Dear Editor,

Typically, when people think of slavery they think of enslaved black people from Africa.

Sadly, slavery predates the transatlantic slave trade and has been a feature of human society for thousands of years. It is, therefore, not hard to accept that slave labour has been used to build empires, nations, and tribes. With this in mind, I ask those who are advocating for reparation payments to descendants of African slaves: Why not be inclusive and make payments to all slave descendants? Why only a select group?

I am a descendant of slaves from Africa. On my father’s side my bloodline is from West Africa. On my mother’s side my bloodline is mixed. I have both West African blood and the blood of slaves who were delivered out of Egypt under Moses. So am I due two reparation payments because of my two distinct ancestral lines of slaves? No.

In contemplating the matter of slavery, the well-known nursery rhymeWhat Are Little Boys Made Of comes to mind. Some lines of the rhyme are: “What are little boys made of? What are little boys made of? Frogs and snails and puppy-dogs’ tails. That’s what little boys are made of. What are little girls made of? What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and all that’s nice. That’s what little girls are made of.”

To me, history has vindicated the nursery rhyme, as most ills from the dawn of time have been done by grown-up little boys — men.

Is slavery over? I would say no, as is evidenced by human trafficking and laws and policies which have been used (and can be used) to restrict freedom of choice and speech. I see three harbingers that point to possible loss of certain freedoms not far from now.

One is a monetary system in which cash is phased out and replaced by electronic payment methods or digital currency. Such a system would deprive you of privacy and control over your own money. It could even make you destitute because you could be debanked or your account frozen because of some deemed violation.

Another is linked to environmental issues. The recent thrust to prevent climate change, (notwithstanding that it can happen naturally via the sun’s activities or large volcanic eruptions) could cause you to lose your freedom to buy according to your preferences; for example, gas-powered items over electricity-powered items. It could also result in your freedom of movement being restricted in order to reduce your carbon footprint.

The third is naivety or gullibility. The April 1 airstrike by Israel on what is effectively Iranian soil has exposed the gullibility of many. The attack killed many Iranians. By International Law, Iran had the right to defend itself. How did it exercise its right? One, it gave notice of its intentions. Two, it bombed Israeli military sites instead of innocent, unarmed Israelis. In doing so it has demonstrated to the world what self-defence is.

Unfortunately, I have noticed that many people see Iran, the victim, as the aggressor. How is that possible? Such people are naïve and cannot see reality, and their naivety can cause them to lose many types of freedom before they realise what has happened.

Hugh Beckford

hugh_beckford@yahoo.com