It is, but our taxes are used to pay for the actions of people who went before us. Its not just the examples like paying for WW1 and WW2. Every time any government decides on a major capital project, they borrow the money, and the money paid back over generations. In some cases, the promise of these projects, these investments, win parties elections. Great, who doesn't want a new high speed train line. Your grandkids are paying for it though. Sometimes its foisted on a population. The decisions of governments around the wolrd during COVID-19 will still be paid for 50-100 years from now. Like war, there wasn't much choice in the matter. Mostly, we accept that the dues must be paid. You can go around the major cities in the UK, and marvel at the Victorian architecture. Even Belfast, which is a <deleted>hole, the City Centre is magnificent. This was a wealthy place one. But how was all this paid for. Basically on the backs of others, and those others include those without much choice in the matter. The debate in the UK these days is often about the crumbling infrastructure, the declining strength of the armed forces, that the government should spend more. I'm not sure they could, we are already taxed to the hilt. Its possible that the slavery bonus has now more or less been spent, and the decline is more in line with the country reverting to what it should have been all along, before it punched above its weight. Slavery resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from one part of the world to another. In the 18th Century, India was the richest country in the world, nd then it was asset stripped. Imported finished goods changes the direction of wealth transfer, so that the wealth is returned to the countries it came from. That in a way is reparations. But, that is not what is happening. A disportionate part of that wealth is not going back to Africa, to India, but its going to Arab Sheikhs to spend of fast girls and hookers, and to China, where they stash it in a bank. So that perpetuates the genuine feelings of hurt. The approach to reparations should be through trade policy. Which is not the same as America, who has misread things. America was to reshore wealth that wasn't theirs to start with. Yes, buy less from China, but buy more, lots more, from Africa. And that can include investments in Africa (though don't forget, the American rail network, which enabled the industrialisation of the US, and made possible even the idea of a coast to coast United States, was built using cheap labour from Ireland and China). Strangely, America basically surrendered the entire continent of Africa to others, such as the Soviet Union, who had no such historic links. Instead, it spaffed up huge amounts in countries where there was zero historic relationship, such as Vietnam. France benefited from Vietnam, not the US. And this is the problem with trading blocs based on geography not historic legacy. Overseas aid is a more tactical way of directing that wealth, because a government has much more control on where the money goes. But Overseas Aid can also be used as a means to direct private money. Trade should be aligned based on shared history, not geography. In that way, reparations naturally happen as a virtuous circle.
.thumb.jpg.b54783ad387f65d779e04f535fcfeee9.jpg)
Create an account or sign in to comment