Douglas Schorr

Why should America pay African Americans for the “inconvenience of slavery”? The common narrative suggests white Americans profited from slavery and should therefore compensate black Americans for ancestral horrors. The facts tell a different, more complex story – one that challenges not just who benefited, but who should pay.

By now, you have likely read how, thanks to the trinity, slavery was invented in Africa. But it wasn’t unique to Africa. Ingrained into our culture, the concept went with those proto-human Africans—now more man than ape—who colonised Eurasia. Slavery became the norm throughout the “developed” world to the point where it could be said having slaves labouring was the essential “economic” ingredient of the cake that is forever baking the notion of ‘Humanity’—please, oh please, make sure you read that post as background.  

Ironically, because Sub-Saharan Africa ended up many thousands of years behind in the development stakes, a Sub-Saharan African had a much lower chance – likely less than 50% – of being enslaved.   

The American slave trade lasted about 200 years, bringing approximately 470,000 Africans to the American South. While the perpetual do-gooders and new woke of society categorise this chapter as among humanity’s darkest, an uncomfortable truth emerged. Let us agree to differ by saying “in a twisted way”, exactly as happened me, those individuals and their descendants were the fortunate ones.

Before the Atlantic trade exploded, Muslim entrepreneurs of the Yemeni-zone had spent centuries developing trade relationships throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. They were experienced dealers in human cargo, though their markets had been primarily the Middle East and points east. When word reached them that Europeans were looking for heat adapted slaves because those who usually filled their slave order books couldn’t cope, the Muslim traders sharpened their pencils and took orders.
As had always applied, they understood two critical points: their buyers wouldn’t accept substandard “goods,” and their merchandise had to be robust and smart enough to survive long journeys at least as well as the traders themselves.

In traditional tribal warfare, captives faced two possible fates. Those judged below standard were executed as much for entertainment as to rid themselves of a useless mouth to feed. But more terrifying was the fate of those within the tribe who showed any hint of challenging the hierarchy – actually, potentially, merely through careless words or a face that didn’t fit. These “internal enemies”, habitually “discovered” during “the sniffing out of evil” rituals, faced brutal ceremonial execution—being set upon by your own had to be the most dreaded fate in tribal life.

When European demand created new markets, tribal leaders seized the opportunity. Tribal leaders used slave sales to eliminate virtually all thinking opposition to their rule – not the simpletons, but the bright, motivated individuals who questioned authority and advocated for change. Over those 200 years, while Sub-Saharan Africa’s population barely grew, approximately half of its most dynamic human capital was shipped away by leaders who feared change. This explains much: when colonists finally arrived, they found societies largely unchanged from 10,000 years earlier.

The journey to America began with Muslim traders, who having confirmed the selected as best quality, shepherded their cargo to coastal trading posts where European ships waited a safe distance offshore. The Europeans knew enough about the perils of walking about with the wrong microbiome combination and anyway, that the captains and sailors, mostly merely wage earners themselves, faced tremendous risks -many ships and crews were lost to storms, disease, and pirates- are stories largely untold in the common narrative.

The captured who eventually arrived at the coast were obviously very different people to those who had a roaring send off. The selection procedure was repeated and those accepted loaded. Those who were sold out and who survived the horrors of the Middle Passage encountered a complex reality. While some owners were indeed brutal, all understood their fortunes depended on getting sustainable work from their investments. There emerged a bitter irony: for the first time, these individuals were indeed individuals, freed from the rigidity of tribal society. And every slave was “being upskilled” – learning at rates unprecedented in their homeland, operating in a world beyond anything imaginable in Sub-Saharan Africa. Despite the inhumanity and injustice we in hindsight see, they could envision futures for themselves and their children that would have been impossible in Africa.

This capacity for learning and responsibility was recognized by business interests long before abolitionists began their moral crusade. Context matters: while slaves suffered in American fields, Manchester’s 250,000 residents … my English grandma’s people included … endured industrial revolution conditions that few would choose, working in factories processing slave-grown cotton. These workers, unlike slaves, had to pay for their own upkeep.

Today’s African Americans, though less than 20% of the US population, have built an economic force that would rank among the world’s top 20 economies if measured independently. They’ve produced leaders in every field – business, medicine, academia, arts, finance, and even the presidency. This success isn’t surprising given their ancestry – every one of them came from Sub-Sahara Africa’s most ambitious, intelligent, and resilient stock. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this when he demanded not handouts but recognition of capability and therefore of equal opportunity at society’s highest levels.

The modern reparations debate misses these historical complexities. If anyone owes a debt, it’s the descendants of those African leaders who sold their best and brightest for short-term gain.

Consider this alternative to reparations: offer those seeking compensation the choice of repatriation to Africa. The low take-up rate would likely prove what many already know – that despite historical injustices judged by today’s heaven-on-earth standards, descendants of slaves have built something valuable in America. For the world.

Conclusion

The real tragedy isn’t just in yesterday’s slavery but in today’s dependency. While many African Americans have thrived, others (of all colours and backgrounds) have been encouraged to become trapped in welfare systems that discourage exactly the initiative and independence their ancestors possessed. This isn’t a racial issue but the professional politicians’ one who saw the opportunity to ride on the backs of the do-gooders. And they are supported by the armies of the woke who haven’t the time to understand our history but who can make time to emotionally demand reparations.

Progress comes not through moral imperatives or guilt-driven aid, but through recognizing and building on mutual benefits and practical opportunities. The path forward isn’t through “shame, they’re SO poor they cannot even afford the debt I’m carrying” handouts but through recognizing and building upon the remarkable human capital and potential that exists in all communities.

End?

No. That’s the thing about the pairing of economy and humanity -it’s aways the beginning of the next beginning.