this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
289 points (96.5% liked)
Asklemmy
53803 readers
544 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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".
EU's stated reason for abstaining is
1, use of superlatives
2, bias in presentation, against UN charter
3, they're against reparations
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york/eu-explanation-vote-%E2%80%93-un-general-assembly-action-a80l48-declaration-trafficking-enslaved-africans_en
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.
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.
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?
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.