Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Slavery, reparations for
Section E. Social, moral and religious

This issue could be set in many countries where there is a history of a slave trade. It is often set in the USA where the descendants of many slaves live and where there is a strong lobby for more recognition and justice for this community. It could also be run country to country (e.g. that Britain should pay reparations to Jamaica; or the West should pay reparations to Africa). It may need to be established exactly who is to pay the reparations (countries or companies, for example) and who will receive them, and how much they will be; or it may be possible to have the debate as a principle.

Pros

[1] There is a real economic harm to descendants of slaves due to discrimination caused (both in terms of wealth not passed down through families, and now the lower earning power of, for example, African Americans).

[2] There has been a real economic gain to the country and to individual descendants of slave owners, as money that came from cotton, sugar, etc. was made on the back of slave labour.

[3] There is a justice in transferring the wealth — both in terms of the unpaid wages and also in terms of a penalty for the moral crime which was committed and for which nobody has paid.

[4] There is a strong symbolism in the act which shows that society has a deep regret that slavery happened and helps us to move forward. This could help to address current continuing racial divides.

[5] There are precedents: in the 1980s, the USA paid reparations to survivors of Japanese American internment during the Second World War; the German government paid reparations to victims of the Holocaust and their families. The question of who pays and who receives money could be decided by an independent commission. In most cases, clear lineage can be established.

Cons

[1] There are no slaves alive to whom reparations can be paid, and it is not appropriate to pay descendants (perhaps great-grandchildren) who have never had any contact with slavery and have not suffered as a result of it. A country’s duty should be to make sure that all sections of the community have equal opportunities and are free from discrimination. If this is not the case, then resources should be directed towards solving this problem at a community level, not giving money to individuals.

[2] There are no slave owners or traders alive to pay these reparations. Nobody alive was involved or supports the use of slaves, so there would be no justice in punishing the innocent. It is impossible to calculate how much a country gained from slavery, but all of that wealth should now benefit all of its citizens equally. It is also very complex because of changing colonial powers: should the USA pay, or France and Britain?

[3] The slave owners of the time were breaking no law. Society has now moved on and moral and legal positions have changed, but it is not fair to enact a retrospective punishment when people were acting within the law.

[4] The reparations could actually inflame racism. A white majority would resent being punished for a crime they took no part in and this may harm race relations.

Possible motions

This House supports reparations for slavery.

This House believes that the US government should pay reparations for slavery.

Related topics

Marxism

Child labour can be justified

Affirmative action