There has been a lot of talk lately about race-based reparations, initiated by this Atlantic article. (See also here, here, here.) I’m not a lawyer, but I do teach Graduate Law & Econ, and the discussion I’ve seen on reparations has ignored key legal issues. So let me raise some of those issues here.
We don't have any wreckage, trade goods, geneological evidence, settled sites, or technological transfer. Apparently our bold African ocean-faring pioneers didn't even think to introduce the wheel to their new homeland.
Even the Polynesians had the decency to leave such an audit trail. I call "crackpot" on this one.
Respectfully, extraodinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I'm sure we'd be interested in any good links you could post in support of Abu Bakhr II. With the best will in the world I couldn't find anything that looked like a mainstream history site that was supportive..."could have / should have" is not a substitute for "did".
Discovery implies recognising what you find and adding it to the permanent record of human knowledge. That's why Colombus usually gets credit rather than the vikings. And with the vikings we have actual archeological sites, rather than oral legend.
It's not polite to call people racist merely because you disagree with them. If I may, this blog isn't a student union debate, and you'll find your experience more productive if you hold back the ad hominem.
You example of West African civilisational acheivements are good. (I liked the Eredo one - I wasn't familiar with that - but to be fair it seems to have been a system of interlinked settlement fortification rather than a single urban enclosure). But how do they compare with Wu? The Roman Empire? Or the Harrapan Civilisation? All of which predate them. Honestly?
The large majority of economic historians, (who are nearly all critical of colonialism, as am I btw), don't think Africa would have done notably better without colonialism. My view is closest to Jared Diamond / David Landes; (sub Saharan) Africa labours under several climatic, biodiversity, and geographical difficulties, which makes it difficult (but not impossible) to build a civilisation there in the pre-modern period. Nothing to do with the people there; they just have a diffiult environment to work with.
Politely, this is an econ/philosophy/rationalist blog, and the general tone is discursive rather than combative. Most contributors have a general level of competence in econonomics and/or history. You might want to bear that in mind if you reply.
I think you're quite right to assume that most Africans would have preferred to stay in West Africa rather than be subject to the horrors of slavery. I know I would in their position. But I don't believe their current day descendents would have been materially better off in the long run had they done so. The point is relevant to the measure of actual harm as a case for reparations, under general concept of tort.
I think you also misunderstand my comment "a lot of the blacks who suffered greatest from slavery died". I don't mean they the ones who suffered most died. I mean death is the greatest sufferring/loss. Hence those who suffered most and might have the greatest claim for any restitution aren't with us. Hope that clarifies.
The Polynesians were indeed island hoppers, but they traveled large distances in some rather primitive boats. The Abu Bakr story may indeed be crackpot (and since I haven't heard any evidence in favor of it, I don't buy it), but the society he lived in seemed more capable of supporting large-scale endeavors than the Polynesians were. He was roughly two centuries from Columbus, which is much closer than the Polynesians.
> But is this really a path we want to go down, competing to outdo each other in our eagerness to toss out our usual legal protections in order to signal our devotion to various causes?
Apparently, yes.
Or wait, did you mean "is this really a path we want to go down" in the sense of "is this a path that we want to live with the consequences of having gone down?" Because I'm not sure that's a thing people really think about when they pick these sorts of directions.
The Polynesians did not always stay in contact with their homelands. The Abu Bakr II story is a crackpot theory. There are no islands to hop in the southern Atlantic Ocean (except ones that are way off course for someone going from West-Africa to South America), the Pacific Ocean is also much calmer and warmer so what the Polynesians did in the Pacific would have been much harder in the southern Atlantic, one would need large, sturdy ships and there is no evidence in Africa, Europe and Asia of ships large and sturdy enough to survive the voyage. There is also no archealogical evidence in South America (while an actual Norse settlement has been found in Canada).
I was going to reply that most settlers keep in touch with their motherland, but it occurs to me that's generalizing from a subset of history. I really don't know if the polynesians did, people today are still stunned by what they accomplished with such limited technology. Due to the lack of writing, neither departures nor returns are recorded and we rely on genetic evidence to trace population history.
I'm not sure what you mean by "too late". Do you mean not up to date with the latest scholarship?
They didnt return because they settled. The rebuttals to van sertima are 30 years too late, and most of his claims have been refined bythenewwer generation. Il share some links when I get o my computer
I never denied the possibility. I said right now most scholars disagree with Van Sertima. I myself have not gone in depth, so I'm curious what evidence there is on what happened to Abu Bakhr, since his expedition didn't return.
You deny the possibility of African contact and even influence in the americas pre columbus? According to which scholars? You mean according to European scholarship written at a time when it was essential to the economy to see Africans as subhuman certainly uncapable of such heights. This your source without bias? Try balancing all of the sources of information Regarding such topics. If you were looking into Indian history I would expect you also to source indian scholars m well as European. This is no different. Cheikh anta Diop and ivan van sertima may be good starts in addition to the traditional west African perspective. The boundaries of who regulates what you call 'fact' should not dismiss foreign perspectivs when dealing with foreign history.
Indeed.
We don't have any wreckage, trade goods, geneological evidence, settled sites, or technological transfer. Apparently our bold African ocean-faring pioneers didn't even think to introduce the wheel to their new homeland.
Even the Polynesians had the decency to leave such an audit trail. I call "crackpot" on this one.
Karlus,
Respectfully, extraodinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I'm sure we'd be interested in any good links you could post in support of Abu Bakhr II. With the best will in the world I couldn't find anything that looked like a mainstream history site that was supportive..."could have / should have" is not a substitute for "did".
Discovery implies recognising what you find and adding it to the permanent record of human knowledge. That's why Colombus usually gets credit rather than the vikings. And with the vikings we have actual archeological sites, rather than oral legend.
Indeed, you did.
+1 for being so reasonable. Sorry I don't have time to follow this up at the moment.
+1 for interesting point about tort. Made me revise an opinion.
Karlus,
It's not polite to call people racist merely because you disagree with them. If I may, this blog isn't a student union debate, and you'll find your experience more productive if you hold back the ad hominem.
You example of West African civilisational acheivements are good. (I liked the Eredo one - I wasn't familiar with that - but to be fair it seems to have been a system of interlinked settlement fortification rather than a single urban enclosure). But how do they compare with Wu? The Roman Empire? Or the Harrapan Civilisation? All of which predate them. Honestly?
The large majority of economic historians, (who are nearly all critical of colonialism, as am I btw), don't think Africa would have done notably better without colonialism. My view is closest to Jared Diamond / David Landes; (sub Saharan) Africa labours under several climatic, biodiversity, and geographical difficulties, which makes it difficult (but not impossible) to build a civilisation there in the pre-modern period. Nothing to do with the people there; they just have a diffiult environment to work with.
Karlus,
Politely, this is an econ/philosophy/rationalist blog, and the general tone is discursive rather than combative. Most contributors have a general level of competence in econonomics and/or history. You might want to bear that in mind if you reply.
I think you're quite right to assume that most Africans would have preferred to stay in West Africa rather than be subject to the horrors of slavery. I know I would in their position. But I don't believe their current day descendents would have been materially better off in the long run had they done so. The point is relevant to the measure of actual harm as a case for reparations, under general concept of tort.
I think you also misunderstand my comment "a lot of the blacks who suffered greatest from slavery died". I don't mean they the ones who suffered most died. I mean death is the greatest sufferring/loss. Hence those who suffered most and might have the greatest claim for any restitution aren't with us. Hope that clarifies.
The Polynesians were indeed island hoppers, but they traveled large distances in some rather primitive boats. The Abu Bakr story may indeed be crackpot (and since I haven't heard any evidence in favor of it, I don't buy it), but the society he lived in seemed more capable of supporting large-scale endeavors than the Polynesians were. He was roughly two centuries from Columbus, which is much closer than the Polynesians.
> But is this really a path we want to go down, competing to outdo each other in our eagerness to toss out our usual legal protections in order to signal our devotion to various causes?
Apparently, yes.
Or wait, did you mean "is this really a path we want to go down" in the sense of "is this a path that we want to live with the consequences of having gone down?" Because I'm not sure that's a thing people really think about when they pick these sorts of directions.
The Polynesians did not always stay in contact with their homelands. The Abu Bakr II story is a crackpot theory. There are no islands to hop in the southern Atlantic Ocean (except ones that are way off course for someone going from West-Africa to South America), the Pacific Ocean is also much calmer and warmer so what the Polynesians did in the Pacific would have been much harder in the southern Atlantic, one would need large, sturdy ships and there is no evidence in Africa, Europe and Asia of ships large and sturdy enough to survive the voyage. There is also no archealogical evidence in South America (while an actual Norse settlement has been found in Canada).
I was going to reply that most settlers keep in touch with their motherland, but it occurs to me that's generalizing from a subset of history. I really don't know if the polynesians did, people today are still stunned by what they accomplished with such limited technology. Due to the lack of writing, neither departures nor returns are recorded and we rely on genetic evidence to trace population history.
I'm not sure what you mean by "too late". Do you mean not up to date with the latest scholarship?
They didnt return because they settled. The rebuttals to van sertima are 30 years too late, and most of his claims have been refined bythenewwer generation. Il share some links when I get o my computer
I never denied the possibility. I said right now most scholars disagree with Van Sertima. I myself have not gone in depth, so I'm curious what evidence there is on what happened to Abu Bakhr, since his expedition didn't return.
Yes, I would like if scholars of colonialism paid more attention to it!
You deny the possibility of African contact and even influence in the americas pre columbus? According to which scholars? You mean according to European scholarship written at a time when it was essential to the economy to see Africans as subhuman certainly uncapable of such heights. This your source without bias? Try balancing all of the sources of information Regarding such topics. If you were looking into Indian history I would expect you also to source indian scholars m well as European. This is no different. Cheikh anta Diop and ivan van sertima may be good starts in addition to the traditional west African perspective. The boundaries of who regulates what you call 'fact' should not dismiss foreign perspectivs when dealing with foreign history.
Forgive me. Misunderstood. Ethiopia's solitary role as being free from colonisation remains a significant and sentimental part of African histoy.