It’s an internal problem first and foremost and progress needs to be made at home first. There are models to follow. New Zealand had been making slow and steady progress righting colonial wrongs. There have been many missteps and failures but the overall direction is positive. Important differences though - systematic and large scale slavery didn’t happen and the time frame during which the damage was done was shorter.

My point primarily is that, the discussion about reparations, is almost universally isolated to how much the US Government should have to pay. It almost universally excludes the nations that dominated the slave trade, such as Britain. Various rich, powerful European nations benefited massively from the economic output of the vast slavery they initiated and maintained, while suffering essentially none of the consequences, leaving the young US nation (and obviously numerous other nations in the Americas like Brazil or Haiti) to deal with those consequences ever since.

There's no scenario where you can propose the Netherlands should compensate slave descendants in the Americas, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars or more, where you're going to convince them to even have that conversation. People of the Netherlands today will simply tell you they had nothing to do with it, and should not be held responsible for past sins, and that's the end of the conversation (unless you want a small token sum to wipe away the guilt and grievance).

New Zealand’s problems due to colonisation stem almost entirely from the British government. It should be them paying to fix it and not New Zealand, with liability for actions that New Zealand pays for starting from when we governed ourselves. However this isn’t going to happen - Britain will never pay, so fixing it ourselves is the only course that repairs the damage that can be repaired. The sooner action is taken the better.

It’s simpler here because much of the harm done relates to land theft. Working out who you repay when people don’t necessarily know where they were kidnapped from and what they lost is not the same.

You didn't mention the African kings and chieftains who sold the captured members of rival tribes to the Europeans in exchange for guns and rum. The is a key link in the slave trade that is ignored in these discussions. If you think Europeans were walking into jungles and capturing slaves themselves, you are sorely misinformed.

Not sure I see any of that where I am but if you want to stretch that view, Africa gave us humans so who owes who? There is plenty out of Africa that has helped the rest of the world, why the blinkered view?

Edit: I see that your account is a throwaway that spends its time defending the slave trade.

Well that's actually precisely the problem and conversation that reparations always prompts.

Most people's hands are clean in a direct sense. Almost nobody in a developed nation has clean hands indirectly. Very few white people were slave owners or traders. How could one possibly account for the benefit a white (or black or asian) person in Britain today derives from British slavery in the 18th century? How could you possibly proportion reparations on any nation? Should a person that immigrated to Britain in 1978 from China, have to pay taxes to cover those reparations? Plausibly there's no way to deal with that fundamental issue that doesn't involve harming extremely large numbers of strictly innocent people, and the theoretical cost would be massive if you did attempt to do it (such that it would be guaranteed to be a tax on everyone across the board, regardless of race or guilt).

I've seen a lot of valid discussion of reparations in my lifetime. The topic itself is perfectly legitimate as a discussion matter. I've never once seen a practical way suggested that it could be implemented justly in regards to any of that nations that were responsible for the African slave trade.