How did your country vote?
2mon 23d ago by lemmy.ml/u/selokichtli in asklemmy@lemmy.ml from lemmy.ml
Yesterday, a Declaration of the trafficking of enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime against Humanity was voted at UNO. As usual, Israel and the USA voted against. How did your country vote? Any thoughts about it?
wtf ireland, sweden, ukraine, united kingdom, canada, japan, iceland, hungary?
Abstaining feels like it is just as bad as voting no.
Yeah in a parliamentarian position I guess abstention is different from saying no, especially when the legislation has the votes.
But I guess what I was trying to articulate is that it feels like they are respecting? the no votes by abstaining, IE not contradicting.
This feels like a serious cop out on an issue as absurdly black and white as actual Chattel slavery.
Edit: Good point though about reservations on the text, we don't know what it said, although that defense can also apply to the No's as well, which is why I shied away from it.
What we do know is that the full title includes "as the Gravest Crime against Humanity" and I can fully respect countries having reservations against that when there are other similarly horrible crimes. I don't know why Germany abstained but I figure that some people might be pretty angry at them if they declared the slave trade was worse than the holocaust.
I think scale is the issue.
Basically, it was legal to rape, murder and/or kidnap Africans. It was so profitable that the main slave dealers were African tribes/nations who would sell their prisoners of war to the slave trade - thus encouraging more war and more slavery.
Estimates of African deaths (on the low side) are double that of the Holocaust.
This went on for 400 years. (Nazi power lasted only about 12 years by comparison.)
And even to this day, the African slave trade is responsible for much of the racism and division we see. So, yeah, slave trade shaped our world in many ways.
Also, they could rape their slaves, so they could have more slaves to trade and exploit. I'm not sure if that number, twice the Holocaust, is correct for deaths. Wikipedia says that 12 - 12.8 million Africans were successfully trafficked to the Americas, as records show. This is only the recorded number, and it doesn't take into account the descendants of 350 years of surviving.
Absolutely fair for them, I guess. I do think it's objectively the worst thing that ever happened as even some countries in the EU seem to back, and it's not even close. That doesn't mean other terrible things were perpetrated by the same kind of people.
yup, the reason I left them off my initial list of call outs precisely.
Edit: Curious if any grammar pros have an thoughts on the statement specifically, what is implied by it? Does it mean gravest of all time? Gravest currently occurring? Those are my concerns and things we / (I) don't precisely know from the context of this post.
I skimmed over the full text earlier, it gives reasons for why it was the gravest crime against humanity, and in general did seem like it meant the gravest that ever happened (that we know of at least).
It also mentions (and really is about) reparations which I suspect mightve influenced the abstains even more than the assertion that it was the gravest crime. Easier to weasel yourself out of doing anything/keep reparations low if you can say you never really voted yes on that.
See this is the meat of it, great points, thanks for doing the hard work!
Good insight. That is more to consider than initial thoughts.
Lemmy doesn't understand three states. You're either with us or you're a literal Nazi paedophile.
Europe in general just abstaining. Mostly.
Everyone should have voted no. The African enslavement was really fucked up, but "the worst human attrocity in history, ever"? The world has done some really, really, fucked up things. I don't really even know why this particular slavery would be picked out from the other slaves over thousands of years except that is was pretty recent and large scale. Why is the world even voting on this shit while on the verge of world war three, while it seems that half the rich elites running the governments are pedophiles?
Yeah no my understanding has evolved based on the skim of the article and the actual wording becoming more clear - didn't think they were going for champions of all time when I initially reacted.
It really feels like standing their ground on past "glories" to me.
I think it's more about not paying financial compensations for their involvement in slavery and their enrichment with it. One could use the vote "yes" as a legal argument to pursue compensation.
Or how exactly paying those financial compensations would work.
They could have acknowledged it at least. Maybe it could be a first step to treat their black population with the respect they deserve for literally building their cities.
Acknowledged? It's always been acknowledged. This was a vote to say it was the single worst thing ever done by humanity.... Ever.
This. Not the slave trades that lasted far longer, or any of the wars or rapings or genocides or slaughtering of children or ww2 human experiments or anything else. It was a vote to say that this one thing was the shittiest thing humanity has ever done.
Yes, exactly. Your point being?
You're a bit of a dumb one, eh?
Maybe it's in my genes. Wouldn't you say?
Europe kind of had its own grave "crime against humanity" thanks to Mr Hitler, so perhaps that has a bearing?
Or perhaps not - I'm not sure what scoring such things really achieves.
Why is that surprising? Ireland is sometimes better, I would suppose, but Sweden, Ukraine, UK, Canada, Japan, Iceland, and Hungary are all pretty damn right-wing and pro-imperialist.
because us liberals idolize other western countries as enlighted white paradises
Checks out.
Sweden, Ukraine, UK, Canada, Japan, Iceland, and Hungary are all pretty damn right-wing and pro-imperialist.
What an absolutely preposterous statement.
How so? All are dictatorships of capital that rely on exploiting the global south, or play a role as a vassal state for imperialist countries.
How tf do Ukraine and Hungary exploit the global south?
Ukraine is more of a vassal than one of the bigger imperialists, it's used similarly to how Israel is by the US Empire. It's itself being harvested for rare Earth minerals and shackled with tons of debt while at the same time being used to attack enemies of the west. Hungary is both a NATO and EU member state, it's firmly on the side of the imperialist system.
Imperialism essentially is monopoly capitalism at its most developed stage, turned international. In the modern day, the US Empire is at the helm of this, with the EU and other NATO countries being used to protect this system of international extraction. By being in NATO, Hungary plays a part in defending this system, and by being in the EU, it benefits from imperialist spoils.
You only posted half of the title.
Declaration of the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime against Humanity
The "Gravest Crime against Humanity" part honestly explains why so many countries abstained.
The slave trade was an absolute atrocity and certainly one of the gravest crimes against humanity but should we label it as the gravest crime? Do we really need to introduce a ranking between slavery, the holocaust and dozens of other genocides instead of agreeing that they are/were all bad without picking one as the worst?
Future cyberpunk dystopias be like
It's possibly the fact that it specifies the enslavement of Africans too. I don't know much about this, but would that sound like it's minimising other countries experiences, or current slavery?
Edit: clarified a sentence
Sadly, I would bet that it's the jewish lobby that pushed a lot of countries to oppose this. They have this need to make the holocaust be the worst thing that has ever happened to any people in the history of time.
The holocaust certainly bad, it's among the worst mass killings of all time, and the fact that it happened in relatively modern times makes it worse because the world generally isn't as brutal as it once was. Is it worse than the Mongol invasions, which may have killed more than 10% of the entire world's population at the time? Worse than historical wars in China which killed tens of millions at a time when the entire world's population was under 200 million? Where would you rank African slavery in that? Is it less bad because fewer people died, or worse because there are things worth than death? I don't really think it should be something you rank at all. And, I'd also oppose any attempt to rank any of them as "the gravest crime against humanity", because what's the point of that?
Your comment is a bit weird. The second section describes exactly why it makes no sense to be ranking crimes against humanity, which would include this resolution picking one winner.
Why then lead with the first section?
Because, while I agree that it's bad to rank various crimes against humanity, I don't like how Israel tries to weaponize the holocaust as a shield against any kind of criticism.
Comparing to the Holocaust, yeah. And it is true. One of these atrocities was way bigger.
The holocaust doesn't even rank in the top five in terms of numbers.
the holocaust wasn't the biggest in numbers during WWII
The abstaining countries mostly has a Problem with "the gravest crime against humanity", because there should be no ranking in crimes against humanity.
Where do you place the Holocaust, the holodomor, the crusades? The conquest of the americas?
Side thing, but I don't see the Crusades as at the same level of the Holocaust or the Holodomor. They were religious wars of conquest not campaigns of extermination. They were brutal, sure, but if you add them, then you have to start piling a bunch of other wars in there too, like the Mongol conquests, the Timurid conquests, the Arab conquests, the Ottoman conquests, the Aztec conquests etc. Which kind of dilutes the point of "grave crimes".
There is nothing particularly unique about the Crusades, and at the time, the Roman Empire that invited them and tried to sanction them actually had a legitimate claim of them being reconquests of Roman territory (even though they ended up killing it off anyway in 1204).
But you recognise a ranking is not helping the thing?
Yes, obviously there is no total order. There is a partial order though.
That's why I prefaced my whole comment with «Side thing,...». I'm doing an «um ackchyually» about the history of the Crusades, nothing more.
The crusades involved kicking muslims and jews out of the land. It was definitely a genocide and there is some genocide that are worse than others
The Reconquista in Spain, yes. In the Levant/Outremer? That's just not what happened.
PS. I know that in the US, (CW: Hegseth) the christian nationalists are using crusading iconography to promote their deranged fascist apocalypticism. They are instrumentalizing the past the way fascists always do. Knowing and insisting on the actual history is a kind of negation of that instrumentalization. Don't be tempted to just mirror a reverted image of their anti-intellectualism back to them.
Bullshit excuse
Bullshit counterargument
The transatlantic slavery trade lasted 400 years there was definitely more death caused by it than the Holocust .
For sure, for sure. 15 million humans forcibly relocated and an estimated 30-60 million deaths over 400 years is certainly among the gravest human tragedies.
On the other hand could you imagine if tragedies like the holocaust or holodomor or the Chinese three years famine were extended to even a fraction of those 400 years? Or if a handful more cities had been nuked? Or if we let the 50 million people living in modern slavery die in bondage? What about the billions of people that have died from preventable diseases over centuries of neglect?
...Why are you even bothering to argue about this? There's no objectivity in these conversations, and yet you insist that everyone but you is wrong.
On the other hand could you imagine if tragedies like the holocaust or holodomor or the Chinese three years famine were extended to even a fraction of those 400 years?
If they extended to 400 years then yes they would be worst than the slave transatlantic trade
There’s no objectivity in these conversations, and yet you insist that everyone but you is wrong.
You don't abstain from a resolution about slavery that include reparations to the victims because you think another crime against humanity is worse.
They could even vote for this then introduce another resolution citing the holocaust as the gravest crime against humanity
If someone walked up to me and told me to label anything as the gravest, worst thing to happen in human history I would definitely abstain. It's just not possible to say that [as a representative of millions of people] unless you're OK with diluting the conversation around serious ongoing problems with hyperbole.
Sorry to the millions of people being genocided in Gaza, the real gravest tragedy is something else (or vice versa). There is no correct objective answer to such loaded propositions.
You don't abstain from a resolution about slavery that include reparations to the victims because you think another crime against humanity is worse.
You shouldn't frame honest attempts at reparations and progressive policy in black/white terms. The point of this resolution is the same as everything in the UN: toothless posturing that goes nowhere to the domestic political benefit of everyone involved.
The Nay votes can say they're defending whatever tragedy plays best to their audience, the Yea can play off their moral superiority (either in opposition to Nays or for support of their tragedy) and the Abstainers get gold stars for their deft diplomatic balancing. And it didn't cost anyone anything but ink!
Us peons are supposed to slurp up the drama and pump our echo chamber full of our chosen narrative (see: this post). But there's another secret option: stop engaging with rage porn content, it's better for your health.
How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Your dad was probably alive when it happened
If it's about duration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_tradelasted longer and it had more victims.
Fixed.
Why am I even surprised by the US being the US anymore.
"Hey you know this thing thats super bad?"
"Of course we've known it's bad for many years now"
"Well we should officially condemn it."
"Whoa whoa let's hold up and think about that for a second."
Just think of all the money the US could make though! There must be a way to profit from it.
I don't know the wording on the declaration itself, but it's distinctly possible that the US prison system is in direct opposition to it.
Cries quietly in Indigenous slaughter
I hope your time will come too, it's crazy how overshadowed this topic is
I wonder why...
Abstaining means against in my book
I don't know it can either mean political cowardice or a political compromise. None of those options are meant to be flattering but to me, if the vote was close I would have been angrier about an abstention.
My disappointment in the US continues to be consistent and expected.
i sometimes wonder how the us will develop in some future where the petrodollar is no longer the world's currency; would it be like the uk/netherlands/belgium still clinging to colonialism or will it be spain/portrugal still trying to cling onto colonialism despite not being part of the club anymore.
It's the Same Map As Always, USA + vassals Vs Rest of the World.
Is it? It's not really subtle.
The yearly vote about blockade on Cuba is kind of an exception, even EU and the Oceanian Plankton usually vote "for".
My favourite is the voting about combating the glorification of nazism, really says all
So this one is interesting to me because of the rhetoric used by the Ruzzianz during the early days of the Ukraine "Special Military Operation".
Lots of talk about going into Ukraine and de-nazifying.
Curious if that played into this vote in any way, considering this vote occurred right in the middle of that. Poor form not to bring up this VERY important context.
You're downplaying the systemic proliferation of neo-nazi groups like Azov in Ukraine, and the west's collective complicity in creating the conditions for that.
I think you're overplaying them, possibly because you're highly affected by propaganda from those nations.
Can you elaborate? Do you think the global south near universally agreeing that Nazism is bad also means that they are highly affected by propaganda from those nations? Could it not be said that you're highly affected by propaganda from western countries? Without backing your claims, that's all they are, just claims.
Of fucking course you nazi lovers would have problems with combating the glorification of the nazism and justify this with the fact that you do support nazis.
dude you just took this from zero to one hundred, this is a legitimate point of discussion on the topic at hand especially when you consider the date of the vote. If you think based on anything I have written that I am a nazi or nazi supporter I have several bridges for sale that might interest you.
Chill out.
You immediately throw yourself to add the vErY iMpOrTaNt cOnTexT that the countries voting against combating the glorification of nazism voted as such not only because they happen to currently support country where glorification of nazism is officially supported, but they also did it because they are being so petty to vote just because they oppose the country presenting the resolution.
Especially completely shameful for country like Poland which lost 6 million people to nazi murderers.
Right so maybe those countries had a legitimate reason for voting against, beyond being "nazi lovers".
are those reasons in the room with us right now?
What? Friend your ramblings don't even make sense, please consider spending some time outside of whatever bubble you're stuck in.
You've walked into a Tankie bar. This should be expected.
dude I didn't even know what that word meant until a week ago, but I sure know more about it now.
Yeah it must be because of evil internet communists that Ukraine is full of nazis
Edit: Just kidding I see the clear label on the chart.
was this an identical declaration? what vote was this?
USA doesn't have vassals. If it did, they'd be helping them bomb Iran right now.
If the EU weren't vassals they'd be importing fuel from Russia and solar from China, not because of ideals or whatever but because of practicality and (in the case of solar) to avoid climate collapse
So the US voted against so it didn't pass, yet again, I presume?
Fuck veto voting
This isn't the Security Council. Nobody gets a veto.
Good point, just that the security council never gets anything done that has any practical effect whatsoever. \
"against :3" they're using that emote in UN votes now?
Part of the EU explanation:
We were prepared to support a text that emphasises the scale of the atrocity of the transatlantic slave trade, the importance of remembrance, and the need to continue combating slavery in its contemporary forms. Instead, the text before us raises a number of legal and factual concerns that we cannot overlook.
3 arguments
First, the use of superlatives in the context of crimes against humanity is not legally accurate, such as the use of "gravest" in the title and throughout the text, which implies a hierarchy among atrocity crimes, when no legal hierarchy between crimes against humanity exists. It risks undermining the harm suffered by all victims of these crimes and lacks legal clarity crucial for ensuring accountability. We firmly reject introducing ambiguity in this respect.
Second, the selective inclusion of lengthy, historical, and contentious references to regional jurisprudence and selective and unbalanced interpretation of historical events - such as in Preambular Paragraphs 21 and 23 - is at odds with accepted UN practice, as well as the stated universal and forward looking objective of this initiative. It risks creating divisions when unity is both necessary and achievable. The role of the General Assembly is not to substitute itself to the academic debate amongst historians.
Third, we are also concerned by certain legal references and assertions that are either inaccurate or inconsistent with international law. This includes suggestions of a retroactive application of international rules which was non-existent at the time and claims for reparations, which is incompatible with established principles of international law. The principle of non-retroactivity, a fundamental cornerstone of the international legal order, must be strictly upheld. References to claims for reparations also lack a sound legal basis. Any framework for reparatory justice must be grounded in existing multilateral instruments.
Ok, so the first two sound reasonable, but blabbering about "non-retroactivity" and being against reparations is fucking pathetic. Imagine taking that legal position during Nuremberg.
They were against that position during Nuremberg. Reparations from WW1 are what led to WW2.
What does this vote achieve?
It's meant to help get reparations for imperialized people
Ah cool. I get Canadas vote then, kinda support it but poor wording. Among the gravest or something similar, Holocaust and Palestine should be up there.
Which is fucked, it's like generational violence but an entire people instead of a family
It is four centuries of colonial violence, being kidnapped, stripped of your language, culture and humanity, tortured and raped and forced you and your descendants for hundreds of years to work to death just so that your owners could afford to not do anything productive. I can see how it's the gravest. If people are gonna use this as an excuse not to care for other crimes against humanity they're sadistic fools and should be called out as such.
It's the sad reality of politics and agreements, simple wording can screw you over in ways you don't yet see. Id be very interested to see what difference among the gravest would make. I'd be very disappointed in Canada to abstain then. And curious if any supporters change their vote.
lol sure, it was the wording, no other reason Canada (the colonialist, imperial, white nation) would abstain on this vote.
Always about money. It's a shame it draws attention away from the 50 million living people who exist in modern slavery today.
It's not about money, either. The USA doesn't give a fuck about international law. It's been like this at least from the WWII to date. They could have voted yes, and then keep giving three fucks about reparations. If anything, it does draw attention to modern slavery.
For! And would you look at that... Practically all of europe abstaining, color me shocked (¬_¬)
Also... Argentina? YUCK! Sadly not a surprise either.
So Serbia is the only European country with balls?
Turkiye also voted in favor. I get the reservation, but it's EU.
Well Turkie has notoriously independent politics despite being in NATO(and EU candidate lol) so no surprise here at all.
Fair.
Maybe Turkey's balls are located east of the Bosporus strait
I got 3 things to say on this:
If the vote was to recognize it as the worst thing humanity has done, I'd vote against. I feel like there are a couple other things that were even worse. Even only considering enslavement, out of all of history, I would have reservations against saying this was the absolute worst of it.
Every country that abstained was just against it, and didn't have the balls to vote it.
Yeah, the US is an asshole. They're screwing it all up across the globe and they're also why Cuba is still fucked. Eat the rich.
Considering that the death toll caused by the triangle trade is estimated to be between 6 million and 60 million Africans with a general consensus of ~17 million, I think you may need to re-evaluate just how brutal it was.
Many people will point out correctly that Africa already had a slave trade structure before America and Europe got involved; but the fact is the Western slavery was far worse than the slavery in Africa. For example, the fact that slaves' children were born into slavery was uniquely American slavery. Basically, African nations did not dehumanize their slaves, and it's incredible what brutal things humans can do to each other the moment one side doesn't view the other side as thinking human beings, but rather cattle to be done with as they please.
Study more history. This isn't the thing with the most dead, the most raped, or the most cruelty, or the longest lasting. It was really fucked up, sure. But the worst thing humanity has ever done?
Hell.... Religion might be the worst thing humanity has ever done.
As bad as African slavery was, I kinda agree with you that it might not actually be the worst thing humans have done to each other.
Specifically, how many native populations were genocided by colonizers the world over?
Or hitler killing like 6 million unarmed Jews, or the other slave trades that lasted far longer, or the terrible human experiments Japan did to people during ww2, or when hundreds of black people were blocked from having their syphilis cured for 50 years because scientists just wanted to see what happens, or the tons of times entire cities would be raped and pillaged and taken over with no male child left alive..... I mean, there's been so many atrocious acts done by humanity.... To actually vote and say this was the worst one is just tacky.
Abstention might as well be an against vote
USA I made a little poem
Our president is child Making our reputation be defiled Seen as a big whiny bully While hiding his crimes obscurely
Trump is just confirming the reputation US already had
Yet again the genocide of first nations peoples/aboriginals is kind of forgotten. All crimes on a massive scale should be remembered by the international community and when one is elevated as the worst I fear that it will incentivise forgetting of the others and potential rascism clash poits.
It's not. Most of the nations that suffered this crimes voted in favor.
I don't support the "Gravest Crime against Humanity" wording in the resolution, so I have no problems with the way my country voted.
It's not wording.
the UK:
South Korea voting in favor of the resolution is surprising. They are team America and they were enslaved, but are not included in the resolution because they were not shipped to the Americas. Seeing one's own enslavement as not as grave as the African one is a statement.
The ROK has a more complicated geopolitical position. They are actively colonized by the US Empire, and have a government that carried over many of the former colonial elements under Japan. They voted the same way the DPRK did.
For what it's worth, the current ROK president is the equivalent of a socdem who seems to be trying to improve relations with China and the DPRK
Yep, though contradictions in the ROK are extremely sharp. The oil crisis is only going to make them sharper. I see a lot of revolutionary potential in the ROK, but they do have extensive fascist elements as well.
"Actively colonized", "US Empire", boy you use a lot of propaganda-charged phrases.
What do you mean by "propaganda-charged?" We all speak in manners that conform to our present views. The USFK occupies the ROK and meddles in their internal and external affairs in a manner that supercedes domestic law and rights, and the US Empire is actively terrorizing the world and plundering the global south of the value created by them.
If you know the us votes against anyways, why abstain?
Tangential but I swear no one talks about how insanely racist Argentina is. Just look at things that happen in footy there
And they export it.
There's a pattern lead by the US, but they are all different, in my opinion. Where are you from? How did your country vote? How do you feel about it?
I fucking hate it here. Every god damn report is just like "USA is dystopian fascist hellhole" and I wish I could do something.
Then I remember my card declined for groceries this week and I get one step closer to being radicalized into political violence
You can get organized! Join an org like PSL.
Come on, dude, it's not you. We should be pissed off, and we should do something about it, but also we have to be as smart as possible.
hit the gym delete facebook join a community organization (lots of us there)
These words never rang more true.
the Gravest Crime against Humanity
So now, there's layers on suffering.
The ones that died on manmade famines, the ones that died on slavery (not chattel), the holocaust, the ones that got tortured by isis, etc... Didn't endure enough suffering.
bro the african slave trade was ongoing for centuries. what the fuck are you on about??
So it's about the duration?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_slave_trade
There's even youtube videos os merchants buying slaves in the 60's.
Maybe you need to learn history from historians and not from tiktoks
your rebuttal is another example of the african slave trade? am i misunderstanding something?
yes. It's another example of african slave trade that lasted long and slaved more people than the chattel slavery. Yet it's not considered the gravest. A valid rebuttal for:
bro the african slave trade was ongoing for centuries. what the fuck are you on about??
Gravest crime against humanity is not the same as the most suffering caused. It is not just number of people that suffered either.
So it's about what? Can you explain? Because there's no metric whatsoever that makes the chattel slavery the abhorrent behaviour with the most affected people, neither the longest one.
So please explain me what does it mean the "gravest" in this context
Abstention from Canada? wtf..
trump tried to remove any references to slavery at a dc museum. I think court has an order demanding the return but im not 100% what was removed and if anything was returned.
Pam Bondi is being impeached because they don't give a fuck about court orders.
is she actually being impeached? I have heard it like impeaching trump but have not seen anything on it actually moving forward. Can she be now that she has been moved?
I don't follow closely internal US politics, but I found this.
yeah thats a resolution put forth by a half dozen members of congress. Stuff like that can happen all the time and does not mean much.
India said yes. We were kind of enslaved by the Britishers.
I guess there is some good in Serbistan.
Need to make sure it stays that way.
Please read the declaration before responding to this ragebait post
By all means. Here it is. After reading, please feel free to come back and comment. I find this point interesting:
Calls for the prompt and unhindered restitution of cultural properties, objets d’art, monuments, museum pieces, artefacts, manuscripts and documents, and national archives that are of spiritual, historical and cultural or other value to countries of origin without charge, and urges the strengthening of international cooperation on reparations for any damage done, recognizing that this leads to the promotion of nations.
These people! How dare them to claim back what's theirs!?
Canada : Abstantion
Tunisia : Yes
Another victory for Democracy!
USA veto, sorry, hands are tied we don't make the rules
That's not a vote that can vetoed.
There's normally a reason when that assortment of countries chooses to abstain (the no voters are normally just evil). In this case it's likely the use of the word "gravest". I'd say the holocaust was worse, at least in the slave trade the people were just a means to an end. The holocaust involved torture by design and aimed to erase an entire religion.
Others may disagree, but there's at least room for doubt on the declaration that it's the "gravest".
EU's stated reason for abstaining is
1, use of superlatives
2, bias in presentation, against UN charter
3, they're against reparations
I dunno man, it really just smells like they don't want to pay up for their crimes against humanity. When your first two points are nit picking and your last one is "and we were told we wouldn't have to answer for shitty things before we made rules about it", it's kinda giving away why you're against it.
Ireland abstained too, and they didn't really have a recent slave trade.
I dunno man, it really just smells like they don’t want to pay up for their crimes against humanity
Why does it counts only from 17th century onwards? Why only for 1 specific situation?
because the wealth generated by those crimes is still extremely influential today.
and that "1 specific situation" was the industrialised destruction of culture, people, families and minds for centuries.
So, it's about influence on the current day? Silly me, to think the holocaust has more impact on the current world order than the slavery that finished in the 19th century.
and that “1 specific situation” was the industrialised destruction of culture, people, families and minds for centuries.
So it's about duration? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_slave_tradeThis lasted long, wouldn't this had more impact in the destruction of culture, people and minds?
It's nothing to do with the wording, really. This is about countries refusing to acknowledge the historic dimension of their racial supremacy doctrine, and denying reparations. It really doesn't matter if it's the gravest or not, which is, just by the span of four centuries of practice.