“New York City has a moral obligation to confront its historical role in the institution of slavery, including harms and long-lasting consequences,” Ms. Maser said in a statement.
As the effects upon now are zero then that’s that then, we’re done.
“New York City has a moral obligation to confront its historical role in the institution of slavery, including harms and long-lasting consequences,” Ms. Maser said in a statement.
As the effects upon now are zero then that’s that then, we’re done.
New York City has a moral obligation to confront its historical role in the institution of the ‘Democratic’ Party, including harms and long-lasting consequences
FTFY
Just had to check, because I was sure New York abolished slavery just after the Revolution.
It was formally abolished in 1799, but children of enslaved mothers still had to work as indentured servants until they were 28. So the last slaves were actially freed in 1827.
200 years ago ? This really is taking the mickey.
Welsh people should not support slavery. Slavery is evil. The Brits should feel guilty about slavery.
They’ve really hit a rich vein of potential grift here. There’s enough ahistorical rubbish written without consideration of context that they’ll always find people willing to provide ‘evidence’ and biased ‘research’ to support claims.
Self-evidently to anyone without an axe to grind it would seem absurd that contemporary taxpayers need to make restitution for events that occurred two centuries ago but sadly we are gradually reverting to a pre – enlightenment age – a process that the coming Harris presidency will accelerate.
“I’m currently living in one of the wealthiest, most vibrant cities in the history of the world – you know, one of those places where people risk their lives to get to – because my great-great-great-great-great-great-great (I think!) grand-pappy was taken out of hunter-gatherer poverty to bring him here. I’m mad as hell about that, and would like some money!”
@ Rosslyn Morgan
It was the British who abolished slavery, firstly in England and then throughout the British Empire and it was the Royal Navy that eliminated the Transatlantic Slave Trade – so why should *we* feel guilty? Is it because we didn’t declare war on Arabia in order to end the East African slave trade? Or because we didn’t sack Istanbul?
Or just because you are feeling masochistic?
John77
I have a feeling you may be dealing with a troll – possibly a variant of the anti-semite I encountered last week who wanted ‘peace’ in the Middle East by having all Jews murdered.
When discussing slavery at the firm I work in I have ‘made myself unavailable’ for any discussion around slavery which doesn’t feature mention of either the Arab Slave Trade or the Abolitionist movement – preferably both. I am even extending it to include the American Civil War, as well as African collusion.
While I have seen some people acknowledge the wrongness of the Arab Slave Trade (very few to be sure) I have never seen any of the other three topics mentioned in any symposium proposed on the topic. Until that changes, then the people pushing this crap are grifting scum who need to be treated with the contempt they deserve.
NYC should consider returning Manhatten Island to the Indians who were bilked out of it for a string of beads, if they want to right historic wrongs.
I’m sure Mr Patel would be only too pleased to accept it.
@Van_Patten, you are far too kind – grifting scum is a compliment to such cunts.
In a city like NY few of the current residents are apt to have had ancestors in NY at the time the state abolished slavery. But, some see an opportunity for a money grab, and they reckon the time is as ripe as it will ever be. All those Asians, Puerto Ricans, Italians, Greeks, etc. should be taxed big time to pay for the sins of two centuries ago committed by people that were of no relation to them.
The people of Whitechapel should be compelled to pay compensation to white prostitutes for the murders of Jack the Ripper.
TD,
The grifters’ argument goes alone the lines of … slaves built New York city which meant it could become wealthy, without that wealth there wouldn’t have been anywhere for those immigrants to come to to escape the oppression of their own land, therefore they benefited from the misery of slavery and should be happy to pay reparations.
Of course its ahistorical bollocks, but that is what the grifters’ whole edifice is built on.
John77 England was not the first country to abolish slavery. England is just a part of the UK not another name for it. Research basic facts.
And lots of countries aoolished slavery before the UK. Research basic facts.
Van Patten is the antisemite not me. I love Jews.
John77
Confirmation it’s the same guy under a different moniker – staunch backer of Hamas and wants a ‘peace’ arrangement where they can freely go across the Gaza and West Bank murders and carry out further attacks.
The style was the same. The evil exudes from every word.
There should be full accountability for slavery.
Except the Jewish owned slave boats, that should never ever be mentioned, and if you do we’ll destroy your life.
Because, reasons.
By the way
The RN was very active off of the coast of East Africa, intercepting slave dhows.
Rosslyn Park is right
Britain was not the first to abolish slavery. Portugal banned slavery and had them all sento Brazil instead.
Revolutionary Framce did. Then Napoleon reintroduced it later.
Norway abolished slave trade in 1792, 15 years before Uk, but the difference is UK then spent 50 years and 0.5% of GDP enforcing the abolishment of the Atlantic slave trade.
For clarity, that’s 0.5% GDP per annum.
Apart from a very brief & murky period in the C18th with the South Sea Company, I don’t believe either England or Britain as countries had any involvement with the slave trade whatsoever. In that period you really do have to distinguish between what a country does & what its nationals do. The government’s writ didn’t really extend much past its own shores. What it could control several thousand miles away were strictly limited. You can see what happened with the American War of Independence. It’s not as if Britain was like Spain & Portugal who carved up a continent between them & administered their possessions. Britain’s colonies were generally private endeavours with a great deal of autonomy. It couldn’t just impose its laws on them without consent. It didn’t have the revenue base to enforce them. Even if you look at the South Sea Company, the Asiento was an agreement between the company & Spain. Not Britain & Spain.
Incidentally. Curious how the slave reparation thing seems to be only an Anglo-Saxon endeavour. My good friend here is descended from Portuguese slaves. She thinks it’s all crazy. All long in the past. Is there a campaign for the Spanish & Portuguese to pay reparations? If there is we haven’t heard about it. And half the people we know have some slave blood in them. What about the Dutch & the French?
BiS
I’d argue that it’s all racism. The non-whites (especially those with white skins) all hate the wicked Anglo-Saxons and wish to punish them for their skin colour!!
Of course I might be thinking of the cancellation of the Blayney gold mine here in Oz. The white-looking aboriginal, Lisa Paton seems to feel that all the waterways should be ‘protected’ since the abos used them all in the good old days. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is conducting lawfare against the local abos who have wickedly pointed out that the claim is bullshit.
Bloke in North Dorset
All the reparations advocates need to do now is convince all those people who’s forefathers came to America after the Civil War that all their advantages, as evidenced by circa 1900 photos of NY street scenes and tenement buildings, derive from slavery. It’s proving to be a tougher sell than they think, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some city somewhere goes a long with it.
@ Rosslyn Morgan
You are talking rubbish – England abolished slavery centuries before England united with Scotland. The United Kingdom did not abolish slavery because each of its four components had *already* abolished slavery (albeit the Welsh abolition was at the behest of the English-dominated Parliament).
For centuries after England abolished slavery, African pirates seized innocent villagers to sell them as slaves to Ottomans and others.
Unlike you, I do not just research basic facts – I remember them
England united with Scotland in the Act of Union 1707.
The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was a UK Act of the Parliament which made for a gradual abolition of slavery in large parts of the British Empire.
1707 is not centuries after 1833. It is before.
Serfdom* was abolished in 1574 by Good Queen Bess. We didn’t get too worked up about what foreigners did in foreign until 1833.
* not quite the same as slavery, which ended in England much earlier
Chris; Slavery happened in the British Empire in the 19th Century. It was British people often carrying out the slavery, in the British Empire. That includes English people. Saying a country has no responsibility for the acts of it’s Empire is as ignorant as claiming Germany was not responsible for what it’s soldiers did in Poland, or the Soviet Union. That is a weak logic.
Harry
Your argument implies that the British Empire was always an absolute autocracy. Which was not true.
It was only very slowly that the UK government gradually gained more and more power over its component parts. Even in the British Isles.
And of course in places like Oz and Canada, the power of the UK government gradually diminished. Or rapidly in the case of the US.
The English and British elites had power over the Empire. Look at things like the British East India Company.