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?
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!?
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.
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.
Fuck Argentina.
I’m from there, all I can say is… President Xi, my country yearns for freedom
We’ve always been a colony of
and 
Now the government doesn’t care to hide it at all, quite the contrary the president is very explicit about his love affair with yankizionists.
And let’s not pretend that the opposition is any different. Except for some small trotskyist parties with no real political weight.
Liberal idealism plagues us, we need more political education yesterday
igual decir que somos una colonia me parece un poco exagerado, estamos pasando por un momento de mierda pero eso le pasa a cualquier pais de latam cada ciertos años, el tema es que el peronismo tiene captado a la izquierda
I’m from Buenos Aires and I say kill us all
As someone who isn’t from Buenos Aires that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make /hj
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.
Tangential but I swear no one talks about how insanely racist Argentina is. Just look at things that happen in footy there
They do, they just happen to not speak English as a first language.
And they export it.
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.
Abstention from Canada? wtf…
pretty expected from their colonialism tbh
Proudly in favor
For! And would you look at that… Practically all of europe abstaining, color me shocked (¬_¬)
Also… Argentina? YUCK! Sadly not a surprise either.
If you know who Milei is the Argentina vote makes sense.
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”.
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.
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_trade This lasted long, wouldn’t this had more impact in the destruction of culture, people and minds?
Here’s the map of the vote to really drive the point home.
It’s always the same map
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 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?
Yeah, sure, it was a semantic problem. Not a reperations problem. /s
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).
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.
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.
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_trade lasted longer and it had more victims.
Fixed.
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?
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.
Yeah, exactly. Why make it a competition? The wording is honestly just bizarre
Future cyberpunk dystopias be like
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
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
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 hard to imagine, because it is even more useless and corrupt than those other countries. And that’s hard to imagine.
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.
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?
