Tweet
States that suffer
published: Tuesday | December 26, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody yJQdZ="true">
Stephen Vasciannie
Of course, states suffer from a range of disabilities. Some of these are imposed by history: so, for example, in countries with a legacy of slavery, there are strong grounds to believe that impediments derived from that legacy have worked to the detriment of Caribbean societies. This is not to suggest that the impediments cannot be overcome. In fact, as is evident from the economic gains recorded in the name of some CARICOM member States in recent years, progress is possible.
But the impediments are real, and progress is made despite the obstacles, not because of them. Though this point should be obvious enough, I state the obvious because of the view - now current on Perkins on Line - that Caribbean societies have benefited from slavery. The view is put forward presumably as an argu-ment against reparations for slavery, and all the elements of the argument are not entirely clear, but it goes something like this: but for slavery, the people of the Carib-bean would not be here. Slavery, by prompting racial mixing, and by undermining ethnic linkages in Africa, has created the Caribbean people. Because this creation is a good thing, then we are the beneficiaries of slavery.
Slavery No Benefit
I believe this is an incoherent, misleading argument. No doubt, slavery, as a force, in history, has had an undeniable impact on the structure and present-day realities of the Caribbean, and on the racial composition of Caribbean societies. But to argue that this is a benefit for the Caribbean is a non sequitur. Slavery, and more specifically, the slave trade, resulted in historical developments that otherwise may not have happened, but advances of the Caribbean people have not been caused by slavery.
Consider the following hypo-thetical line from, say, wartime conditions: a man was taken to a concentration camp. There, he meets and impregnates a woman by force. The man is executed for rape. The child is born, rejected by the mother, and is eventually executed for some reason. Can one say that this child has benefited from the war? The answer to me is obvious: to use the word benefit in this context is a total falsehood.
Or again, a woman is taken against her will to a foreign place. There, she is sold as chattel, and then repeatedly raped, denied her individuality, and sometimes subjected to arbitrary physical abuse. She has a child, the child is sold, and then killed while trying to escape from slavery. How can one reasonably suggest that this child has benefited from slavery?
But enough of that. States also suffer from cultural and geo-graphical realities. Cultural con-siderations are sometimes difficult to pin down, not least because of cultural variations even within a particular area, and because individuals can bring themselves to break away from cultural problems.
This gives rise to the perennial question: if A can avoid being a victim of his or her culture, why does B, with similar intellectual and other endowments, remain oppressed by cultural constraints?
As to geography, perhaps the sharpest case is demonstrated by the plight of landlocked countries in the world. By definition, landlocked countries have access to and from the sea only by traversing the territory of neighbouring states. Thus, as a practical matter, when landlocked states participate in trade, their transportation and related costs will always exceed those of coastal states.
In recognition of this reality, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has consistently sought means of reducing the impact of geo
published: Tuesday | December 26, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody yJQdZ="true">
Stephen Vasciannie
Of course, states suffer from a range of disabilities. Some of these are imposed by history: so, for example, in countries with a legacy of slavery, there are strong grounds to believe that impediments derived from that legacy have worked to the detriment of Caribbean societies. This is not to suggest that the impediments cannot be overcome. In fact, as is evident from the economic gains recorded in the name of some CARICOM member States in recent years, progress is possible.
But the impediments are real, and progress is made despite the obstacles, not because of them. Though this point should be obvious enough, I state the obvious because of the view - now current on Perkins on Line - that Caribbean societies have benefited from slavery. The view is put forward presumably as an argu-ment against reparations for slavery, and all the elements of the argument are not entirely clear, but it goes something like this: but for slavery, the people of the Carib-bean would not be here. Slavery, by prompting racial mixing, and by undermining ethnic linkages in Africa, has created the Caribbean people. Because this creation is a good thing, then we are the beneficiaries of slavery.
Slavery No Benefit
I believe this is an incoherent, misleading argument. No doubt, slavery, as a force, in history, has had an undeniable impact on the structure and present-day realities of the Caribbean, and on the racial composition of Caribbean societies. But to argue that this is a benefit for the Caribbean is a non sequitur. Slavery, and more specifically, the slave trade, resulted in historical developments that otherwise may not have happened, but advances of the Caribbean people have not been caused by slavery.
Consider the following hypo-thetical line from, say, wartime conditions: a man was taken to a concentration camp. There, he meets and impregnates a woman by force. The man is executed for rape. The child is born, rejected by the mother, and is eventually executed for some reason. Can one say that this child has benefited from the war? The answer to me is obvious: to use the word benefit in this context is a total falsehood.
Or again, a woman is taken against her will to a foreign place. There, she is sold as chattel, and then repeatedly raped, denied her individuality, and sometimes subjected to arbitrary physical abuse. She has a child, the child is sold, and then killed while trying to escape from slavery. How can one reasonably suggest that this child has benefited from slavery?
But enough of that. States also suffer from cultural and geo-graphical realities. Cultural con-siderations are sometimes difficult to pin down, not least because of cultural variations even within a particular area, and because individuals can bring themselves to break away from cultural problems.
This gives rise to the perennial question: if A can avoid being a victim of his or her culture, why does B, with similar intellectual and other endowments, remain oppressed by cultural constraints?
As to geography, perhaps the sharpest case is demonstrated by the plight of landlocked countries in the world. By definition, landlocked countries have access to and from the sea only by traversing the territory of neighbouring states. Thus, as a practical matter, when landlocked states participate in trade, their transportation and related costs will always exceed those of coastal states.
In recognition of this reality, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has consistently sought means of reducing the impact of geo