Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa had called for Lisbon to find ways to compensate its former colonies, including canceling debt. The government says it has not initiated any process to that effect.

Lisbon is not planning to pay reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery and colonialism, Portugal’s government said on Saturday.

The statement comes in response to remarks by President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, who said Portugal could find ways to compensate its former colonies.

Portugal said in a statement that it seeks to “deepen mutual relations, respect for historical truth and increasingly intense and close cooperation, based on reconciliation of brotherly peoples.”

It stressed that it had not launched any “process or program of specific actions” for paying reparations.

  • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Pretty sure spain and portugal used to be muslim colonies themselves, shouldn’t they get paid first then?

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      Many people were fed up with the Spanish king at that point and invited the Muslims to take over. Spain would not be captured so easily if the inhabitants fought for it instead of against their current rulers.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Spain

      "The last Visigoth king, Roderick, was not considered a legitimate ruler by all of the inhabitants of the Spanish Kingdom, and some Visigothic nobles aided the Islamic conquest of Spain. One name frequently mentioned is Count Julian of Ceuta who invited Tariq ibn-Ziyad to invade southern Spain because his daughter had been raped by King Roderick. "

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        If you just substitute some nouns you get the takeover of Hawaii by the US. I mention this because based on what I am seeing it sounds like some some random local thugs sold out their people to invaders hoping that they would get a better deal for themselves under them vs the king.

        Unless you got multiple opinion polls and voting records showing that the “people” supported it I don’t think much of your argument.

    • khannie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Those Italians dug a lot of gold and silver out of the Iberian peninsula too.

    • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      Spain and Portugal aren’t full of disease and poverty despite the fact that they used to be colonies, while their former colonies are full of disease and poverty.

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Well I can’t say Spain and Portugal aren’t full of disease and poverty, but that’s probably because of the decades of corporatist fascism and Nazi Germany/Italy/the Vatican quashing the socialist/anarchist governments there to install a dictator, and not because of Al-Andalus which actually brought great prosperity to the region

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      And I’m pretty sure that the Muslim caliphates didn’t participate in a triangular slave trade which still has repercussions across North America and Africa today in terms of inequality and oppression.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Well, apparently the Mourish Occupation of the Iberian Peninsula was what brought to the Dark Ages Europe advanced irrigation techniques which spread from there increasing agricultural production, the growth of cities and ultimatelly the Renaissance, so we probably would need to pay them, or at least their descendants (mainly Northern African Arabs).

      That said Portugal at least in this is a joke (and I say this as a Portuguese National) - for example some years ago the local politicians came up with a scheme to give the descendants of Jewish Sephardites (a group which was expelled from Portugal in the 15th century) portuguese nationality, which is quite an “interesting” choice of “reparations” taking in account the country’s much more recent and way more harmful history of Slavery.

      Anyways, the whole thing is corrupt as fuck, with for example Jewish Organisations in Russia providing wealthy Jewish locals with “proof” of their Sephardite ancestry for the purpose of gaining Portuguese Nationality (which is only worth it because it means EU citizenship), to the point that the present day richest and most well known portuguese national is Roman Abramovich.

      This talk now is in the sequence of that crap (which continues, which for example some Hamas hostages given expedited Portuguese Nationality to try and secure their release as “portuguese”), the sudden rise in the recent elections of the far-right party who are the only nationalists around (so the only who frown upon the whole giving away of citizienship to people who never ever even visited the country) and the Portuguese President (who is basically a powerless figure who loves media attention) having suggested that Portugal and Spain should “compensate” former colonies.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Well, apparently the Mourish Occupation of the Iberian Peninsula was what brought to the Dark Ages Europe advanced irrigation techniques which spread from there increasing agricultural production, the growth of cities and ultimatelly the Renaissance, so we probably would need to pay them, or at least their descendants (mainly Northern African Arabs).

        I see. This means that if any invader improved a property they took over in any sense of the word the takeover was justified. If for example I steal your car but give a good wash. You should thank me for cleaning it and I was right to steal it, since you were neglecting it.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          The Moorish kings were genuinely better rulers on many, many topics, so it’s more like your car thief replaced the transmission with a clear upgrade, but yes, reparations are an innately immoral idea that punishes children for the sins of their parents.

          You can not fix the sins of the past, only stop them from happening again.

      • ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Many of the former Euro colonies started with stone tools and a nomadic lifestyle and where drug into the modern age (for the time of course) If Europe should repay the descendants of slavers, conquerors, and rapists for the advancements they brought, then by your own logic the colonies owe Europe reparations. Congrats your colonial policy is French!

      • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Do you apply the same logic to all other developments too? That descendants of american slaves now live in the US instead of having to run from lions and hippos, or all the western science and technology spread all around the world by european colonizers? That’s a pretty shit argument dude.

        Rest of your statements seems logically sound though.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The argument I was making is the same argument you are making: “It’s not at all as simple as many think it is”.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I think it is pretty simple. Everyone fucked up everyone else for a very long time and there is nothing we can do about it but try to help people alive today who need help today.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              That would excuse murder, rape, theft and so on as long as it was done yesterday, not today.

              Clearly there is some need to place responsability on people, at least up to a point, with some kind of limit of how far one goes in that, both in terms of temporality and directness of the relation of the punished with the criminals and those recieving compensation with the victims.

              There are some widelly accepted rules for some of these things: for example somebody who murders somebody else should pay for it no mater how long it takes to catch that person, whilst the children of the murderer should not pay for their father/mother’s crime.

              However in other areas it’s not so simple: should the children of somebody who stole money be forced to give it back if they inherited that ill gotten money?! An argument can be made that if they are not forced to return it, they would be enjoying the proceedings of the crime whilst the victims carry on suffering because of not having that money, all of which would be an injustice.

              But if they should, how about grandchildren? How about great grandchildren? How about all the present day citizens of a nation whose elites commited crimes centuries ago? Should they all lose a little bit to compensate a group of people only entire verifable link with victims from long long ago is having been born in a present day geographical nation that contains an area were the victimization is thought to have occurred?

              Whilst I think group guilt and group victimhood for crimes commited centuries ago - as in the suggestion of the President Of Portugal - is complete total bollocks and a way to whitewash the ill gotten nature of the wealth of most of the Portuguese Old Money (including him, who is the son of a Minister in the time of Fascism, hence old money), I can see how, say, taking away things people inherited which were obtained by theft (for example, returning to the descendants of the owners old paintings stollen by the Nazis) is a fair and just thing to do.

                • Aceticon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I’m describing the reason why the statute of limitations came to be.

                  The reason is however more generic that just that, and provides explanation for things like not making the children pay for the crimes of their parents.

                  As for my overall point of it not being simple, notice how there are different statutes of limitations for different crimes.