It's commonplace to dismiss facts and counterarguments as "what aboutisms" when one doesn't wish to address inconvenient truths. Except a "what aboutism" is a logical fallacy when it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. For example: "we should pay reparations." "No we shouldn't because young black gangsters commit street violence." In that example, the latter fact doesn't refute or mitigate the claim of reparations. But, the fact of slavery being a worldwide occurrence and the steps Britain took to abolish it, do matter, and are not mere "what aboutisms." A better argument could be made asking for collective global investment to assist poor countries in certain ways. Obviously, this would fall more heavily on wealthier countries, but that is more palatable than grievance for past wrongs because every country can demand restitution from some other country for past harms. Moreover, her Unilever example shows why targeting specific countries for reparations makes no sense. It is not just Britain that benefits from Unilever products. Those products are sold to, and produced by, consumers and manufacturers all over the world. There is a global supply chain and globalization had enriched and developed many countries that even 50 years ago were much more impoverished. Wait for population collapse. We can renegotiate international trade and regional markets once globalization falls apart after China collapses in the next 1-2 decades.
EXCELLENT PRESENTATION - Great points which highlight why inequality persist to date
Will Pakistan pay reparations for what the country did to Bangladesh in 1971?
She’s not Pakistani
The irony is that Bangladesh is now richer than Pakistan
Money, money, money. No one wants the problem fixed, just a handout.
This elite has a set of facts in hand that sounds interesting, but then I read Thomas Sowell and this young lady's hard work falls apart.
💯🤍👍
Thomas Sowell was an Uncle Tom whom made a career for himself, telling white what THEY (and seemingly you) what to hear
It's commonplace to dismiss facts and counterarguments as "what aboutisms" when one doesn't wish to address inconvenient truths. Except a "what aboutism" is a logical fallacy when it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. For example: "we should pay reparations." "No we shouldn't because young black gangsters commit street violence." In that example, the latter fact doesn't refute or mitigate the claim of reparations. But, the fact of slavery being a worldwide occurrence and the steps Britain took to abolish it, do matter, and are not mere "what aboutisms."
A better argument could be made asking for collective global investment to assist poor countries in certain ways. Obviously, this would fall more heavily on wealthier countries, but that is more palatable than grievance for past wrongs because every country can demand restitution from some other country for past harms.
Moreover, her Unilever example shows why targeting specific countries for reparations makes no sense. It is not just Britain that benefits from Unilever products. Those products are sold to, and produced by, consumers and manufacturers all over the world. There is a global supply chain and globalization had enriched and developed many countries that even 50 years ago were much more impoverished.
Wait for population collapse. We can renegotiate international trade and regional markets once globalization falls apart after China collapses in the next 1-2 decades.
I cannot wait not to buy her book!