Re reparations for slavery, you seem to not understand that no-one now living is responsible for any slavery unless they are currently involved in it, in e.g. the continent of Africa (c.9M slaves of various sorts e.g. slaves, forced marriage, child soldiers, child workers in colbalt mines etc.) in India (debt slaves) etc. No living person owes anyone, whoever they are descended from, reparations for slavery - and who gets paid?
What does this ^^ have to do with my post? (And to be clear systems of slavery, people being held in various systems of slavery exist on every single country on the planet - it's not just India and 'the continent of Africa' (the entire continent - named countries are beyond you). Trafficking remains a global problem).
My comment on reparations had nothing to do with suggesting there are people currently alive who bear responsibility for the TAST. If you read without emotion then you won't feel the need to assign words not said.
I do however repeat you are obtaining your information from social media. Your belief that it's a common mainstream view that the British were the first slave traders, that CRT lead to some extremists celebrating to the October 7 examples are all theories posited by extremists on social media. Not true of any mainstream opinion.
The UK constitution has, since 1215, mandated that no-one should be deprived of legally owned property. In 1833 the UK government borrowed £20M to buy the slaves mostly from West Indian plantations in order to free them (they remained bond servants until 1838 mainly for economic reasons). The slaves were owned by the banks who had funded their purchase in the first place, under a regime that made slave owning legal (we may not like that, but that was the legal situation in the W. Indies, though not the UK). Not to pay the banks the money owed by plantation owners would have caused possibly world recession (20M was one-fifth of the UK's GDP in the 1830s) and certainly bankruptcy in the West Indies, which meant there would be no work for the freed slaves or anyone else.
It was not 'compensation' it was staving off recession by paying for legally purchased property - it sticks in our craw (and probably the craw of the British at the time) but it had to be done. The UK repaid the (rolled-over) loan c. 2015.
I have answered your 'oh, look around' point in another post but it irked me that you acccused me (a historian with several degrees) of getting information from social media, so I have bothered to refute you.
I am well aware of how the abolitionist movement and Britain's staged ending of it's involvement in chattel slavery (although not slavery itself, indentured servitude, a system of slavery, continued for quite some time) but it's laughable to claim it was not compensation. It was literally in the name with the intention to compensate slave owners for their loss of "property" (humans). And your point about "under a regime that made slave owning legal (we may not like that, but that was the legal situation in the W. Indies, though not the UK)" is asinine. Islands such as Barbados, Jamaica etc. were not independent nation states. They were British territories. To claim some form of moral superiority in that mainland Britain did not allow slavery is moot. None of the British owned plantations were in mainland Britain. The British owned Caribbean islands permitted slavery because Britain permitted them too. Your argument makes no sense. I really don't believe you are a historian with 'several degrees'. Not based on the above.