danwhitfield
22469
694
35
Mar 26, 2026 11:14 AM
danwhitfield
22469
694
35
freshthrowaway1138
Sauce because OP can't cook. "The vote in the 193-member world body was 123-3, with 52 abstentions. Argentina, Israel and the United States were the three members voting against the resolution. The United Kingdom and all 27 members of the European Union were among those that abstained."
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/nx-s1-5761896/un-reparations-slavery-africa
Urgalicity
Because it would mean we would have to re-write the US Constitution because slavery is technically a viable punishment for criminals here. Hence our lovely prison system.
ahorseelbowdeepinme
TheTaintinator
But the UN has already seid that in the universal declaration of human rights article 4.
stillnodog
That it’s a human rights violation, absolutely, but is it classified as a crime against humanity? Those are different things. (and I’m honestly asking, I don’t remember if crime against humanity are specified in the UDHR - studied human rights over a decade ago…)
KillingTlme
As a US citizen, we did vote on this and we voted that Slavery was a crime.
FrolickingFrolicking
It’s really not “slavery is a crime” which is simplistic and pointless. It’s about the immensity, scale, and duration, of the crime, being recognized on world stage (but not recognized by the deniers of course)
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n26/055/25/pdf/n2605525.pdf
Bundalicious
They want slavery to be legal and out in the open. To MAGA.
taez555
Well of course, voting for it would go against the 13th amendment which makes an exception for slavery if you're in prison. Can't get rid of that slave labor with what's coming.
Poppypoppoppop
From 2013. 2 0 1 3
TheFullLength
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1bHMxa2Zwd3gxMTB0dXE4czRldnRvM293bmJhaXl3NmQ0dG8wc2dmYyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/AaQYP9zh24UFi/200w.webp
ElbowDeepInAHeadlessHorseman
Meh, also China and UAE voted yes then even though they have massive slave populations?
Abizuil
The UN was specifically focusing on the transalantic slave trade and was also looking for reparations. Which is why modern slave owning nations were more than happy to vote yes to it since they were never under the scope.
dghughes
It was a vote to specifically say African slavery was the worst. There's no way to know that. And as noted by other commentors the UN Declaration of Human Rights article 4 already says all slavery is bad. It shouldnt be a game of one-up-manship.
FrolickingFrolicking
“It was a vote to say African slavery was the worse.”
First of all, no it wasn’t, that’s the knee-jerk/meme talking point that uncomfortable people are using as a strawman and deflection.
You can read the resolution here:
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n26/055/25/pdf/n2605525.pdf (Reading skills)
Objecting to the “gravest” part is missing the point, but very convenient.
Part of the resolution is “recognizing how little is known”, like the UN is talking about your comment.
vwzzjxv6f9101
Our prisiones are full of slave labor. Why would we condemn slavery?
OldSchoolNewRules
From what I understand there are some technical disagreements about the wording. Still makes for an ugly headline.
FrolickingFrolicking
No, there are convenient deflections using the “gravest” qualifier as the entire focus. Which generally comes from people in denial and discomfort about, in fact, the immensity of the crime
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n26/055/25/pdf/n2605525.pdf
which included, [TRIGGER WARNING], centuries of rape and forced reproduction of children, girls, and women.
Massive crimes have massive penalties. So the offenders have more than “technical” disagreement.
georgejimmydoodle
A clue to the intentions of Republicans.
ickyickywoopwoo
Our laws prohibit slavery except for as punishment for crimes. If we agreed to this resolution it would mean prisoners had to be paid at least minimum wage, likely market wage, for their work in prison industries. Our entire penal system built on absurd punishment from r minor crimes and private businesses making money from it would collapse. Oh no!
FrolickingFrolicking
A lot of simplistic comments are confided about the resolution. It’s specifically about the (well-known) TRANSATLANTIC slave trade, and all the specific rape and brutality and destruction it involved.
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n26/055/25/pdf/n2605525.pdf
But you’re right in that US “legal” slavery of prisoners should be classified as a crime and abolished
SergeyPrkl
All of these countries are directly involved in Nazism.
mightybushkin
US was built on slavery and imperialism
Shoutrr
they also won't abide by the international court of justice too, especially about crimes against humanity and torture cases, for some reasons.
livingonagiantfireball
There shoyld be a separate UN for those who support human right and if you dont, you dont get to do business or visit country from those who do, lets separate bad country from good one, no business or travel allowed to country who fail human right.
bad1080
when they invade cuba they gonna free all those guantanamo prisoners, surely
JohnSmithterms
USA also dropped out of the no nukes in space treaty so russia followed suit. Fuck America man.
AllAnusMorissette
Corporate America relies heavily on slavery to this day
jalcantara88127001
It's very sad. Every day I think about what can be done. Every day
SchuKadaj
Had someone tell me that "there is no slavery" because the prisoners get paid... I don't know how to deal with this person.
Lampmonster
They get paid wages a share cropper would refuse.
RuminatingYak
No, this is a good thing. The resolution is competitive suffering bullshit: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-votes-against-un-resolution-calling-slavery-crime-humanity-rcna265240
FrolickingFrolicking
“Competitive suffering bullshit” is the convenient deflection meme. It’s truly amazing that someone can hear discussion of an immense brutal crime and legal remedy, and delusionally focus on “competitive suffering! Stop talking about the problem!”
In reality of course, reading skills: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n26/055/25/pdf/n2605525.pdf
“Competitive suffering” surely a phrase made-up by the same junior sociopaths as for “virtue-signalling”
“Rape and brutality? BULLSHIT!”
RuminatingYak
Why should this be considered "the Gravest Crime against Humanity" and not the Holocaust? Or any other crime against humanity? It's bullshit.
bad1080
slavery is illegal... except as punishment for a crime
hmijail
Mhm, I wonder how many "white collar" criminals are being enslaved
Thorketil
It depends on the laws of the respective country. Where forced labor is permitted, the situation quickly degenerates into shameless profiteering. It's no coincidence that so many prisons in the USA are run by private companies.
Enceladus21
It isn't the anti-slavery part they object to. It's the forced reparations. But if you present it just so you can make us seem pro-slavery and then sneer in disgust. Politics.
FrolickingFrolicking
Your comment is like. “It isn’t the crime-is-bad part that the criminal objects to. He only objects to the FORCED penalties / prison / restitution to the victims.”
The qualifier “forced” on reparations is the dead-giveaway in your comment. Literally we are talking about restitution for crimes of immense scale and duration. Punishment of criminals is always “forced.”
Now onto your “sneering at us” part: the systematic racism playbook = always make it about the colonialist people’s feelings…
Beasag
Yeah.. you keep drinking the kool-aid kid.
Reparations or not they would have voted against it.
Slavery is alive and well in America. We allow corporations to use literal chattel slavery as long as they aren't on US soil. And we allow corporations to force our prisoner populations to work for free.
DerpMeister
It's not even just the forced reparations part, but the attempt to rank crimes against another by calling slavery "the gravest crime against humanity". That would make it worse than genocide. I wouldn't agree with that either.
FrolickingFrolicking
Your “forced reparations” phrasing: translation, “I never call restitution for crimes “forced”, like “forced prison” or “forced fines”, unless I don’t want a remedy to happen.”
If you want to talk about “force”, read the crimes of force here: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n26/055/25/pdf/n2605525.pdf
Your “rank the crimes” thing: deflection and missing the point. (Alo, crimes are codified or ranked so there can be proper amount of remedy/penalty…Murder in 1st/3rd “degree” etc)
ThisIsMyUsernameThereAreManyLikeIt
The entire EU abstained? From calling slavery a crime against humanity? Alright, fine, we didn't vote "NO", but abstain? Why?
ipushbuttons
95% of transatlantic slaves went to European colonies in the Caribbean and South America, where they were worked to death and continually replaced over and over again.
ThisIsMyUsernameThereAreManyLikeIt
Which is why I'm questioning why we don't own up to it.
FrolickingFrolicking
I’m surprised you don’t already know.
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n26/055/25/pdf/n2605525.pdf
Massive immense crimes have massive penalties. So the criminals involved would much rather hope that it doesn’t get recognized or treated as a crime.
The resolution is much more than “calling slavery a crime”, though it ultimately is just about acknowledgment, on world stage, and as part of a process for remedy
raiker333
Prob the reparations. A lot of colonial money/resources only flowed one way.
ThisIsMyUsernameThereAreManyLikeIt
Oh yeah, paying a bit back to the people you stole generations from, we can't have that, what will the shareholders say
SwissScars
is this about the current slavery, or the historic. Around the world? Including between African tribes? Including accidental Incarceration in USA? ...and the bloody Cornish.
FrolickingFrolicking
Obviously, and it takes 2 seconds of effort to look up and understand what the UN is talking about, it’s the transatlantic slave trade… meaning the massive most infamously large and brutal example of slavery in human history. (Not just USA but Europe colonies in Caribbean, etc)
Your comment is a common deflection: “slavery? Colonialism? Genocide? If someone brings up widespread relevant examples, I’m going to deflect to smaller examples, and then suggest or claim that EvEryBoDy DoEs It”
Thorketil
Honestly, what role does this question play given the inhumanity of slavery in general?
SewerRanger
It's specific to the Transatlantic slave trade, ranks it the gravest of all human atrocities (which is likely why Israel voted against it) and calls for reparations
SwissScars
"gravest of all"...things that we had nothing to do with and cannot change, whilst there are so many current atrocities - apart from the Epstein Files. Focus on things we can change.
Dagordae
Transatlantic slave trade and declared it the ‘gravest crime against humanity’. Which, well, ranking crimes against humanity is fucked to begin with and declaring that the gravest is very debatable. The Nazis executed more people much faster, for instance.
usernametakenisthestoryofmylife
Kinda tells ya something.
xj4low
US over here hoping tge UN doesn't look into the racial make up or the jobs the prisoners do for a dollar a day.
CallMeMcGyver
...Everything actually.
Timesarrows
the Vatican should not be a country and not allowed in UN. being a country, law enforcement cannot execute subpoenas warrants to gain access to the 100s of years of pedophile documents the popes refuse to release. trump should have sent the military to invade vatican pedophilia documents and not Venezuela! (Bush Grants Pope Criminal Pedophilia Immunity)
https://godlesswonder.blogspot.com/2005/09/bush-grants-pope-criminal-immunity.html
Timesarrows
only countries with Free Fair Elections should be allowed membership in UN, a child would come up with that conclusion yet our Corporate Media Epstein Class doesn't report like that. does anyone have children? i know kids as they advance in grades, begin to watch TV/news, TV says President of China, President of Egypt... believe they r elected! they're murderous dictators stealing trillions from their people, like all arab countries, china, n korea, vietnam.
thotheger
That the UN is useless? Yes
Icanhearwhatyouresayingandtheanswerisno
Mostly that it was probably some purely performative resolution?
SewerRanger
No, it actually sets up a global reparations fund that is to be filled by countries that benefits from the Transatlantic Slave Trade and paid out to unnamed countries that were harmed by it. That's the reason we voted no on it
FrolickingFrolicking
I’ll give you the reason why your comment is ignorant and false:
“This resolution does not change policy or redistribute wealth. It does not repair a single material harm. What it does is name the thing officially, on a global stage, in language that can no longer be called fringe or political.
That naming is exactly what makes it dangerous to the myth.
Watch what gets said over the next few hours and days, and who says it” -Kim Crayton
FrolickingFrolicking
And an additional separate reason why the comment is ignorant and false, is that obviously the countries have done so-called “performative” pronouncements before. So obviously it’s meaningful to look at which things they make the effort for and which things they refuse to acknowledge.
Here’s an article about the racism and double standards in what you’re falling “performative”: https://znetwork.org/zmagazine/outrage/
IhopeUgetwhatUvoted4
They have the most incarcerated people that are used as slaves?
psugab
I mean, the entire EU abstained.
2015Chefj
Because Nestle and that delicious, rich, coffee & chocolate....mmmmmmmmmm
DubhIainn
There's probably a reason for that, some attached small print that they collectively decided they wanted not to endorse.
mondeca
Probably the reparations
stillnodog
The EU also has its own laws on these things (unsure about reparations though), and slavery is most definitely banned and in the EU charter on Human Rights, so I think you’re right - probably some small print that for some reason doesn’t work together with existing EU-law or something like that. I doubt all EU countries would abstain if reparations were the issue.
Eyeetsass
It’s probably the part about the reparations to the slaves. Since Europe was also built on the backs of slaves.
SergeyPrkl
They were called Peasants. Last real peasants died 100 years ago here in Finland. People that were working (Indentured) servitude. My grandparents born in 1916 were born to a family that were Indentured Servitude, It ended when FInland gained independence and they were free to go wherever... but in reality they stayed for years as paid workers. poor pay, poor lodging until they had to flee the region in the WW2. SO technically their servitude ended in the 1945.
Eyeetsass
Indentured Servants is a fancy term for slaves.
jargonmon
This is quite misleading. The articles called for reparations to all those affected by what it ranks. Subjective and financially impossible. Every European nation declined to vote on it. But this article calls out the US for voting it down.
Granted, the US probably would have voted it down without the reparations.
wadatahmydamie
“Financially impossible” is bullshit, and pretending it’s subjective when it continues to have a real-world impact is dishonest.
This same rhetoric has been used for decades if not centuries to escape responsibility for mass theft and mass enslavement that continues to this day.
secretdpp
Long as the African nations that supported the Barbary Slave trade (still active too) are held liable for their parts. And are we punishing those nations who sold their prisoners to European slave traders as well? If we're punishing all responsible it should be ALL
anthropogenicentropy
The political bodies responsible for the African side of the slave trade no longer exist.
TheGoudaKaramazov
^username relevant!!
wadatahmydamie
Tell us you know nothing of the African side without saying it.
There has never, in human history, been slavery that matched the barbarism of how the United States practiced it. Not Rome, not Egypt, not even the Barbary slave trade.
There’s about a thousand Behind the Bastards episodes you could listen to, or you could read Black AF History, or even a People’s History of the United States for more info.
TL;DR, Whataboutism is garbage
frozenlake247
I think the real key there is that in most other cases there was the possibility for ANYONE to end up a slave so even the folks in power were a little cautious about letting slaves be treated to poorly. The racism element in the US made the slave owners and folks in power feel safe to treat the slaves as badly as they wanted because there was no risk THEY could end up slaves even if they lost everything financially.
wadatahmydamie
Perhaps.
But America was founded on cruelty. The worst white Europe had to offer colonized this country and immediately started killing people, under a thin veneer of freedom.
I bet Jefferson would have loved Trump. They both had a thing for little kids
maxthemagician
Thats some bullshit fake news. Europe didnt vote for it either because it was calling it "gravest crime against humanity" and ranking shit
RenaissanceFaireMan
And then called for reparations, based on those rankings.
maxthemagician
like that is just dumb as fuck.
psugab
Thank you for more context. The sub headline about all of the EU abstaining from the vote made it fishy
FrolickingFrolicking
Your comment is ignorant and deluded. Obviously the article is true: literally only 3 countries voted No (and 2 of those are USA and Israel which tells you a lot, right now).
There’s nothing “fishy” about it. Except maybe the stretches, contortions, rationalizations, that some people want or need when they’re uncomfortable about the truth being openly talked about.
RenaissanceFaireMan
Europe isn't a country.
therecanNEVERbeTMI
It even says all 27 members of the European Union abstained you illiterate spermwaffle.
therecanNEVERbeTMI
And the snippet never claimed Europe was a country to clarify the use of punctuation and sentence structure.
MirroredImage
Well yes, but in this one case I imagine all 27 members of the European Union are probably there
FuzzBall87
What part is fake. It literally points out that all 27 members of the EU abstained. They didn't vote for it or against it. They simply did not vote.
FrolickingFrolicking
Your comment is the “bullshit fake news”, since your comment obviously doesn’t understand yes/no vote versus abstaining.
In fact, only 3 countries voted No, and that was USA and Israel (and Argentina), which tells you A LOT right there (if you’re an intelligent person). Obviously the article is correct to say only three voted against it.
Also, the “rAnKiNg CriMeS!” complaint is a silly deflection (already used by right wing talking points) because A) literally all crimes have a hierarchy
d4m4s74
That all of the EU abstained is worth mentioning though. Kind of feels like they don't agree either but didn't want to look bad.
FrolickingFrolicking
like murder in the 3rd/2nd/1st degree etc and B) the superlative word is prosecutorial language, not a ranking of events, similar to saying “the most horrendous thing happened”. It’s about immensity and scale. And the resolution specifically gives logical argument for why it said “gravest”.
Again the most telling thing is that only 3 countries on the planet voted No, and two of those are US and Israel.
maxthemagician
And If I ask enough many questions, you too would agree with 3 cunts about something. And please enligten me how being silent is any different from voting "no" in practice?
ignoremejustlurkingaround
It is not fake news. Only 3 voted against it, others abstained from the vote.
Not defending the decision to abstain, but there is a difference between activly trying to stop sth and staying neutral and thus allowing it to pass.
maxthemagician
There really isnt. Being quiet or voting against it is all the same. And I said fake news because it wasnt just about calling it crime against humanity, it wanted to call it the worst crime.
serleth
So.... you didn't read beyond the headline then.
It's right there in the first paragraph, under the AP byline:
The U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday adopted a resolution declaring the trafficking of enslaved Africans “the gravest crime against humanity” and calling for reparations as “a concrete step towards remedying historical wrongs.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-votes-against-un-resolution-calling-slavery-crime-humanity-rcna265240
Jfc.
maxthemagician
Im sorry, but what exactly are you confused about?
serleth
Oh. I thought you meant it was genuinely fake news because the headline didn't have complete information and you didn't read past the headline.
But apparently you still use the term fake news even when it's real news but just describes something you disagree with. That's even more depressing.
RomanValkre
Reparations is a dog whistle. Only reason to talk about it is to stir up conflict
FrolickingFrolicking
Spoken like some kind of confederacy veteran during Reconstruction. “Massive crimes of immense scale and duration, centuries of brutality and rape of children? DONT TALK ABOUT IT…YOURE JUST LOOKING TO STIR UP CONFLICTED.”
Anyway who has that attitude should read a brief overview of what transatlantic slavery actually was. Oh, here’s a good brief: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n26/055/25/pdf/n2605525.pdf
Hesterry
I'm sorry, but reparations are bullshit. If we're going to give "victims of slavery" reparations for something they didn't experience, using money from people who didn't commit acts of slavery, then we should be doing reparations for the Holocaust first, as that was much, much more recent, and the damage from that is way more relevant, with all the people dealing with holocaust survivor syndrome. We should also be doing reparations for even more recent crimes, like the Gaza genocide.
FrolickingFrolicking
“Remedy for massive crimes is bullshit. Um, because, there’s SEVERAL of them. I am very smart, not looking for denial or deflection at all.”
Extremely ignorant comment.
“Doctors treating the wounded is bullshit. There will be a LONG LINE of wounded!”
Anyway, reading skills: the resolution discusses the scale and duration https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n26/055/25/pdf/n2605525.pdf for people trying to hand-wave it away as Not Important Enough
Thorketil
Germany, as far as I know, passed well over a hundred laws to provide reparations to victims and their families in connection with the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes. As is so often the case in politics, much of it missed the mark, but the efforts were considerable. Compared to the history of state-sponsored war crimes, this was quite extensive.
Hesterry
That's great, but there are still people affected by the holocaust not getting those reparations. Holocaust survivor syndrome is an inherited condition, and the children and grandchildren received no such reparations. If that sounds like bullshit, that's kind of my point. Should we give reparations to the grandchildren and great grandchildren of slaves? If yes, then the same should happen for the children and grand children of Holocaust survivors.
GroovyCrowley
Germany started paying reparations basically immediately.
Hesterry
That's great, but there are still people affected by the holocaust not getting those reparations. Holocaust survivor syndrome is an inherited condition, and the children and grandchildren received no such reparations. If that sounds like bullshit, that's kind of my point. Should we give reparations to the grandchildren and great grandchildren of slaves? If yes, then the same should happen for the children and grand children of Holocaust survivors.
raiker333
The governments that would pay are mostly "1st world" countries that owe their economic stability to either slavery, colonialism, or a combination of both. You could argue the main reason they have money is because of the terrible things they are paying reparations for.
ipushbuttons
Why should western governments pay reparations? They didn't enslave those people, enemy kingdoms like the recently whitewashed Kingdom of Dahomey (painted as anti-slavery heroes in the movie 'The Woman King') enslaved them and then sold them to traders, who in turn sold them to plantation owners. The only involvement western governments had was in doing nothing to stop it until the abolitionist movement eventually succeeded in turning public sentiment against it.
GroovyCrowley
You might want to catch up on colonialism.
FrolickingFrolicking
First of all, your comment is obviously confused about legal remedy and continuity of government and seemingly the concept of what a nation is.
Second of all, the deflection to “some African chiefs helped the slave-catchers” is obviously missing the point, looking for deflection to fix the discomfort.
3rdly, no, the governments didn’t just “not stop it”, they ACTIVELY enforced it with money, force, laws. Extreme historical ignorance and denial/delusion. Also known as national acts/behavior.
Hesterry
And where does that money come from? The taxed citizens who, in many of those countries, can barely make ends meet right now. If it came from billionaires, who were actually exploiting people, then great, but we all know that will never happen...