realm of distribution - it is
intuitive that such reparations would be difficult to distribute, much less to
decide how much, or where to place the funds or assistance. The questions are
impossible to answer: who was the most oppressed? Which family or group of
people received the cruelest treatment - should they get the most money or
assistance? Such questions cannot be decided, nor is it fair to quantify or
compare the suffering of different people - if we started to hand out
assistance, some would invariably demand more than others. Some of African
descent were never taken into slavery, nor were oppressed by whites - even if
one believed they are deserved of reparations, it would be impossible for an
international body to distinguish or properly disburse the requite among

Africans of diverse backgrounds. Some Africans have indeed become wealthy within
then white world and do not require assistance - yet it would be unfair to
slight them their share - did they not also once suffer? It is equally
impossible to prove whether or not someone actually was a slave, or how long
they had been slaves; no records of such history were ever kept. Also worth of
addressing is African involvement in slavery - it ought to be decided whether
those Africans deserve reparations. Some historians agree that many early slave
traders justified their actions because of African involvement in the trade
itself - guns and technology bought these African kings from the Europeans. By
this logic, even if they were forced to sell these slaves, they did indeed
contribute to the effort -are the nations, which contain these former kingdoms
today, deserved of repayment? Positively, it is unfeasible to say who did and
who did not, as any logical observer would note. It is equally unworkable to
decide whether or not they too were victims of the slave trade, the arguments
either way would be morally irreparable - for are they responsible for the
actions of their ancestors? In total, no governing body can be sure of neither
who these reparations ought to be distributed to, nor what form they ought to
take. One might argue that just general monetary grants should be given to

African nations - but that leaves African Americans out of the process, who
formerly suffered as Africans. While perhaps the ideas that Mazuri presents are
perhaps worthy of noting or discussion, we find that there are many unanswered
questions in the issue - the risks of the distribution process outweigh
potential benefits. The final case against the organized business of reparations
for slaves is that indemnifies the question of who ought to bear responsibility
for repaying the slaves for their oppression and abuse. Is there a certain group
of people that ought to be most responsible for the reparations - should the
average citizen pay for slavery? Both are questions, which cannot be
sufficiently responded to. No single person ought to be paying more for slavery
than another; in fact few people alive today has ever committed slavery or owned
slaves; they ought not to be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors
who perhaps once did have slaves. Also worth noting is the idea that those
nations most responsible for slavery are unable to pay for it, such as Belgium
and Portugal, while relatively benign countries like Great Britain are economic
powers in Europe. This makes the interesting point of such, and I feel that

Britain does not have to pick up the slack and pay for what other nations did -
it is equally unfair as giving reparations to Africans who were not slaves. One
of the suggestions that are also raised is that of establishing an IMF fund for

African nations. However, it is the tax money of average citizens paying for
these reparations - no one say that these people were actually the ones who
contributed to slavery. The hard-earned taxes of the middle class should not go
to foreign funds to deal with guilt for African tragedies, but to education for
all people, without regard to race or discrimination. The point is that all in
all, those who did not contribute to slavery ought not to pay for it - neighbors
of criminals do no go to prison for being near the criminal, nor the children or
grandchildren of criminals serve time to society. I would, once again, like to
make clear that I do not disagree that slavery was an act of near genocide, and
ought never be forgotten nor trivialized - we owe the African of our day a great
apology. Nor do I disagree that perhaps Africans contributed to global markets
in the early days of European expansion. However, I do not think it right that
we bandage Africa in requital of our own guilt, thusly entrenching the very
notion of segregation and discrimination that we are discussing here today.

African peoples and nations may be deserved of recompense, but it will never
truly be possible to requite the losses in any form of goods or services by a
foreign power. If Africans need money, it need not be asked for under guise of
slave reparations. We should not bestow these requites of shallow money and
assistance on Africa - it would distinguish them as something different, and
entrench the mindset of racism, and the paradigm of separate treatment.

Naturally, the point of this address was to display to the chamber the
impracticality of providing such "quick-fix" solutions, and of ever
hoping to properly distribute these funds within a reasonable timeframe of
effectiveness. Surely, I believe deeply that Africans have been abused and
oppressed - yet we should not buy the forgiveness of Africa, nor should Africa
have to accept our payments. I urge you, to please have the foresight to not
entrench the very notions of which it is so paramount that we battle, but to
find an alternative solution to Africa's dilemma.

User Comments