Late Slavery and Emancipation in the Greater Caribbean

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Justice and Freedom
Morality: Does the Reparation Case Meet the Moral Threshold?
“Contemporary Injustice” as Opposed to the Thought of “Historical Suffering”
Judicial Precedence
Economic Exploitation
Works Cited

Introduction

While opposing the “commercial” activity of the slave trade in the United States in one of his lectures, Abraham Lincoln decried that “those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves” (McCarty 91). The epoch of slavery defined the darkest history in the evolution of the civilization of humanity; the results of slavery continue permeating the psychology of very “far” descendants of the slaves themselves. In this respect, the restoration of any dignity lost by any human should be a cause that is supported by everyone. Those who have human rights issues at heart should support the move by CARICOM to initiate legal suits against the merchants of slavery (McCarty 91).

The need to eliminate fully the modern day slavery is dependent upon the punishment of the perpetrators in the past. The lawsuit, in my opinion, sets a nape for the rest of the globe to follow. It asserts emphatically that the need to uphold human rights is fundamental and plays a significant role in the modern civilization. This paper seeks to offer a consummate discourse on the CARICOM lawsuit and its significance in the socio-political morphology (Brophy 165).

Justice and Freedom

The end of the slavery marked a new turning point in the history of the human civilization, and it opened a new chapter in the reconciliation process. The war against this dehumanizing act had been won eventually, but what awaited the victims and the perpetrators still remained unclear. The concepts of justice and freedom are intertwined. As freedom is sought, justice implicitly comes, but this was the missing link in the termination of the slavery. The psychological scars had been injected, and the healing process would take time. In this regard, the reparatory lawsuit by CARICOM is elaborate enough to serve in obtaining the justice and freedom for both the victims of the slavery and the perpetrators (McCarty 91).

Morality: Does the Reparation Case Meet the Moral Threshold?

CARICOM’s establishment, the National Committees on Reparations, while issuing its report, unquestionably admitted that the moral precinct of their demands to the slavery merchants is prominent enough to sustain an apology and compensation in one way or the other. Of course, this is an admissible fact; the impact of slavery on both the victims and their descendants was a mockery of the moral obligations of the humanity to respect the dignity of each other. It “bleached” the basic tenets of freedom and entirely “bended” the antennae of ethical values regarding the treatment of “free” humans. This affirmation is conclusive enough that CARICOM is justified in the pursuance of the case and making the demands to the perpetrators of the crime (Burnard 191).

It is in the interests of setting precedence in the fight for human rights that this case is anchored. As mentioned earlier, the sociological and economic impact of slavery continues reverberating throughout the history; the loss of “artisanship” is still very prominent in the affected societies. Mental torture is still witnessed in some of the victims due to the harsh conditions they have gone through; it is, therefore, understandable that the descendants would demand for compensation from the slave masters (Nemec 153).

The “living legacies” of these crimes are persistent in the Caribbean society to date. According to the Caribbean nations, these “legacies” should be entirely addressed so that forgiveness is achieved. The compensation for the losses is the most important though as a result of such degrading activities. It is, therefore, factual to admit that CARICOM has a very solid reasoning in the reparation case as far as the moral and ethical reasoning is concerned (Burnard 185).

“Contemporary Injustice” as Opposed to the Thought of “Historical Suffering”

CARICOM has unequivocally stated that the tenets of the lawsuit should be anchored on the need to address explicitly the contemporary issues brought forth by slavery. The factual admission is that historical issues have been surpassed by events, therefore, CARICOM takes note of the impacts of these historical injustices on the current society. Specifically, it has laid emphasis on the descendants of the slaves.

The need to address the issues of economic stagnation as brought forth by slavery tops the agenda of CARICOM in seeking the reparatory settlement (Burnard 187). It is estimated that Europe hugely “exploited” these societies in terms of labor and resources. The economic exploitation has been attributed to the current stagnation of the development in these nations. The slaves helped these nations to make millions of dollars. All this wealth, unfortunately, was “shipped abroad”. The locals had nothing at all to lay claim to except being subjected to hard and forced labor. In this regard, the demand for cancellation of all debts in the reparatory case is considered as valid. These actions were obvious violations of the human rights provisions (Brophy 166).

Judicial Precedence

The concept of legal precedent, especially in cases involving human rights, forms a rather essential point in the CAMICON case. The institution of courts like the International Criminal Court has a solid role of setting legal precedent in their cases, this seems to be the sling that CAMICON seeks to use in the case. It is deducible that the court, in the interest of justice dispensation, will focus on the need to set a precedent in the judgment of the case so that such atrocities are dealt with well (Nair 569). The intent is to eliminate such ills.

Economic Exploitation

Any human rights defender should obviously feel the need to support the cause of the Caribbean countries. In actual sense, the most affected facet of life in the slavery issue must have been the economic aspect. I did mention earlier in this discourse that the unprecedented poverty levels in these lands are attributed to the economic exploitation by the slave traders, this is very admissible (Burnard 190).

As it stands now, the poverty index in these nations is overwhelming. More than half of the population live below the poverty line. For a critical mind, even though not entirely factual, the perception that this situation creates is that the descendants of the slave masters still hold on to the wealth rendering their services out of slavery whose genesis is the poor locals (Brophy 168). This perception, in my opinion, makes the pursuance of the case a very noble assignment of CAMICON. Equity should prevail especially in cases where human rights abuses were predominant, the defilement of human rights obviously impairs the economic arm of the human race, this maxim has been intelligibly adopted by CAMICON in their demands as outlined in the reparatory case and it is understandable. (Nemec 155).

Works Cited

Brophy, Alfred L. “The Case for Reparations for Slavery in the Caribbean.” Slavery & Abolition 35.1 (2014): 165-169. Print.

Burnard, Trevor. “Late Slavery and Emancipation in the Greater Caribbean.” Caribbean studies 41.1 (2013): 181-194. Print.

Nair, Supriya “The Caribbean Unbound: Cross-Atlantic Discourses on Slavery and Race.” American Literary History 14.3 (2012): 566-579. Print.

Nemec, Jeanne. “A Healing Community In The Caribbean.” International Review of Mission 69.274 (2012): 151-157. Print.

McCarty, Philip. Integrated Perspectives in Global Studies. New York: University Readers, 2013. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!