The United Nations General Assembly has voted to recognise the enslavement of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity”, a move advocates hope will pave the way for healing and justice.

The resolution - proposed by Ghana - called for this designation, while also urging UN member states to consider apologising for the slave trade and contributing to a reparations fund. It does not mention a specific amount of money.

The proposal was adopted with 123 votes in favour and three against - the United States, Israel and Argentina.

Countries like the UK have long rejected calls to pay reparations, saying today’s institutions cannot be held responsible for past wrongs.

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The thing you posted doesn’t address that slave trade existed in Africa for thousands of years.

      The trans-Saharan slave trade existed long before colonialism, and the major sponsers of this trade were Ghana and then later Mali (the latter of which profited from the trans-Atlantic slave trade when it started).

      That’s just accounting for West Africa, as the red sea slave trade existed during ancient Egypt, and continued until the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

      If you want to present facts you’ll first need to be educated enough to actually learn what facts are.

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        None of them industrialized slavery. The entire European economy was only getting ahead in the middle ages by slavery and colonialism

        • Tattorack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          … Right… Egypt totally didn’t… And Mansa Musa famously didn’t have an industrial scale slave kingdom…

          • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Egypt didn’t invade other countries to hijack half its population and use it as cattle on their farms. Mansa Musa had slaves as far as the term slavery goes but they had some rights and weren’t used as literal machine cattle. Their children had freedom etc. This is nowhere comparable to how slaves were treated in the trans-atlantic slave except it using the same word which is just confusing.

            • Tattorack@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Egypt didn’t invade other countries to hijack half its population

              Oh yes. Yes they did. Oh gods they absolutely did. As well as casual genocide.

              Mansa Musa had slaves as far as the term slavery goes but they had some rights and weren’t used as literal machine cattle.

              That depends. Every culture that did slavery had slaves that were worked to death and slaves that were used in the household.

              Musa’s personal slaves were dressed in silks and wore gold. But a portion of the still had their balls cut off, and all of them still had owners.

              Thw same cannot be said for the slaves outside the royal palace, or all the ones used in the trans-Saharan slave trade, which, I must remind you once more, was Ghana’s and Mali’s biggest trade for centuries.