Barbados is a beautiful country which is poorer than it should be. I had the opportunity to visit it as part of a cruise many years ago and that experience along with similar ones is why I doubt I will ever go on a cruise again. Not to say I didn’t have a good time, it was a fantastic opportunity to visit a number of small island nations in a single week and since it was a gift, it only cost me a single roundtrip plane ticket. But something was abundantly clear in Barbados, St Lucia, and St Kitts. And that was that if you were not the cruise industry or the handful of local resorts who contracted with them for day excursions, you benefitted absolutely fucking nothing from their presence. The economies of these small nations had absolutely no right to be as poor as they were with that kind of money coming into them. I went on several of my own excursions and got to see the local areas outside of the preplanned trips the cruise had in mind and saw very poor but very happy people living lives in the shadows of these high-pollution ships bringing rich people into places they themselves were never able to afford to go in their own countries.
This is all a very roundabout way of saying I hope this works out for them. Barbados is a free, self-governing nation that has a lot to offer to tourists and a lot of locals who should benefit from that but, in today’s economic realities, you can’t start making money until you have enough money to buy your foot into the door first. The specter of white colonialism still hangs over these small nations.
It will certainly be interesting to see what comes of this.
deleted by creator
“They should be happy with what we’ve already spent” does not follow from “Britian only finished off paying the bill for freeing the slaves to begin with” because “paying the bill for freeing the slaves” was paying the people who previously owned slaves compensation for them no longer having free chattel labor, not the people who were (and are descended from) the people who served as chattel labor.
or, to put it another way: none of the people who suffered, or who are descended from the people who suffered, have gotten anything “you’ve spent”―if they did, why would they be asking for reparations in the first place? they’d have in a sense already gotten them if what you were saying was true, and obviously they have not.
Britian “paid” to free slaves by paying slaveowners, not by paying reparations. “what [you]’ve already spent” means nothing here.
deleted by creator
The British Government paid British slaveowners. The British government could have made ownership of slavery illegal without paying the slaveowners, but they chose to pay the slaveowners. None of that has anything to with reparations to the enslaved people. Also worth noting that in this case, Barbadians were enslaved by the British, not the Spanish or Dutch
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
