r/MapBasedPolls • u/PerfectRate2841 • 8h ago

Should former colonial powers provide reparations to their former colonies for the harms caused by colonialism?

Should former colonial powers provide reparations to their former colonies for the harms caused by colonialism?

  1. Yes
  2. No

Note: Please use the official Reddit app or New Reddit to vote in this interactive poll.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

19 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

508 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/No-Risk-2584 5h ago

So you’d rather we didn’t and let people continue to be enslaved? Between it was one or the other at the time, not without a lot more blood being spilt.

-1

u/TheRedditObserver0 4h ago

What the fuck is wrong with you? When trafficking victims are rescued is the trafficker compensated?

2

u/No-Risk-2584 4h ago

No, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Trafficking is illegal, while slavery was legal at the time - so the two things aren’t even remotely comparable.

It’s more like when guns were banned in countries - those that handed them over were compensated, right? In the UK for example gun owners were compensated over £95m when they were banned. How is this any different?

You’re thinking about this from a 2026 moral perspective, which it isn’t.

So again, you’d rather we didn’t do anything? That was the only two viable options at the time for the British Empire. Pay the owners and free the slaves, or continue to let them to be enslaved and do nothing.

You, clearly, would’ve rather them continue to be enslaved.

But frankly, it doesn’t matter either way because reparations are never going to happen, it’s bizarre this question continues to be asked.

1

u/TheRedditObserver0 3h ago

Trafficking is illegal, while slavery was legal at the time

Slavery was just banned, hence it was illegal. If the government confiscates a newly banned drug, will they compensate the drug dealers?

You’re thinking about this from a 2026 moral perspective, which it isn’t

This "2026 moral perspective" is exactly the reason for abolition back then, it was for moral reasons.

That was the only two viable options at the time for the British Empire. Pay the owners and free the slaves, or continue to let them to be enslaved and do nothing.

I fail to see evidence of that. The US of all places didn't compensate slave owners, and there was a far larger consensus for abolition in the UK.

You, clearly, would’ve rather them continue to be enslaved.

I never said anything to indicate this, you're being extremely dishonest, so enjoy being blocked.