Simmonds says no to slavery reparations

| 08/11/2013

(CNS): The UK Foreign and Commonwealth office’s overseas territories minister, who also has responsibility for Britain’s relationship with the Caribbean, has said he does not support the CARICOM claim for slavery reparations. Speaking to the media in Jamaica on Wednesday after his one-day tour of the Cayman Islands on Tuesday, Mark Simmonds said that Europe was not in a financial position to compensate the region for human atrocities that were perpetrated two centuries ago. Fourteen countries from the Caribbean region are, however, pursuing a legal claim against Britain, France and the Netherlands for their part in those atrocities.

During his first official trip to Jamaica Simmonds said he could not support the move.

“Do I think that we are in a position where we can – financially – to offer compensation for events that happened two, three hundred years ago? No I don’t,” Simmonds said, according to reports in the regional press, as he sought to deflect the debate to modern day slavery, and said the UK had already apologised. “Clearly slavery was abhorrent; slavery still is abhorrent, and we all need to work together to ensure that we eradicate it in totality wherever it exists … And I think we’ve got to focus on where our commonalities agree and I think that is eradicating slavery as it exists today.”

Simmonds said he believed the United Kingdom’s rejection of the scourge was reflected in its relentless lobby for the framework set up by the United Nation to eradicate modern day slavery. Instead of focusing on reparations, the minister said the United Kingdom was keen on assisting Jamaica revitalise its economic base.

According to The Gleaner, politicians in Jamaican were offended by what they said were his off-hand 'colonialistic' remarks.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: World News

About the Author ()

Comments (158)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anonymous says:

    Forget the history books, what about the modern day slavery that continues to this day. How many people are aware of the Jawa people still enslaving in the deserts of Tatouhine?

  2. Anonymous says:

    I hope the Jews Can get something out of the Egytians for that whole Red Sea thing with Moses.

    • Judean People's front says:

      And the meek, don't forget them, they had a hell of a time.

      • Inonymous says:

        I can see the bill now, "Due upon presentment for past entitlements: the Earth.  Payable within 15 days with interest thereafter at 1 moon per month".

  3. Anonymous says:

    Slavery is quite acceptable, and the Bible even gives instructions on how to treat your slaves!

    I know those instructions are in the Old Testament and many Christians would readily discard that part of the Bible, except that it also contain the teachings on homosexuality that they so dearly embrace.

    • Anonymous says:

      Ummmm…the NT also clearly disapproves of homosexual practises so need for the OT for that purpose.

    • Anonymous says:

      1 Timothy 1:8-10

      We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

      No slave trade = no slavery.
  4. Nathan Bedford Forrest says:

    Isn't the RACE CARD maxxed out ALREADY?? Give me a break. Had they been left in Africa, i assure you life would have been way more difficult!! 

  5. The Ex Ex-Pat says:

    My Norse ancestors were enslaved by the neighbouring Vikings… Where do I send the bill?

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah, and the UK was enslaved by the Vikings too, the Romans and then the French..obviously the vikings took all the goodstuff, France and Italy now bankrupt…and then the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium and Holland to lesser degrees enslaved parts of what is now the US, all of South America, Middle and Far East. Who the hell is going to work all that out?

    • Anonymous says:

      Did your Norse ancestors get paid for the loss of their "shattle/cargo" at the end of slavery?  What you all are missing is that these white slave masters were paid by England for giving up their slaves.  So if it was okay to repay the slave masters for lost income/slaves, it is only fair to pay NOW!!!!!!

      • Anonymous says:

        Whine, whine, whine…….

        • Anonymous says:

          That's right. People who point out atrocities are just whiners. smh.

      • Anonymous says:

        Good, and what exactly have all those emancipated slaves done to improve their lives since?

        its only been 200 years, better give it more time eh!

      • Ya Mon says:

        Umm.. you get that in this story my Norse ancestors were the slaves, not the masters, and so any payment for "giving up the slaves" would have gone to the Vikings, not my people?  Now that we've got that cleared up, I'd like to know your ancestry so that I can look up if "your people" ever held slaves (going back to the stone age).  In the meantime, please give me my money.

        • Anonymous says:

          Norse 'slavery' was nothing in comparison to African enslavement. A blip that did nothing to change the course of history and carried none of the complete degradation, dehumanization and brutality.  

          I think those of you not educated in the Caribbean really know very little of the transatlantic slave trade and slavery in the New World. At least that is how it appears when you make these absurd comparisons.  

  6. Anonymous says:

    I am shocked that a country that prospers off the backs of cheap foreign labour has the nerve to comment on slavery. When you start paying your 'helpers', nannies, house keepers, construction workers and service staff, (a significant proportion who come from a country originally born from slavery) a decent and humantarian wage, then we will listen.

    In regard to the ridiculous notion that Africa has been held back by slavery, the only people that have held Africa back since the abolition of slavery and emancipation are Africans themselves. Inter tribal, ethnic and religious wars have ravaged Africa, add into the mix a cocktail of self interest and corruption and you get the Africa of today.

    Africans have had many opportunities to succeed but they have largely failed, most of the former colonial lands are riven with internal strife and corruption. Many were handed the mechanisms for government, law and order and industry, but decided to dismantle proven wealth creation in favour of hair brained schemes designed to place riches in the hands of a few. And much the same has happened in the Caribbean.

    European countries obviously prospered from slavery, but to claim that Africa would have been more advanced is complete rubbish. If that is true, why aren't they now? 

    Whilst slavery was a disgusting humanitarian crime in today's enlightened world, it was perfectly legal 200 years ago. Where do reparations stop, are we going to claim from the many African tribes that captured and sold slaves to Europeans, because that's how it really happened, African against African, clearing tribal lands of those who were inferior to stronger tribes. Slave trading is centuries old and pre dates 'modern European slavery' by hundreds of years, Arabs and Africans were capturing and selling African slaves to ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans before Christ.

    Why don't the hundreds of thousands of relatives of ancestors who were press ganged into the Royal Navy or merchant fleets sue the UK government? They were as much victims of the elite society that ruled the UK as were the African slaves. What about claiming cash from the Romans?

    It's just stupid to even contemplate such historical events.

    The whole concept of rewarding ineptitude and ignorance is wrong, there are no slaves of Europeans in the Caribbean anymore, so no money can be paid to those originally affected. If the argument is that your ancestors were snatched from their lands and that you were denied your African heritage, then get on a plane and go make your life amongst your ancestors, nobody has stopped you for 200 years.


    • Anonymous says:

      The success of the slave trade was due mostly to turning tribes against each other for the "dream" of a richer life; which has yet to be seen.

      Please try not to be so ignorant in your remarks; I agree that it is over played but don't try to down play it.

      • Anonymous says:

        Bull shit, go to West Africa and see the slave enclaves built for their deportation. They weren't offered a better life, they were rounded up by their own and sold to slave traders. Black Africans had been doing it for centuries, and in parts, still do.

        Before you criticise make sure you know your facts, I have stood in these abhorrent places and have seen for myself the conditions imposed on these people. Nobody is downplaying, just putting the facts in a line and not overplaying the evil white man card.

        Slaves had no choice, their own people saw to that. Looking for a richer life, are you serious?

    • Anonymous says:

      Read How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney.

      Are you seriously comparing being press-ganged into joining the Royal Navy with African enslavement? You are seriously in need of an education about slavery.   

    • Anonymous says:

      To compare slavery with people choosing to travel to another country to earn a living by working a low-wage job where they have basic protections under the labour laws of the country is beyond ridiculous. Obviously, anyone can leave any time they like if the wages or conditions do not suit them.  

      Perhaps you were not taught about slavery, the slave trade, the Middle Passage etc. so I'll forgive your comment on the basis of ignorance.  

    • Anonymous says:

      Slavery has always been a disgusting, heinous act perpetrated against fellow humans. Saying it was legal at the time is a pretty poor response. People like John Wesley railed against it in his day:

      "Such are the men whom you hire their own countrymen to tear away from this lovely country; part by stealth, part by force, part made captives in those wars which you raise or foment on purpose. You have seen them torn away, — children from their parents, parents from their children; husbands from their wives, wives from their beloved husbands, brethren and sisters from each other. You have dragged them who had never done you any wrong, perhaps in chains, from their native shore. You have forced them into your ships like an herd of swine, — them who had souls immortal as your own; only some of them leaped into the sea, and resolutely stayed under water, till they could suffer no more from you. You have stowed them together as close as ever they could lie, without any regard either to decency or convenience. And when many of them had been poisoned by foul air, or had sunk under various hardships, you have seen their remains delivered to the deep, till the sea should give up his dead. You have carried the survivors into the vilest slavery, never to end but with life; such slavery as is not found among the Turks at Algiers, no, nor among the Heathens in America.  May I speak plainly to you? I must. Love constrains me; love to you, as well as to those you are concerned with. Is there a God? You know there is. Is he a just God? Then there must be a state of retribution; a state wherein the just God will reward every man according to his works. Then what reward will he render to you? O think betimes! before you drop into eternity! Think now, "He shall have judgment without mercy that showed no mercy." Are you a man? Then you should have an human heart. But have you indeed? What is your heart made of? Is there no such principle as compassion there? Do you never feel another's pain? Have you no sympathy, no sense of human woe, no pity for the miserable? When you saw the flowing eyes, the heaving breasts, or the bleeding sides and tortured limbs of your fellow-creatures, was you a stone, or a brute? Did you look upon them with the eyes of a tiger? When you squeezed the agonizing creatures down in the ship, or when you threw their poor mangled remains into the sea, had you no relenting? Did not one tear drop from your eye, one sigh escape from your breast? Do you feel no relenting now? If you do not, you must go on, till the measure of your iniquities is full. Then will the great God deal with you as you have dealt with them, and require all their blood at your hands. And at "that day it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for you!" But if your heart does relent, though in a small degree, know it is a call from the God of love. And "to-day, if you will hear his voice, harden not your heart." To-day resolve, God being your helper, to escape for your life. Regard not money! All that a man hath will he give for his life! Whatever you lose, lose not your soul: Nothing can countervail that loss. Immediately quit the horrid trade: At all events, be an honest man.

      John Wesley – Thoughts Upon Slavery – 1774

       P.S. It was John Wesley who converted William Wilberforce and was his pastor.

    • Anonymous says:

      When people justify slavery on the basis that "it was legal at the time" it makes me realise that they would happily do it now if only there not a law against it.     

  7. Anonymous says:

    "slavery as it exists today" is in the economic form of your boss at work, or wealthy families,of any color, blocking your advancement in society and hoarding resources.

    But nobody wants to talk about that since as long as a few palms are greased and the drugs keeps running the working man's working memory remains clouded.   
  8. Anonymous says:

    Don't be shocked, bobo. It was our own black people and Arab people who captured the future slaves and sold them to the white men. We're all to blame. And it's black rulers of African countries today who are stealing all the money from their countries' resources and also the foreign aid that mainly white countries are giving them.

  9. Well Well says:

    I am shocked that more of the Caymanians of African descent have not spoken up. Does anyone realise the gravity of this situation? Imagine that hundreds of years ago you were living in Africa with your parents and some white people you never saw before raided your village taking all of the strong and healthy adults, those who were good "breeders" and those who were physically strong. Torn away from their family and homes never to return these adults were placed in the belly of the slave ships in chains packed together like sardines in a can. Many dies on this journey to the West and their bodies were simply tossed over board for the sharks to consume. For entertainment the slave traders used to force pairs of men, mostly the sick and dying, to fight each other to the death and they would place bets on who they thought would win.

    Once they reached their destinations (Europe, West Indies or North America), the "negroes" were bartered and sold off like horses or cattle, lined up and inspected like they were animals regardless of the fact that they were married or family members. At this point they were forced to seperate forever.

    We have heard all the atrocities of the physical and psychological hell that the slaves endured, including being murdered when they got sick or too old to work, but the economic effect of slavery needs to be considered. By taking the strongest, smartest and most fertile adults out of African villages, the slavers actually supressed the economic development of these African countries. They left the old and sick Africans to fend for themselves with no "New Generation" to develop the continent and to further support my point, the striongest, smartest and most verile adults that ANY country would depend on to move their Economic development forward were put to work FOR FREE to build the economies of these Western countries. 

    The demand for slaves was due to the lack of labour in the Slave Traders home countries and this mass influx of free reliable healthy strong labour allowed the economic development that these Western countries experienced to continue even until this day. Consider which countries control the world economies today? Arent they all known to have built their economies on slavery? Look at the African countries? Havent they all gone through hell in the past few hundred years? We need to recognize what slavery did for the Western countries, but more importantly what it did not do for the African countries and I think the reparations need tobe paid, not just to the descendants of slaves, but also to the African countries that have YET to recover from slavery. 


    • Anonymous says:

      Except the raids you speak of were almost exclusively conducted by other Africans, and therefore yet entire premise of your complaint in false.

    • Anonymous says:

      You do realize that Caymanians are mixed don't you?  So basically, my father's side of the family would be paying my mother's side.  Do you now see how ridiculous that is?

      • Arf says:

        Nothing ridiculous about that at all.  My wife always takes away all my money, and her mom did that for her dad.  Men just can't be trusted with money, so I'm told.

    • Anonymous says:

      I believe my family were taken by the Romans around 200AD and they were forced to fight beasts in Rome for the enjoyment of its citizens.

      I think about 250,000 dollars should suffice and help me get over the trauma.

      • Anonymous says:

        If science is to be believed, we are all ancestors of ancient Africans. So where's mymoney, can I call myself an African/Ancient Britain/Romano British/Viking/Saxon/Norman/ Englishman, or just English?

        Stop labelling yourself as a relic of the past and get on with living for the future in the country you call home, not the country some long lost relative was removed from by their own kind 200 or 300 years ago.

        • Anonymous says:

          Idiot. Try to read some history and you will learn what African enslavement was all about.

          • Anonymous says:

            We all know what 'African slavery' was all about, the zealots don't ever let it rest. Try moving on,the rest of the world has and that is why thy don't whine about reperations for events that are long past and irrelevent in today's world.

            Try getting the huge chip of your shoulders and actually make the world a better place instead of holding out the entitlement bowl at every opportunity.

            • Anonymous says:

              No, I don't think you do. Actually scant attention is paid to the horrors of slavery versus say the horrors of the Jewish holocaust. You either need an intensive history course or your moral sensibilities are non-existent. That is why people like you can so easily dismiss it as "irrelevant" which of course it isn't. It has shaped the entire course of human history. 

          • Anonymous says:

            You mean a history book written by a  self pitying, politically correct idiot who thinks the world still owes them a living 200 years later. Please stop whinging and do something about the cruelty still meted out by Africans on Africans, the white man is no longer responsible for the acts they continue to perpetrate on each other. In fact the Europeans saw slavery as a trade, Africans saw it as a way of getting rid of 'inferior' tribes.

            So much for the brotherhood and it's convenient view of history. Hypocrites. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Get an education, slavery was not and has never been related to just Africa or the color of one's skin!  Please bother to study Roman history for example or history of the Greeks, heck let us toss in a couple thousand years ago and see what type of slaves served in Modern day Asia oh and while wetalk about slaves exactly what race were the slaves that Moses supposedly helped to free???  And while you are at it you might hate to discover that the early slave traders of Africa in more modern times relatively speaking had agents rounding up slaves for them and lo and behold many of them were black Africans…..huh how convenient to forget all the slaves over human history that were not slaves because they came from Africa and had black skin.  I fear you will find so many more can be traced to every region and a myriad of skin color….kindly stop claiming that blacks from Africa are the only people in history who have been enslaved, it shows remarkable ignorance.

      • Anonymous says:

        There was nothing in history that remotely resembled African chattel slavery which was indeed race-based and involved the most abject cruelty imaginable. It dehumanised the victim and erased his identity so that even his native language could not be spoken and degrading names were substituted for their actual names. They were not allowed to have families but instead the males were forced to serve as studs to miscellaneous females to produce more slaves. I suggest you get an education, you ignorant schmuck.

        • Anonymous says:

          An interesting counter to the assertion that slavery is race based.



          Slavery is, at it's essence, the strong taking advantage of the weak and both categories, strong and weak,  cross racial boundaries when the circumstances are right. This is not to argue that racism did not exist, but slaves and masters come in all colours.


          As for your assertion that there is nothing in history to resemble the African chattel slavery, a current estimate of the number of people forced into labour camps by the Nazis in WWII is around 15m and this in a very short period of time. Very few of them were black. 

          • Anonymous says:

            You missed my point which was that African enslavement was indeed race-based because Blacks were perceived to be sub-human. This is why the U.S. Declaration of Independence could declare that "all men are created equal" and that God endows every human being with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", yet its signers all either had slaves or supported slavery. Blacks were not "men".  

            Even Nazi atrocities pale in comparison to 250 years African slavery.

            • Anonymous says:

              I did not miss your point, i simply don't agree with it.

              Africans were not taken as slaves because they were black per se, but because they were available, made so in many cases by other black Africans. If Europeans had access to a pool of white slave labour closer to home, I don't doubt they would have taken advantage of it.

              My view is there is a distinction to be made between the deeply racist attitudes which existed and the availability of slave labour which happened to be black.




              • Anonymous says:

                That is just plain nonsense. Please don't try to 'whitewash' history. There was a demand for African slaves because they were seen as naturally suited to hard manual labour in the hot sun on the plantations. It was justified because they were regarded by white men as inferior.  It is beyond dispute that this was a part of the justification. They were made available because there was a huge demand for them, much like a bounty hunter goes after the fugitive because there is a substantial reward. The idea that there were masses of slaves accumulated in Africa and the Europeans just came along and took advantage of the large supply is so patently ridiculous it doesn't need to be refuted.   

                Clearly, there was a pool of poor white European labour as well as Indians and Chinese. It was more difficult to justify their enslavement on the grounds that they were allegedly sub-human because they looked less different, and also they were not regarded as ideal for the field labour in the hot sun as Blacks. Ultimately, they were used as indentured servants, not chattel slaves.   

                • Anonymous says:

                  Whilst the majority of your argument holds water, the notion that there wasn't a ready supply of Africans is plainly untrue. 99% of black African slaves were captured and taken to the North African Coast, Arab countries and Turkey. These were home to the largest slave markets on earth and had been so for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The black African was rounded up and captured by his own, mainly to ethnically cleanse tribal lands and obviously for profit. They were joined by the Arabs who were world leaders if slavery.

                  The Europeans knew this huge market existed and exploited the trade for their own benefit, building slave forts and deportation docks all along the West African coastline. These terminals were kept supplied by African tribes and slave raiders who found a quicker and easier way to ply their trade.

                  The common myth is that African slavery was perpetrated by the white European alone, this is clearly not true. Only 1% of captured Africans were actually shipped across the Atlantic, so the pool of slaves was enormous and well established long before shipping to the colonies was implemented. The white man was rarely found too far from the coastline as disease, superstition and attack was a major fear, in fact it is known that crew members died in quite large numbers due to malaria, typhus, dysentery etc…

                  Good I hear you say, and you might be right, but slavery was engineered and supplied by Africans for their own tribal, racial and religious purposes. The Europeans just exploited a tiny fraction of it, now days we call it supply and demand.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    "The Europeans found a more compendious way of procuring African slaves, by prevailing upon them to make war upon each other, and to sell their prisoners. Till then they seldom had any wars; but were in general quiet and peaceable. But the white men first taught them drunkenness and avarice, and then hired them to sell one another. Nay, by this means, even their Kings are induced to sell their own subjects."

                    – John Wesley, Thoughts Upon Slavery, 1774

                  • Anonymous says:

                    It is fascinating how people can try to re-write history in this way. It is a form of propaganda.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    "The total number of Africans taken from the continent's east coast and enslaved in the Arab world is estimated to be somewhere between 9.4 million and 14 million. These figures are imprecise due to the absence of written records", i.e. about the same number as enslaved by Europeans in the New World.


                    So much for your 1% crock.  


              • Anonymous says:

                "European participation in African enslavement can only be partially explained by the needs for labor, profit, and religious motives. At the end of the medieval period, slavery was not widespread in Europe. It was mostly isolated in the southern fringes of the Mediterranean. Iberian Christians mostly enslaved Muslims, Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs. When the Transatlantic Slave Trade in Africans began, most Africans were placed in a new and different category of enslaveable peoples in terms that flowed from an understanding in the European world view of Africans as inferior human beings (Gomes 1936 in Sweet 2003:5). The policies and ideas that flowed from understandings of the African as inferior served to crystallize racial hierarchies across Europe (Sweet 2003:6). The first transnational, institutional endorsement of African slavery occurred in 1452 when the Pope granted King Alphonso V of Portugal the right to reduce all the non-Christians in West Africa to perpetual slavery (Saunders 1982:37–38 in Sweet 2003:6). According to Sweet, by the second half of the 15th century, the term “Negro” had become essentially synonymous with “slave” across the Iberian Peninsula and had literally come to represent a race of people, most often associated with black Africans and considered to be inferior (Sweet 2003:7). Race-based ideas of European superiority and religious beliefs in the need to Christianize “heathen” peoples contributed to a culture in which enslavement of Africans could be rationalized and justified".


            • Anonymous says:

              You seriously think that the deaths of millions of Jews and others that the Nazi's considered sub human was insignificant against the African slave trade?

              At least the vast majority of slaves who were captured and sent to the European colonies actually survived, unlike the 99% who were captured by African and Arab slave traders and sent north to be sold in the slave markets of North Africa, Turkey and most of Arabia. Most of them died on the long walk across the Sahara, and at the hands of their own people.

              In comparison, how many Jews survived after they were selected and sent off to concentration camps?

              Also, you fail to take into account the tens of millions who died trying to rid the world of enslavement and butchery in two world wars. Do you not understand the racist policies of the master race and its Third Reich? That kind of ignorance appears to be typical of the self pitying attitude of many modern day 'black historians' whose only motivation is racial stereo typing and envy.

              Your view is both arrogant and devisive, and your morals repugnant. You do yourself and the black soldiers who died fighting for freedom on your behalf a great disservice. 


              • Anonymous says:

                Obviously. The numbers, the period and the overall impact involved are far greater. The only reason such fuss is made over the Jews is that they have a great of economic and political influence. Jews in Hollywood like Steven Spielberg keept the issue at the forefront of people's minds whereas African slavery seems like it was in the dim and distant past.

                "At least the vast majority of slaves who were captured and sent to the European colonies actually survived". Rubbish. (A) Many died in Africa itself in the process of capturing and transporting slaves to the ships sailing to the New World, and (B), even after they reached the ships there was a 15% mortality on the voyage.

                Please stop making up figures like 99%. They only serve to demonstate your lack of credibility.

                The two world wars were not about ridding the world of "enslavement and butchery", and the soldiers who died in those wars have nothing to do with the issue. 

                I don't see that slave traders and owners had any higher morals than Hitler.  They both justified their enterprises on the basis of their own supposed inherent racial superiority. And the atrocities visited upon black people were no less.

                Pot calling the kettle black. You are ignorant, arrogant and your own morals are repugnant.


                • Anonymous says:

                  "The only reason such fuss is made over the Jews is that they have a great of economic and political influence."

                  Well no – the fuss over the Jews, as you so demeaningly put it, is because the horrors inflicted on them were wicked in their conception in a way that the African slave trade never was. The objective of the Nazis was the elimination of Jews, amongst others, from the face of the Earth. It was never the objective of slave traders to commit genocide; indeed this would have been self defeating given how they made their livelihood.

                  And by the way, the African slave trade, at least in the form of Europeans involvement, was in the dim and distant past, given that it's almost 150 years since the last recorded shipment of slaves from Africa.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    The horrors inflicted on African slaves was no less, in fact it is sometimes called the African holocaust. The bottom line is that their lives are not important to you because they were black.  

                    • anon says:

                      Because my view is that on the cosmic scale of wickedness, genocide is more wicked than slavery makes me racist? You need to take a serious look in the mirror.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    You are getting more ridiculous by the post. So killing someone is morally superior to essentially de-humanising and brutalising them for the rest of their lives and the lives of their generations for your own material gain and personal pleasure? You are a true reprobate. 

                    • Anonymous says:

                      It seems your comprehension skills are inversely related to my level of ridiculousness. Try to keep up.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Shame your black brotherhood don't take as much interest as you do in the fake kinship you like to whinge on about. More blacks are killed by other blacks than were ever killed by white slavers, they were then and they still are now.


              • Anonymous says:

                For those who think the Jewish holocaust was worse than African enslavement:

                "While treatment of slaves on the passage was varied, slaves' treatment was often horrific because the captured African men and women were considered less than human; they were "cargo", or "goods", and treated as such; they were transported for marketing. For example, the Zong, a British slaver, took too many slaves on a voyage to the New World in 1781. Overcrowding combined with malnutrition and disease killed several crew members and around 60 slaves.

                Bad weather made the Zong's voyage slow; the captain decided to drown his slaves at sea, so the owners could collect insurance on the slaves. Over 100 slaves were killed and a number of slaves chose to kill themselves. The Zong incident became fuel for the abolitionist movement and a major court case, as the insurance company refused to compensate for the loss.

                While slaves were generally kept fed and supplied with drink, as healthy slaves were more valuable, if resources ran low on the long, unpredictable voyages, the crew received preferential treatment. Slave punishment was very common, as on the voyage the crew had to turn independent people into obedient slaves. Whipping and use of the cat o' nine tails were a common occurrence; sometimes slaves were beaten for "melancholy".The worst punishments were for rebelling; in one instance a captain punished a failed rebellion by killing one involved slave immediately, and forcing two other slaves to eat his heart and liver….They used the sharks that followed the ships as a terror weapon. One captain, who had a rash of suicides on his ship, took a woman and lowered her into the water on a rope, and pulled her out as fast as possible. When she came in view, the sharks had already killed her—and bitten off the lower half of her body".


                • anon says:

                  If you want to believe that the African slave trade was "worse", whatever that means in this context, than the Holocaust, that's your prerogative, but please do not think that your post in anyway supports this view.

                  The objective of the Nazis was genocide. Over 6 million Jews were killed in an attempt to achieve this solitary objective. The objective of the slave traders was profit. The means by which slave traders sought to maximise their profits and/or safeguard themselves and crew were inhuman, but killing every slave in existence was never an objective.

                  It is this fundamental difference in objectives underlying 2 abhorrent acts which sets the Holocaust apart. If you can't see this, there is every possibility that you are more focused on race than you are on humanity generally.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    I have news for you – killing, maiming and torturing for personal gain is a very evil motive and many more Africans died in the process than Jews ever did from their holocaust.  

                    • anon says:

                      And I have news for you – I am well aware that killing, maiming and torturing are evil – this has never been disputed. I have more news – your assertion that more Africans were killed in the Transatlactic slave trade than Jews is nowhere near the slam dunk fact you seem to think it is. 

                      My view has always been based on the intent behind both horrific acts. In my book the intent to commit genocide is more evil than the intent to enslave a people – if you don't see it this way, fine.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      Unless you are living in cloud cuckoo land it certainly is a slam dunk fact. Estimates place death toll for transatlantic African enslavement at a minimum of 20m versus 6m Jews. Unless you believe each Jew was worth 4 Africans it's slam dunk.

                      There is nothing objective that ranks an intention to commit genocide above the evil intents and purposes for Africans I have already described.   

                    • anon says:

                      I'm not a huge fan of wikipedia per se, but it's a useful starting point:


                      You will see from this that the estimate of the total number of slaves transported across the Atlantic ( and that's what we've been focused on ) varies from 12m to 20m. The section on " Human toll" gives a figure for deaths way below your 20m and in terms of deaths during the voyage, the estimate of 1.2m – 2,4m is way below the number of Jews killed by the Nazis. If you add in deaths at the hands of other Africans, it is still debatable whether the number exceeds the number of Jews exterminated. So, no slam dunk.

                      I see you feel the need to play the race card again by suggesting I feel 1 Jew is worth 4 Africans. For clarity, I feel 1 human equals 1 human. From the callous attitude you have displayed towards 6+m Jewish deaths within living memory, I have serious reservations about whether you feel the same.

                      As for the nature of intent, our own society recognises that this matters. A premeditated murder carried out in cold blood and after considerable preparation is considered the most heinous of crimes. Attempted genocide, the premeditated murder of 6+m Jews is simply as evil as it gets.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      No, it is not debateable at all. With each successive post you reveal how little you know about the transatlantic African slave trade and slavery. And if you are going to quote Wikipedia try reading beyond the first sentence (which you think serves your argument). It tells me that you are not as much interested in the truth as you are in minimising the extent of the African holocaust. The number of deaths on the translantic voyage is a small fraction of the total casualties.  Africans died in holding-prisons on the African coast. They died in the process of capture and transport from the interior to the coast. They died in the 'seasoning period' after arrival in the New World (5m according to your own Wikipedia reference). They died at the hands of their slave masters in the New World. 20m is actually a conservative estimate. 


                      I am not callous about the deaths of the Jews at all. I am simply putting into its proper perspective that it ranks well below African enslavement. That should be fairly obvious for anyone who values life for life or compares a period of 10 years versus a period of 350+ years. FYI, if you premeditate a crime against someone and kill them in the process you will be just as guilty of murder as where that was the original purpose. That is to say nothing of the lifelong torture involved or that this was generational. Death is not the worst thing that can happen to someone. African enslavement was as evil as it gets but you would prefer to minimise and make light of it. You are little better than the Jewish holocaust deniers and revisionists. Next you will be telling us how slavery was actually good for black people.  


                    • Jack says:

                      I didn't enslave or kill anyone, so keep your hands off my wallet all of you.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      But you and the group you belong to have benefitted from it.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    They were both crimes against humanity. The buzzword "genocide" doesn't make one greater than the other.

                    • anon says:


                      They are indeed both crimes against humanity.
                      However I do not believe that classifying various evil deeds as crimes against humanity necessarily means they are all equally evil, simply that they are all evil enough to attract universal condemnation.
                      Your point that one is not greater than the other does of course cut both ways – it also argues against those on this thread who claim the African slave trade was "worse" than the Holocaust.
  10. Anonymous says:

    just a tactic.  the US pays the indians now that they killed centuries ago.  they also pay civil war soldiers families still.

    • Anonymous says:

      Ah yes, the land of political correctness and the 'African American', or American as they should be known.

      Paying out for historical crimes is just plain stupid and identifies an insecurity within the national identity. Stand proud and claim your right to be American, not hide behind a throw back to days long since past by adding a strange country's name to your nationality.

      Such titles are divisive and unnecessary, especially when you can't possibly identify your ancestors or their origins. Africa is a continent of diversive counties, ethnicity, religion and cultures. Are Arab Americans different to African Americans, they both come from Africa after all?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Where is Whodatis when a thread needs some contrary anti-colonial ranting?

  12. Anonymous says:

    Forget the slavery reparations. I would be happy if they would all just go home.



  13. Anonymous says:

    Eh baas man, where mi moneh dem?


  14. Anonymous says:

    But the white man gave our people Jesus and in so doing saved our souls!

  15. Anonymous says:

    As I believe the Queen once said, slavery was not a crime at the time.  Slave traders were from all ethnic groups.  These people are just blood sucking morons out for a free handout.

    • Anonymous says:

      Neither was gassing Jews in Nazi Germany a crime at the time. Sometimes you don't need the law to tell you that something is immoral. European slave trading has had the most devastating impact on humanity that we still have not recovered from.    

      • Anonymous says:

        But I have the right to be immoral as long as what I do is not illegal.

        • Anonymous says:

          In other words if you had the chance again you would enslave dome black people again .

          • Anonymous says:

            Were "dome black people" enslaved in the first place?  Do they live in a dome or are they related to the Coneheads?

          • Anonymous says:

            I would do it as the Bible tells me.

            • Anonymous says:

              The Bible does not tell you to enslave black people (or anyone else).

              • Anonymous says:

                Leviticus 25.44 – 45

                As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property.



              • Dog Hates Dyslexics says:

                It sure does,and it tells you to kill lots of poeple too (gays, people of other religions, adulterers, disobedient children…), and that it's OK to let people rape your children when convenient to do so.  It's a wonderful story, if you're into horror.

      • Anonymous says:

        Absolute crap, of course the gassing of Jews was a crime, if it wasn't what were the Nuremberg trails all about?

        European slave trading stopped 200 years ago! It's the Africans themselves that have stopped progress through inter tribal/religious conflict and wide spread corruption. Think of the progress that has been made in other countries in that time, the US for example or Australia, New Zealand, India, China etc……

        No, Africans are too busy killing each other to worry about minor things like progress and humanity. It's easier to blame the white man than actually do some thing about corruption, poverty and war.

        Uneducated propaganda like that is typical of the politically correct nonsense that is spewed about slaves and slavery. Get a real history book and read it before making dumb ass statements like that one. Better still, go to Africa and see for yourself.

        • Anonymous says:

          You are the uneducated one who simply swallows European and American propaganda. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman and that might enlighten your simple mind.  

      • Anonymous says:

        Simply, bollocks!!!

        Slavery wasn't illegal in any country until the early 1800's, ethnic, cultural and religious genocide most definitely was between 1939 and 1945. That's like saying the murder of Muslims in Bosnia wasn't illegal or the genocide in Rwanda was perfectly okay in Rwanda. We are 200 years down the road you idiot, the Europeans learnt from their mistakes, have the African nations done so?

        What about the Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Mali, CAR, Sierra Leonne, Côte D'ivoire etc …..  ? What paragons of African virtue they are, basically they've learnt nothing from their own history. They are still killing, enslaving, raping, ethnically cleansing and ripping off their own people. Or is it because you are blinded by colour prejudice that you don't recognise corruption and genocide when you see it?

        So much for the myth of African brotherhood.

        • Anonymous says:

          So the lives of the 6 million Jews was more important than the tens of millions of African slaves? I get the point. That could be the only  basis of objection. It was an heinous act whether whether people wanted to classify them as crimes at the time or not.

          • Anonymous says:

            No, of course not, but the points are two different events during two differing moments in time. 

            Like it or not, slavery was legal during the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries. But life was cheap then, it is conveniently forgotten that most European citizens were also treated appallingly by their own countrymen, mostly acting as slaves themselves on the land and at sea. Millions died at the hands of the ruling classes, either by starvation, war, poverty or by execution, but no where do we see reperations mentioned. Most of the British men that went to fight in the trenches in the First World War were not entitled to vote. Even though they were the ones who were dying in their hundreds of thousands, they had no right to a voice. Right up until the 1930's British working classes could be forced into 'service', working as staff for wealthy households.

            The Jews have been persecuted since time began, so any comparisons on crimes against them should be handled very carefully. 

            I doubt whether there were tens of millions of African slaves, otherwise they would be a majority race in the US, and that clearly isn't so. Cayman only had 500 at emancipation and most other Caribbean Islands couldn't possibly support such a huge influx or settled population. Just another myth by those who don't want to see the truth.

            The point is that whether we now consider slavery as a crime or not is irrelevant, it wasn't at the time. No one affected is alive to claim damages so why should they be paid. It was, and still is, the fault of those who have continually abused the trust placed in them by their own people who are to blame for the conditions they suffer, 200 years after emancipation.

            Africans were, and still are, killing and enslaving their own people. That has nothing to do with colonialism, just the greed of the uneducated and inhuman. If you want reperations, go ask the African tribes responsible for ethnically cleansing their own people and selling them to slave traders, both black and white. I'd rather be proud to be associated with a continent and country that freed the slaves and outlawed slavery, than one which continues it's disgusting trade to the present day.

            • Anonymous says:

              You don't seem to understand that slavery has a lasting, generational impact. It affects the psyche of persons of African descent. It didn't end just because slavery was abolished.  

              • Anonymous says:

                What weak minded people you must be to be debilitated after 200 years. That would explain why you still live in the past and don't work for the future. Go to Africa, see how you could be living and give thanks that you don't have to. Your ancestors had it tough, you don't, so stopmoaning and feeling sorry for yourselves.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Stupid comment. Black people have to live with racism every day.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    And so do whites, why do you think you have the monopoly on racism. Is it because you can't progress on your own volition or is it because playing the professional victim is easier than actually fixing the endemic problems of your own people?

                    You still fail to recognise that if you keep playing the race card you only give succour to those who despise your constent whining. Ultimately this leads to a back lash and deeper racial conflict.

                    If you want to be treated as equals, you need to behave as equals and not keep blaming the white man for the lack of progress within black society and nationhood. Stop looking back and move forward, the world would be a better place for it.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      No, not the monopoly, only about 90% of all racism. Black people who stand up for themselves, and I am one of them, are treated threats to be eliminated, not equals.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      and 9 of remaining 10% is reaction to white racism. 

                • Anonymous says:

                  Yes, our 'weak-mindedness' goes with our 'inferiority'. Thanks for revealing your own mindset. 

            • Anonymous says:

              About 12 million were brought over. Millions more died on the route. Then you include those who were born in the New World.  Yes, tens of millions over 250 years.

              Europeans were indentured servants not chattel slaves. No comparison at all.   

              • Anonymous says:

                Exactly how do you get that figure genius, wouldn't be based upon self pitying 'history books, would it?

                You are quite correct that over the course of 'Atlantic' slavery, (200 years) approx 10.7 million Africans were shipped. However, your claim to tens of millions is way over the top and not even based on the figures that black historians are producing. It is known that only 400,000 were actually landed on the shores of North America or the New World, a tiny minority considering the numbers involved. It is also thought that approximately 70,000 went on to the US after first landing in the Caribbean.

                Recorded history also identifies that Native American tribes kept slaves and that prisoners of war were to become future hereditary slaves. There are also known to have been 3,775 black slave holders in 1830, holding almost 13,000 slaves between them. 

                At the time of abolition, a peak of 4 million slaves were thought to be settled on the lands of the USA. The vast majority living in the southern states, but held by only 8% of the total population. It is also claimed that all 42 million African American citizens are descended from this total, (but probably a lot less due to modern immigration). So according to learned professors from Harvard, the numbers you quote don't stack up. 

                Most were sent to Brazil, in fact nearly 5 million of them, or 35.4%.

                The remainder were distributed as follows: 22.1% to the Spanish Empire, 17.7% to the BWI, 14.1% to the French WI, 4.4% to British North America and USA, 4.4% to the Dutch WI and 0.2% to the Danish WI.

                You should also take into account that only 1% of African slaves actually crossed the Atlantic, the remaining 99% either died making the trans Sahara trek to huge slave markets in North Africa, Arabia and Turkey, or they were sold on arrival to work local plantations and quarries. Most, if not all of these slaves were captured by African and Arab slave raiders, who had plied their trade since the beginning of ancient history. They are alone thought to have captured tens, if not hundreds of millions of slaves, from as far south as South Africa. They often took only the fit and well, killing the remainder for tribal gain or for just being unfit for purpose. Many were Islamised and used to capture more slaves. 

                Now keep in mind that ships of that age could only carry relatively small loads, (a few hundred maybe) it would take a huge effort to move 10 million people across an ocean that took 100 to 150 days to travel each way. Even taking into account the period of time involved, (200 years) to move such huge numbers would require an annual shipping load of only 50,000 a year for all known slave colonies. Again, this disproves the tens of millions theory, as accumlatively the numbers actually landing would take many more hundreds of years to achieve anywhere near this amount.

                Of course, you try to reinforce your argument that decendants also qualify as victims. Well that may have been true of those born into slavery, but it cannot be true of freed slaves after abolition. In the 200 years since slave trading was abolished, African and most Caribbean countries have prospered, only to be destroyed again by their own people. Black history is littered with failed regimes, incompetent politicians, corruption, war, poverty and starvation. It was happening 300 years ago, and it is surely happening today.

                In regard to European slaves, unlike Africans, history records events before the 16th century. Many nations kept slaves and kept other nations under slavery, the list is exhaustive and certainly not considered indentured. In recent history the Nazi's enslaved most of Europe and murdered millions of Jew's, blacks, gay's, gypsies and the mentally ill, (to say nothing of the tens of millions who died defending freedom) in the space of a few years. Whilst it is true that Germany paid a high price for starting two World War's, what she did was illegal and against the accepted world order of the day. African slavery wasn't, it may be abhorrent to us, but it was a vital tool in international trade and colonisation back in the day. Many countries just wouldn't exist today if it hadn't been for the slave trade. The question you need to ask is where would I rather be now, in a sweating 3rd world hut, or a 1st world, a/c controlled house in the Caribbean?  

                It is also probably true to say that even today in excess of 25 million people around the world are enslaved in some form of forced labour or sex trade, definately not endentured. 

                So before we hear another blinkered view from the apparent dispossessed, keep in mind the numbers involved, who actually facilitated the sale of slaves, who profited and who continues to kill, rape and steal from their own people. Historical inadequacies are no longer an acceptable cause to hand out the begging bowl, you need to take control of your own future, not live in the past. Most descendants of African slaves live enriched lives in the Americas and Caribbean, many emmigrated to Europe, however there are significant numbers who still suffer huge poverty. But this can no longer be blamed on the evil empires, emancipation and independence gave them the freedom to decide their own destiny. What have they been doing all these years? 

                • Anonymous says:

                  "You should also take into account that only 1% of African slaves actually crossed the Atlantic".

                  You just make it up as you go along, don't you? If that were so that would mean that there were some 1.2 billion slaves in Africa. The stupidity of that statement is obvious.

                  Estimates vary but 12m is as good as any. I understand that you would prefer a lower number. Well clearly those 12.5 m reproduced slaves and we must therefore estimate a multiple of that number of slaves over the course of at least 14 generations. The Atlantic slave trade started in about 1502 and finished around 1860 – about 350 years in total, not 200.  Obviously taking a snapshot at any particular time will not tell you how many slaves were affected.  

                  You can try to distract all you like about Hitler enslaving Europe but we all know that is nonsense and pales in comparison to European enslavement of Africans.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    It didn't take long for an expert to show their face.

                    The Arabs and Africans had been dealing in slaves since the days of Christ, perhaps a lot earlier. The main slave markets were in the north of Africa and Arabia, supplying a huge demand from the Middle East and Turkey in particular. There were literally tens of millions of slaves forced to trek the trans Saharan routes to market, many millions died on the way, but many more followed.

                    The Arabs were certainly dealing in slaves for at least ten centuries, from the 9th to the 19th in fact.

                    It is arrogance in the extreme to deny that such trade existed, just because it doesn't suit the biased views of some black historians. 

                    12 million may sound a lot, and indeed it is, but it is a tiny fraction of the slaves captured and sold when you compare it to the existing slave market. Atlantic slavery did not really start until the early 1500's, but it was by no means a huge operation. This was known as the 1st Atlantic system, (1502 to 1580) and fed the need for slaves in South America, it only accounted for approximately 3% of the entire slave trade.

                    The 2nd Atlantic system, which saw the British, French, Dutch and Portuguese traders start in earnest, only accounted for much the same numbers up until 1600. It was during the 17th century that significant numbers were shipped, maybe as much as 17% of the gross total.

                    But it was the 18th century that saw the largest climb, up to 50% of all slaves were taken and shipped during this time. The early 1800's saw a more modest figure of approximately 28%.

                    Slavery was abolished in 1807 by the main protaganists, not 1830 as you wrongly claim.

                    So, according to the numbers, very few were shipped to the Caribbean until the 1700's, making the generational argument far less potent than in real terms. You must keep in mind that this was the gross number shipped to all colonies, Brazil received over 5 million on their own.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "Slavery was abolished in 1807 by the main protaganists, not 1830 as you wrongly claim".

                      LOL. Why don't you go read a history book and stop pontificating from a position of ignorance?

                      In 1834 the British Slavery Abolition Act came into force, abolishing slavery throughout most of the British Empire.

                      In 1865 the U.S. abolished slavery with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.  

                      You may be getting confused by the 1807 Abolition of Slave Trade Act which abolished slave trading in the British Empire.  However, other 'protoganists' continued the slave trade long after that, e.g. Portugal abolished transatlantic slave trade in 1836. There was also illegal slave trade well into the 1860s.

                • Anonymous says:

                  "…emancipation and independence gave them the freedom to decide their own destiny". Yeah, that's why it took 100 years for black people to legally gain full civil rights in America which had apartheid right up to the mid-1960s.

                  Here is an informative article to enlighten your dull mind.



                • Anonymous says:

                  "Again, this disproves the tens of millions theory, as accumlatively the numbers actually landing would take many more hundreds of years to achieve anywhere near this amount".

                  1. Obviously there is no reason to exclude those who were enslaved but died in the Middle Passage before they could land from among those affected by slavery. Quite, to the contrary they were among the first casualties.

                  2. Your assertion that only about 400,000 slaves (out of the 10.7m which you say were shipped)  actually landed in North America or the New World is obviously nonsense. If only 3.7% of slaves shipped actually survived the voyage the translantic trade would not have been feasible.

                  3. The linked tables show that the number actually shipped to the New World as ~12.5m and the number disembarking as ~10.7m. . It also shows the number of slaves disembarking in the U.S.A. as 252,653 which, on your own admission had grown to 4m slaves in the U.S.A. by 1860 – an increase of 1,580%. If that is extrapolated to the total number landed in the New World that would give a figure of 169,060,000.  Note that this does not even include those who died in the New World over the course of the 350 years (not  200 years as you wrongly state) of the transatlantic slave trade before 1860.

                  Tens of millions is actually overly conservative.       

                  You are clearly mathematically challenged.

                • Anonymous says:

                  "In the 200 years since slave trading was abolished, African and most Caribbean countries have prospered, only to be destroyed again by their own people. Black history is littered with failed regimes, incompetent politicians, corruption, war, poverty and starvation. It was happening 300 years ago, and it is surely happening today".

                  You paint a conveniently simplistic picture of black ineptitude that is entertaining in its naivete. You will find that even in the post-slavery destruction of these nations Europeans and Americans have been complicit. Haiti is often used as the poster-child of all the evils you portray, but here are some facts for you to digest:

                  A. In 1804, when Haiti achieved its freedom from France in the world's first successful slave revolution, the United States refused to recognize the country. The US continued to refuse recognition to Haiti for 60 more years.

                  B. After the 1804 revolution, Haiti was the subject of a crippling economic embargo by France and the US. US sanctions lasted until 1863. France ultimately used its military power to force Haiti to pay reparations 150 million gold francs for the slaves who were freed.

                  C. Haiti was forced to borrow money from banks in France and the US to pay reparations to France. By 1900, it was spending 80% of its national budget on repayments.
                  A major loan from the US to pay off the French was finally paid off in 1947. The current value of the money Haiti was forced to pay to French and US banks is over $20 Billion.

                  D. The US occupied and ruled Haiti by force from 1915 to 1934, after militarily invading it in 1915. Revolts by Haitians were put down by US military – killing over 2000 in one skirmish alone. For the next nineteen years, the US controlled customs in Haiti, collected taxes, and ran many governmental institutions.

                  E. From 1957 to 1986 Haiti was forced to live under US backed dictators "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier. The US supported these dictators economically and militarily because they did what the US wanted and were politically "anti-communist".  Duvalier stole millions from Haiti and ran up hundreds of millions of dollars in debt that Haiti still owes.

                  F. In 2004, the US again destroyed democracy in Haiti when they supported the coup against Haiti's elected President Aristide.

                  Haiti is not unique.


                • Anonymous says:

                  "There are also known to have been 3,775 black slave holders in 1830, holding almost 13,000 slaves between them".

                  "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators…Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms."

                  Carter G. Woodson Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830 (1924)

                  In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones.

            • Anonymous says:

              Aren't those countries that endorsed slavery as legal, aren't those the same ones that try to teach Cayman  about Human rights now?

              Yes that right they can teach us these things because they have broken the moral laws of this world too many times to count.

              • Anonymous says:

                Because some countries mature and some like to live in the past. Better to learn from your mistakes than to never learn at all, try it sometime, you may get rid of that huge chip on your shoulder.

              • Anonymous says:

                Because it is always about cultural imperialism with them. It is good if they say it is good until they say it isn't. We are just supposed to accept that. 

  16. And Another Ting says:

    Any of you writers had your grand parents tell you of stories of slavery spoken to generation to generation so they don't forget the atrocities and their fight to be free human beings. I am willing to bet that if you had you would not be as sanctimonious and callous as you are. Maybe a dose of the same medicine for you and your family would mAke you sing nearer my God to Thee. And Another Ting.

    • Anonymous says:

      True, never forget, but don't expect a free handout. 

      • Anonymous says:

        It was very costly, not free.

        • Anonymous says:

          Not costly to you though, why should you get a handout, unless you want the airfare to go back to your ancestral home and continue where your ancestors left off. And good luck with that as Africans don't recognise your ancestry the way you do. You are strangers in a strange land and still in as much danger as your ancestors were when they were sold out by their own.

          Remember that before you whine on about your African heritage and brotherhood as the chances are that even if you knew which country, region or tribe you are descended from, you still wouldn't be welcome.

    • Anonymous says:

      yes, my mother is descended from both and I don't think I'm intitled to anything.  I think it's time to move on and stop living in the past.

    • Anonymous says:

      When Africans start acting like human beings then their cause will advance.

      • Anonymous says:

        Wow. What a racist statement.

        • Anonymous says:

          No, just fact, read and watch the news, Africa is a mess and it's not anybody's fault but their own. 

          What is it with the convenient racism card, grow up and coverse instead of trying to claim the moral high ground. This self pitying has to stop, it is divisive and stupid.

    • anonymous says:

      I was a slave last Friday night up until the party finished anyway.

  17. Anonymous says:

    We can bailout banks. But that's different. We can send troops to Iraq in support of Big Oil. But that's different. We can turn blind eye to BAE but that's different.

  18. Anonymous9 says:

    Why haven't they included Africa in their quest for a claim as well!? They helped capture and ship off many of their own people.

    This is ridiculous.

  19. Knot S Smart says:

    So this claim is trying to get UK taxpayers who are not slave owners today – to pay money to people who are not enslaved today?

    How absurd!

    Everybody these days seem to want to get some special benefit at the expense of others…


    • Anonymous says:

      Not taxpaxpayers but the Queen can

    • Anonymous says:

      The major European powers and their upper classes were made wealthy on the backs of slavery, while slaves and their descendants were impoverished by the robbery of their labour. Sounds perfectly logical to me.

  20. Anonymous says:

    While I agree that slavery was a wicked practice, I can`t agree with those  Caribbean governments that are expecting European countries to award them money for their cause.

    If the truth be told, the ecomonies of those Caribbean countries are in a mess. They appear to be trying to squeeze anyone they can to get money from to support them.

    If slavery was directly responsible for the poor state of their economies today, then I would say yes, they should be compensated. But they are suffering not because of slavery, but rather because of the crime, corruptionand poor decisions made by their respective governments since their independence.

    They certainly need outside help and they should ask for it. But to try and get money now because of slavery is rediculous. 

    • Anonymous says:

      I totally agree with your comments and agree that slavery was a wicked practice. Slavery was abolished many years ago and one must remember that many slaves transported to the West Indies were persons of one African  tribe who were captured by another tribe in tribal warfare and sold to European slave traders. Therefore  should compensation niot then be sought from that tribe's descendants as well for  selling members of another tribe to slave traders?

  21. Anonymous says:

    Slavery was/is a heinous crime. The only crime worse than that would be to imagine who would get their hands on the reparations and what they would do with it.

    • Anonymous says:

      Holding someone a slave was not a criminal offence in the UK until 6 April 2010.

      • Anonymous says:

        False imprisonment is a common law offence. ie it has always been a criminal offence. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 created an offence of holding another person in slavery or servitude or requiring them to perform forced or compulsory labour. The offence came into force on 6 April 2010 – prior to this prosecutions were bought under common law. So it has always been a criminal offence – it's just that now it is written into statute to combat organised crime groups involved in human trafficking.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Oh yes, let's all jump on the 'slavery gravy train', how about the UK sues the Romans or the Normans, the Vikings maybe?

    This is just a financial ploy to get money without having to earn it, try turning failed Caribbean  governments around and earning your own money. I refuse to apologise for the mistakes of my ancestors who were living in a different world with different principles.

    Why aren't Caricom nations looking to get money from the various African tribes and Arab nations who were complicit in capturing and selling slaves to the Europeans in the first place?

    The descendants of slaves need to recognise that their own people sold them out for profit and to ethnically cleanse tribal lands. Of course the European powers facilitated this by purchasing and shipping slaves, but Africa and it's various tribal factions had been doing the same for centuries, and in some places still do.

    How about Caricom gets on with improving life for its millions of poor citizens, they have had the opportunity to gain independence from their former masters, now they need to make it work for all their people.  Whining about events 200 years ago isn't going to make any difference, stopping corruption and sharing their wealth with all of the population will.


    • SSM345 says:

      When is Scotland going to sue England?

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh yes .  Lets all jump on comment I agree with you 1,000% . These politions that are trying to fight for this compensation , is only doing this for their own benfit. This like a big class action law suite ,the Lawers get 75% and victims get 25% . Then somewhere down the road we get a other tax to pay for this compensation , then the politions get a raise in their salary .THIS IS CALLED TODAY  SLAVERY !

    • Anonymous says:

      Good luck with suing the Romans, the Normans or the Vikings!

    • Anonymous says:

      iT is true that our African brothers sold us to the white slave masters.  However, a lesser known fact is that all these slave masters were paid for the loss of their slaves at the end of slavery.  So they should either make another payment to the Africans that sold us out initially or pay us the offsprings.

      Mr. Simmonds, saying you're sorry is not sufficient because your family (if you had slaves) got paid for giving them up.  That was another slap in the face of us black people.  If wasn't that you guys all decided it was the best thing to do out of the kindness of your hearts. You all weighted the financial benefits of continuing slavery and ending with a lumpsum payment and decided to take the money and run!!!!.

      Retrace the history of slavery!!!


      • Anonymous says:

        Grow up. Shame you didn't take economics and common sense instead.

        Slavery is not and has never been the preserve of the black man, it is as old as time and covers every population on earth. Trying reading more than propaganda and retrace the history of slavery without blinkered eyes.

        Your prejudicial view that because Mr Simmonds is white he must be descended from slave masters is a disgusting slur and indicative of the idiotic  'history' spewed by racist zealots.

        • Anonymous says:

          Nice try to turn it around. Every white man is complicit.

          • Anonymous says:

            Don't need to try and turn it around, black Africans have sold out their own since time began, live with it

      • Anonymous says:

        Your so called African brothers sold you out and have a very different view of the descendants of slaves. In no way do they consider you their brothers, you are just the rejects they got rid of for profit.

        FYI, your brothers are still enslaving, killing, raping and ethnically cleansing Africa the same today as they have always done. If you so want to identify with people that do that to their own then you are a sad individual indeed.

        African brothers, what a joke.