SLAVERY REPARATIONS ARE EVIDENCE OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM

The United Nations recently announced that the most evil crime in history was the Transatlantic slave trade. Not slavery as a whole, one notes and ought to note well, but specifically the Transatlantic trade. There is no mention of any other slavery as being a historical wrong in the UN resolution. The UN also urged that reparations be made by countries perceived to have benefitted from slavery to countries perceived to have suffered from it. This is a major step toward the legalised extortion on Ethnic European countries that the President of Ghana John Mahama has advocated. Such a move is further proof of institutionalised racism against Ethnic Europeans.

 

 

It is proof of institutionalised racism against Ethnic Europeans because it presupposes that everyone in the European countries involved in the trade has been enriched by slavery and that everyone from the African countries has been impoverished by it. The fact is that very few Ethnic Europeans held slaves or were involved in the slave trade at any level. Equally, neither was every Black African a slave. Black Africans were also slavers and slave traders. And when one looks at slavery outside of the Atlantic slave trade, Ethnic Europeans were also made the slaves of Asians and Africans, particularly during the Barbary slave trade, which is why the UN has deliberately omitted its mention.

 

One also has to ask then why Black Africans sold other Black Africans into slavery. They did so because it was profitable. They were enriching themselves. Yet there is no call for the descendants of Mansa Musa to pay reparations to the descendants of slaves. Indeed, Mansa Musa, a slaver touted as the richest man ever by Afrocentrics, is to be lauded as an example of Negro greatness. But the export of slaves obviously drove the economy of African kingdoms, so why the need for monetary reparations? Indeed, should not the descendants of the African Kingdoms pay reparations to the country that spent considerable monies and resources to abolish slavery?

 

One of the comments I received from an obvious Black supremacist was that Great Britain only ended slavery because the Industrial Revolution meant that slavery no longer served a purpose, slaves having been replaced by machines. The commenter refused to believe that the driving force behind Abolition was a moral one, even when I quoted William Pitt the Younger’s declarations on the “abominable traffic”. I suspect his unwillingness to believe what was demonstrably true came from the fear that it might both affect his “gibs” and release the White Man from the shackles of slave morality. Make no mistake, such people merely wish for Black African to become the master with the Ethnic European as his slave, as Enoch Powell once intimated.

 

His narrative that the Industrial Revolution was responsible for the end of slavery is also demonstrably false. Slavers still wished to keep slaves, and compensation had to be given to them out of the treasury coffers. Compensation for the release of slaves also included that given to Black African slavers both within and without British dominions. At one point, compensation accounted for a third of the annual expenditure of the treasury. Again, if reparations are to be exacted, they should be exacted from the descendants of slavers who received such compensation.

 

Equally, most work in the West Indian plantations was still done by hand by free Negroes after slavery and after industrialisation. Even in cotton farming, harvesting was done manually until the 1930s, and the invention of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin in 1793, which separated cotton fibre from their seeds, actually increased the demand for slaves prior to Abolition. The cotton gin made cotton production faster, which made it more profitable, which expanded the industry, which created the demand for more slaves to harvest the cotton. Afrocentrism is ever such transparent nonsense.

 

The North of England’s economy, meanwhile, was heavily dependent on cotton production for its mills, so Abolition meant an inevitable rise in the cost of raw cotton for the mills, which meant the mill owners looked to cut costs elsewhere, namely on the Northern English working class’ wages and safety. Children therefore had to clean machines while they were running, resulting in horrific deaths and injuries. These were the “dark Satanic mills” William Blake referred to. The cost to the Ethnic British working class of Abolition is never looked at. While the government engaged in its expansive and expensive crusade in lands far away, the coffers at home were bare when it came to the plight of the White working class, as is ever the case.

 

Conversely, what is also not considered, and again no one else seems to be addressing this, is the impoverishment of Ethnic Europeans due to chattel slavery. For every slave employed, an Ethnic European of low economic status was disenfranchised from the job market. Plantation owners in the West Indies and America bred and fed Negro slaves while poor Ethnic Europeans struggled to feed their children, which led to premature deaths and a proliferation of poverty-related diseases. In contrast, the numbers of the Negroid populations swelled in the West Indies and America. 

 

While excuses were given that African Negroes were better suited to the climes of the Caribbean and would therefore work better than a White European labourer or indentured servant, the real reason was economic. The cost of a Negro slave was a single purchase payment, whereas even an indentured servant was more expensive on the initial payment and contracted only for a fixed time period. Both slaves and indentured servants then had to be housed and fed by law by the master. For example, in 1660, after which date very few indentured servants were employed in the Caribbean, the usual price of a slave was around £7, whereas an indentured servant cost around £10 for a five-year period.

 

One must also address the institutionalised racist discrimination the disenfranchised have also faced in light of the actions and policies of successive British governments burdened by the guilt of a false consciousness into which the societal elites have been indoctrinated via a fraudulent vision of history. That is being generous to the elites; often it is simply down to virtue signalling while profitting from a racist narrative that they know is false. Just as slavery disenfranchised the White working class from the job market then, they now face discriminatory policies that do the same thing both in the civil service and public sector. “Diversity and inclusion quotas” are little more than racist drives to exclude the native working class. The more the percentage of the immigrant population increases, the higher the quotas are raised; therefore the indigenous natives, who bear no old school tie to circumvent the system, never get nearer the front of the job queue.

 

The Ethnic European working class/peasantry has thus been disenfranchised and discriminated against, but, make no mistake, should this UN resolution be carried further, and I believe it will, until racist extortion becomes law, then those who were the biggest victims of slavery will suffer most. Make no mistake, a racist tax will be introduced by the British government on the indigenous population, the brunt of which will be born by Ethnic European employees on medium to low incomes, as those higher up the socio-economic ladder always find creative ways to avoid taxation. The descendants of peasants and indentured servants will then be forced to pay for the “sins” their forefathers did not commit.