The history of slavery is part of a broader story of human trafficking and forms of slavery exist to this day. The history of slavery which was reformed, such as the trade in African slaves to North America and the Caribbean in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries is not simply closed just because the laws have changed, and the open (and at the time legal) slave trade no longer exists. The reality is that the damage inflicted on this populations by enslavement, removal from their communities and cultures, and continued discrimination in their new residences continues to be noted in statistics and outcomes today.

In the communities with ancestry that includes enslavement, including the United States, Jamaica, Barbados and others there is therefore a movement and a claim for slavery reparations (Craemer, 2015). There have been, over the course of decades, multiple proposed options. This research project proposes to investigate the different proposals for slavery reparations, and to look at what impact they would have on stakeholders, and on reconciling these descendant populations to the same standard of living and opportunity.

There are various difficulties with determining an approach to slavery reparations which is coherent given that the descendants today live in a variety of countries, and it may be difficult or impossible to identify specifically if an individual in a population is owed reparations. The individual reparations approach is not, however, the only way. Another approach would be to provider for development and opportunity within the larger community. Some would argue that this would provide a windfall to individuals and households who are not in fact the descendants of slavery. For example, a family that migrated to the United States from Nigeria in the past two decades would today be considered part of the African American community, however their ancestry would not include North American or Caribbean enslavement. Another example could be the descendants of the Greek community in the Bahamas (Bucuvalas, 2012). If reparations were made directly to these island nations they would likely end up including many peoples whose ancestry does not include enslavement, and it may even include the descendants of those who profited from slavery. These are just some of the most obvious logical difficulties in trying to determine a workable package for slavery reparations.

One of the most discussed proposals involves the targeting of Great Britain as a state, as well as specific companies such as merchant banks which continue to exist, which profited greatly from the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the use of slave labor (Biondi, 2015). This brings up another point, which is who is responsible for what slavery. The Southeastern United States benefited directly from slavery because slave labor was used in the production of cotton, sugar and other commodities. On the other hand, Great Britain and other Western European nations which facilitated the capture and sales of slaves are also argued to be responsible. Specific areas had specific benefactors and responsibility, but the people who live in those areas now are not necessarily the descendants of the original slaves. These creates many complications in determining who owes slavery reparations, and who it is owed to. There is therefore a need to separate proposals based on which history, which responsible parties, and which individuals households or communities that exist today should be the benefactors.

By investigating the proposals for slavery reparations in light of the history of slavery as well as the ways in which this history impacts contemporary society, it may be possible to come up with positive proposals which provide for fairness and justice for communities that are still vulnerable today.

References
Craemer, T. (2015). Estimating Slavery Reparations: Present Value Comparisons of Historical Multigenerational Reparations Policies. Social Science Quarterly, 96(2), 639-655.
Biondi, M. (2015). Britain’s Black Debt: Reparations for Caribbean Slavery and Native Genocide. New West Indian Guide, 89(1), 94-96.