The West, led by the U.S., Refuses to Condemn Slavery—the Worst Crime in History, Says the U.N.
- 15 hours ago
- 4 min read
*On March 25, 2026, the world did something rare—it told the truth out loud. According to People Magazine, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to declare the transatlantic slave trade the “gravest crime against humanity,” with 123 nations standing in affirmation of what historians, descendants, and moral observers have long known. Yet, in a moment that exposes the fault lines of power and accountability, three nations—the United States, Israel, and Argentina—stood in opposition. The U.N. adopted this Ghanaian Resolution that’s recognized globally now.
As a social historian, I am compelled to say plainly: history is not just about what happened—it is about what we are willing to admit. And in this case, the majority of the world chose truth, while a powerful minority chose avoidance, legalism, and selective memory.
00:14:
The transatlantic slave trade was not merely one atrocity among many. It was a global system of racialized exploitation that lasted centuries, forcibly displaced millions of Africans, and redefined humanity itself into categories of ownership and disposability. Its scale, brutality, and longevity created the modern economic order—an order from which the United States has benefited more than any other nation.
The U.N. resolution rightly described it as a “definitive break in world history,” due to its systemic nature and enduring consequences that still shape global inequalities today. And yet, the United States rejected the resolution, arguing that it does not recognize a legal right to reparations for acts that were not illegal at the time.
But legality is not morality.
Scripture reminds us in Ecclesiastes 3:15: “God will call the past to account.” There is no statute of limitations on injustice in the eyes of God. What was permitted by law in one era may still be condemned by truth in another. History demands accountability—even when nations resist it.
And yet, we must also wrestle with a deeper contradiction. The United States is a nation that often prides itself on being righteous, law-abiding, and morally grounded. It is a nation that, at various moments, has attempted to address past wrongs—through limited restitution to Native Americans, apologies and reparations to Japanese Americans interned during World War II, economic pathways for immigrants, and public acknowledgments of discrimination against Irish and Latino communities.
These actions, while incomplete, demonstrate something important: the capacity for course correction.
So the question becomes—why stop short when it comes to African Americans, whose labor built the very foundation of the nation?
The answer lies not in ignorance, but in discomfort. Reparations for African slavery challenge the core narrative of American exceptionalism. They force a confrontation with the fact that the wealth of a nation was built not just through opportunity, but through exploitation on an unimaginable scale. The U.S. just gave the entire world the close up that millions of African Americans have experiences, witnessed and out
And in today’s political climate—a “Trumpian” era marked by the distortion of history and the politicization of truth—such confrontations are often avoided. Truth becomes negotiable. History becomes selective. And justice becomes delayed.
But the world has spoken.
Nations across Africa, the Caribbean, and the Global South have recognized that acknowledgment without repair is incomplete. Their collective voice reflects the moral clarity found in Isaiah 1:17: “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed.” This is not about creating a hierarchy of suffering—it is about recognizing the unique and foundational role that slavery played in shaping the modern world.
Israel’s opposition adds another layer of complexity. A nation whose identity is deeply tied to narratives of oppression and deliverance now finds itself resisting a global call for justice. Yet scripture reminds us in Romans 2:11: “For God does not show favoritism.” No nation—no matter its history—is beyond moral scrutiny.
Still, it must be said: God’s presence does not guarantee human righteousness. Nations can drift. Leaders can err. And even those who believe themselves aligned with divine purpose can find themselves on the wrong side of justice.
The abstention of 52 countries, including the United Kingdom and the European Union, reflects a different kind of hesitation—the willingness to acknowledge the horror of slavery without fully embracing the responsibility of repair. It is easier to remember than to restore. The abstention of 52 nations—anchored by the United Kingdom and all 27 member states of the European Union—reveals a global hesitation that is just as telling as outright opposition. Across Europe, and extending into parts of Asia and Latin America, nations acknowledged the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade, yet stopped short of fully endorsing reparatory justice. This is not neutrality—it is moral pause. It is the space between recognition and responsibility. And history has shown us that standing in that space too long is its own form of complicity.
123 nations = moral clarity
3 nations = opposition
52 nations = hesitation
That triangle is powerful—and historically accurate.
But history does not disappear. It evolves.
The legacy of the transatlantic slave trade is visible in the racial wealth gap, in educational disparities, in healthcare inequities, and in the ongoing struggle for full citizenship and dignity. These are not coincidences—they are consequences.
And yet, as a historian, I remain cautiously hopeful.
Because the same nation that resists today has, in other moments, moved toward justice—however imperfectly. The arc of American history is not linear, but it is not static either. Progress has always come through pressure, through protest, through truth-telling.
The Bible reminds us in Luke 12:2: “There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.” The truth about slavery—its scale, its brutality, its legacy—cannot be buried forever.
The U.N. resolution is not the end of the conversation; it is the beginning of a new global reckoning. It calls for collaboration, for dialogue, and for concrete steps toward reparatory justice.
And so, we stand at a crossroads.
Will the United States continue to rely on legal arguments to avoid moral responsibility? Or will it embrace its own highest ideals and move toward a more complete form of justice?
Because despite where we stand today, I believe this: we will get it right.
Not because history demands it—but because truth, justice, and accountability are ultimately unavoidable. And when that moment comes, it will not be seen as a concession, but as a correction.
Until then, the world has already made its judgment.
And history is watching.
Comments