So much to pull out of that article, mainly I would have been surprised if the crown wasn't involved in slavery.
But this stuck with me:
Last week, a Downing Street spokesperson said the transatlantic slave trade was "abhorrent" but the UK position was that it does not pay reparations.
Hello downing Street spokesperson, not only do we pay reperations, we already paid reperations for slavery: to the slave holders for their loss of property (ghouls). As we allowed the descendents of the perpetrators to inherit the wealth slavery stole, perhaps we could allow the descendents of the victims of slavery to inherit some wealth too.
3 Comments
Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app · 18 pts · 1d
So much to pull out of that article, mainly I would have been surprised if the crown wasn't involved in slavery.
But this stuck with me:
Hello downing Street spokesperson, not only do we pay reperations, we already paid reperations for slavery: to the slave holders for their loss of property (ghouls). As we allowed the descendents of the perpetrators to inherit the wealth slavery stole, perhaps we could allow the descendents of the victims of slavery to inherit some wealth too.
deHaga@feddit.uk · 11 pts · 23h
And we know exactly how much was paid and to whom. Those family estates are still active. I'd put a slave tax on them.
zabadoh@ani.social · 1 pts · 1d
Under each crown in tiny letters was "By appointment to his/her majesty..."