In partnership with
Hello {{ first name | friends}},
Ghana has been making some moves. And it's not a surprise. As the country that had a year of return and welcomed descendants of enslaved people it's no surprise. One of the ones I'd been paying attention was the resolution to name the transatlantic slave trade (I'm using the original term rather than the more cumbersome but more accurate trafficking in enslaved Africans) as the "greatest crime against humanity."
The motion was proposed by Ghana's President John Dramani Mahama. It’s trying to ensure that the genocide and crime aren’t forgotten or denied. It also paves the way for reparatory justice.
As I've said before, I'm not a fan of comparing oppression, and yet it has to be said that the trade took place over centuries, affected some 12 million people (estimates vary) and the fallout is still with us today so there is no doubt that it is a huge crime and genocide.
However, that's not what I want to talk about today. The thing that sticks in my craw is how the vote went. And though I shouldn't have expected any different, it was nonetheless a slap in the face to see the results.
Opponents and Abstentions
Though 123 countries voted in favour, and the resolution passed, the USA, Israel and Argentina voted against the resolution. I wish I were surprised. Given the ongoing genocide in Palestine by the current leaders of Israel, and Argentina’s policy on blanqueamento (whitening) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it’s perhaps only to be expected.
And given the long history of oppression within the USA, (including Indigenous genocide and enslavement, among others), plus the complicity of the government in Israel’s actions, it's not to be wondered at.
Some of the abstentions weren't a surprise either, including the chief offenders in terms of colonisation: the UK, all 27 EU countries, along with Australia, Canada, and several Eastern European countries.
A Slap in the Face
But the justification for the abstention - so called - from the UK is another slap in the face.
It boils down to "it was legal at the time" and "we're not paying". The first is factually true, though that doesn't undermine the moral argument for making reparations. And of course, reparations WERE paid, but to the enslavers not the enslaved. That has never sat well with me.
Our history is full of crimes against humanity - but only SOME of the people oppressed by them have received some form of reparatory justice. With minor exceptions, that does not include the descendants of enslaved Africans.
I don't know what the result of this resolution will be, if anything. But at the very least, countries can't hide from the way they voted, which is at least something.
What do you think?
Thanks for reading,
Sharon
Additional resources
How Sugar Built Britain's Wealth by the Repair Campaign
Note: poll feedback is private - if you’re happy to share your thoughts in public, then please also leave a comment.
Every headline satisfies an opinion. Except ours.
Remember when the news was about what happened, not how to feel about it? 1440's Daily Digest is bringing that back. Every morning, they sift through 100+ sources to deliver a concise, unbiased briefing — no pundits, no paywalls, no politics. Just the facts, all in five minutes. For free.
What did you think of today's article?
Sharon Hurley Hall is an anti-racism educator, author of I’m Tired of Racism, and founder of the SHHARE anti-racism community and of Sharon’s Anti-Racism Newsletter, which provides tools and lived experiences to fuel systemic change. A seasoned professional writer and journalist, she leverages over 30 years of experience to mentor introverted leaders, and is co-founder and co-host of the Introvert Sisters Podcast. Her recent work focuses on helping Black and Global Majority women achieve high-impact visibility and professional influence without the exhaustion of performing extroversion.
© Sharon Hurley Hall, 2026. All Rights Reserved. This newsletter is published on beehiiv (affiliate link).