Should the UK say 'sorry' for slavery and pay reparations?

DadaKopf

I think this is a really excellent article about the debate currently ranging in the UK about slavery. It's 200 years since the UK abolished the slave trade, and many want the UK to say "sorry", others even want reparations. Arguments on all sides are passionate, and, having been in the UK last week, I got a flavour of how passionate - and, IMHO, misguided - many people's reactions are.

I have to say, debating is with some people last week, I'm in thorough agreement with this article.

It's not about an apology, or guilt, or moral superiority, it's about acknowledging that today's generation got to where it is on the back of 2 centuries of exploitation, and it continues to be the case. A real apology, in my book, would be for the UK, and the world, to get serious about ending poverty and injustice. Then we could judge people on their actions, not their words.

It is contradictory to condemn slavery and yet celebrate the empire

The horrors of the past were not momentary lapses of judgment that can be redeemed through public remorse

Priyamvada Gopal

Why, demanded Jeremy Paxman recently, should he feel "guilty" about the slave trade, given that he wasn't alive then and that his "ancestors were peasants"? He is not alone in asking this question. Many Britons wonder, not unreasonably, why and how they should "apologise" for a crime they did not physically perpetrate.

Though driven by an honourable impulse, campaigners dressed up in instruments of bondage are in danger of reducing the complicated project of reckoning with history into a facile confessional moment. ("So Sorry" T-shirts are uncomfortably close to pastiche.) Similarly, the theological mode of "atonement" which defined the high-profile service at Westminster Abbey last week (challenged by a lone protester, Toyin Agbetu), might actually undermine the case for facing up to the past squarely.

Atonement-speak obscures the distinction between "guilt" - a private, often religious emotion connected to personal wrongdoing - and a more demanding and necessary move: acknowledging that our lives are shaped by historical processes through which we have accrued benefits at the expense of others. As the service itself demonstrated, the atonement mode of acknowledging the past comes complete with built-in absolution, a rhetorical clean chit that you can give yourself without further consideration of how the past lives on in the present, and how you might redress material inequities inherited from that time.

This dual mode of atonement and celebration is also profoundly self-regarding, reinforcing the idea that white Christian Britons are the main agents of moral sensibility, courage and historical transformation. We are told by, among others, Bishop Nazir Ali - who routinely plays the role of loyal defender of the White Man's Burden - that Britain should be remembered not for its part in slavery but for its role in ending the trade. Apparently we shouldn't feel responsibility for the past but are allowed, indeed exhorted, to feel pride in it. We are to distance ourselves from those who actively participated in slavery, but we can rightfully claim an abolitionist lineage.

No one can deny that Britain, like other cultures, has great traditions of courageous activism, but to cast this bicentennial year largely as a "celebration" of white abolitionists once again marginalises others to whom this history also belongs. Ali opines that it was specifically Christian beliefs that brought about the end of slavery. While Christianity, like other religions, has a subversive side to it, the bishop might recall that evangelical Christianity was also used as justification for enslaving or colonising those regarded as heathen.

This commemorative year is shaped by a contradiction: it emerges at a time when we are being enjoined to celebrate the legacies of the British empire and "British values". But recalling slavery renders this a somewhat fraught process. The solution is to separate slavery from empire, and to emphasise the ending of the slave trade rather than the continuation of exploitation by other means. Conveniently excised from this account is not only the fierce resistance put up by the enslaved and the colonised, but also the fact that 1807 did not mark the end either of slavery itself or of the exploitation of cheap labour.

Following formal emancipation in 1838 and appeals by owners, the sugar plantations of the Caribbean were productively worked by government-approved schemes of indentured labour - a form of debt bondage involving deception, pitiful wages, arduous and often fatal journeys, harsh working conditions, confinement, physical abuse and, in most cases, no promised return to the homeland. This is how millions of "coolies" - Indian and Chinese labourers - arrived in the Caribbean and parts of Africa. The history of slavery is inseparable from the history of empire: it is contradictory to celebrate the latter while claiming to condemn the former.

We know that government and politicians stop short of a full apology because they are aware of legal implications that would strengthen the case for reparations. Moreover, reparations themselves would force us to face up to the fact that the horrors of the past were not merely momentary lapses of moral judgment that can be redeemed through public enactments of remorse. They were systematic projects of national self-enrichment at the expense of other societies. A clear acknowledgement of this fact would deprive Britain of the cherished historical mantle of the "moral empire", the coloniser with a benevolent mission. Indeed, the argument that Britain would stamp out slavery was frequently invoked to make the moral case for colonising Africa.

When Anthony Gifford made an eloquent case for reparations in the Lords, objectors argued that Britain already does much to "help" African countries. To pay reparations would be to acknowledge that you are not so much moral beacon and "rescuer" as culpable party. It would mean conceding the obvious: that in economic terms, it is the "developed" world that is indebted to the "developing" world. But the powerful moral and strategic position of being creditor and benevolent dispenser of aid is too useful for Britain and other western nations to give up. A real apology would involve not only the cancellation of so-called "third world debt", itself the consequence of colonial depredation, but also some form of reparations (including relabelling "aid" as such).

Given that slavery and indentured labour were part of a philosophy of exploitative profit-making which the writer Barry Unsworth critically calls "sacred hunger", we might also use this commemorative year to ask ourselves to what extent our lifestyles continue to appease this appetite. Profiting from cheap labour is far from a thing of the past: witness the continuing movement of large corporations to poor countries where they can pay low wages in abusive working conditions.

Such self-critical reflections apply to descendants of the enslaved and the colonised as well. The Antiguan writer Jamaica Kincaid reminds her fellow descendants of slaves to reflect on "who captured and delivered [their ancestors] to the European master", and the ways in which such betrayals persist in their own societies. She calls for a "more demanding relationship" to the past, where we ask ourselves how we got to where we are and why we live the way we do.

These are more productive questions than the narcissistic binaries of "shame/guilt" versus "pride/celebration" which lead to contortions such as Martin Kettle's suggestion on these pages that, shameful horrors aside, slavery, genocide and colonialism were part of historical processes that were "to the net benefit of humankind". (Unless, of course, one defines humankind as essentially European.) Undertaking the challenge of answering Kincaid's questions might be the best form of unifying homage we can pay to all those who have questioned, resisted and triumphed before us.

Priyamvada Gopal teaches in the English faculty at Cambridge University and is the author of Literary Radicalism in India

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2047841,00.html

DadaKopf

Oh, here's another interesting slavery-related article.

Fratton Fred

Should Britain make an apology, yes I believe it should. I also believe Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, the USA and every other country that was involved in the slave trade should apologise. The problem I see is that the question of reparations keeps coming up, as stated in the article.

It’s such a complicated question that it takes away from the simple fact that the countries that were formally involved in the slave trade should apologise, but until it is separated from the subject of reparations, I fear it will never come.

uberpixie

Fratton Fred wrote:

Should Britain make an apology, yes I believe it should. I also believe Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, the USA and every other country that was involved in the slave trade should apologise. The problem I see is that the question of reparations keeps coming up, as stated in the article.

It’s such a complicated question that it takes away from the simple fact that the countries that were formally involved in the slave trade should apologise, but until it is separated from the subject of reparations, I fear it will never come.

I agree with the above but I also feel the relatives of the natives that sold off people of their own race to the slave traders should also apologise.

People seem to blinkers on about that particular subject.:rolleyes:

InFront

I'll add to the disagreement by completely disagreeing with all of the above:p

Nobody should apologise: for one thing there's nobody left to apologise to, for another there's no guilty party to make such an apology 'into the dark'.
It's as daft as the British apologising for the Irish plantations (something some Irish people would still like to hear, apparently), it comes across as a niggling little settlement of an old score, getting the ball into the net after the whistle is blown; it's pointless, self-pitiful and it wallows in the mistakes of the dead. Who benefits?

That's not to say that an acknowlegement is a bad thing in itself: an acknowledgement simply accepts these mistakes. But taking on an inherited responsiblity, or an inherited shame of nations, sounds hollow and insincere. It's rubbish and it's almost embarrassing - for both sides. I don't think an apology should be sought or given.

karen3212

I'm not sure about an apology.

For me admitting your part in the trade would be more important and making an estimate of how much was gained, by certain countries, from the slave trade.

I'm not sure if there are monuments and sculptures(of slaves) in the UK showing their part in the trade. One of the things I liked about Germany(among many) was the many sculptures and plates with information about the holocaust, clearly admitting what had been done.

Whim

I really don't see how it would make any difference, or what the current government has to do with it. Don't apologise for something people who had nothing little to do with you did. It would make much more sense to actually improve life for those affected. What's an apology going to do? It's like when Tony Blair apologised for the famine. Why was it his responsibility?

It's these governments' responsibility to end poverty but not apologise for those who started it. If anything they should apologise for not doing enough yet.

mike65

More nonsense of our times. I feel your pain. Its fine to acknowledge past wrongs but for the current government to apologise for the actions of many governments from over two hundred years+ ago is foolish beyond words.

I'd love to see them work out the reparations too.

Mike.

SuperSean11

No i dont think any country should a lot worse things have happened than slavery and times moved on and so has everyone;)

purple'n'gold

Yes they should apologise, and so should the people of Rome, (the Roman Empire had a few slaves in their time).

Fratton Fred

purplengold wrote:

Yes they should apologise, and so should the people of Rome, (the Roman Empire had a few slaves in their time).

what about those nasty Irish, I think they owe an apology to the Welsh

purple'n'gold

Fratton Fred wrote:

what about those nasty Irish, I think they owe an apology to the Welsh

Absolutely, that young Patrick chap did not ask to be stolen and sold to some pig farmer.

FTA69

SuperSean11 wrote:

lot worse things have happened than slavery and times moved on and so has everyone;)

What was worse than slavery? A trade that killed millions and raped an entire continent? You say times have moved on, but the legacy of colonialism and slavery is still playing out in Africa today. An apology would go far in aiding reconciliation.

Whim

FTA69 wrote:

What was worse than slavery? A trade that killed millions and raped an entire continent? You say times have moved on, but the legacy of colonialism and slavery is still playing out in Africa today. An apology would go far in aiding reconciliation.

No it wouldn't. There's much to reconciliate and slavery was one of the most horrible humans have done, I'll agree, but what will an apology do? Will it stop people starving or the AIDS epidemic? Clearly not. People should get over themselves and do something that actually matters.

Erin Go Brath

Whim wrote:

No it wouldn't. There's much to reconciliate and slavery was one of the most horrible humans have done, I'll agree, but what will an apology do? Will it stop people starving or the AIDS epidemic? Clearly not. People should get over themselves and do something that actually matters.

Yeh, lets brush the past under the carpet instead. :rolleyes:

If people can't admit the truth about the past what hope do we have for the future?

is_that_so

Considering how long slavery has been with us and still is in some parts of the world, I can't see that any one nation should be blamed. Invariably the debate revolves around the very insidious trade to the West Indies and other parts of the New World. But there are very few nations or empires anywhere that were untouched by it at some point in their history.

The problem with reparations is that we are into a blame game of "sins of the father".
What is to be celebrated and remembered is that somewhere along the road we woke up and said this is not the way things should be.

SuperSean11

FTA69 wrote:

What was worse than slavery? A trade that killed millions and raped an entire continent? You say times have moved on, but the legacy of colonialism and slavery is still playing out in Africa today. An apology would go far in aiding reconciliation.

I dont no the holocaust Heroshima Pearl Harbour (Unprovoced Attack) twin towers (still no apology from bin laden)

robinph

Erin Go Brath wrote:

If people can't admit the truth about the past what hope do we have for the future?

What is not being admitted to though?

Nothing is being denied about slavery, but people are refusing to apologise for something that they did not do.

Whim

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Yeh, lets brush the past under the carpet instead. :rolleyes:

If people can't admit the truth about the past what hope do we have for the future?

It's not about denying the past. You're confusing not apologising for not doing something with Holocaust denial.

is_that_so

FTA69 wrote:

What was worse than slavery? A trade that killed millions and raped an entire continent? You say times have moved on, but the legacy of colonialism and slavery is still playing out in Africa today. An apology would go far in aiding reconciliation.

I wasn't aware that Africa was in need of reconciliation. As regards the raping of the continent, that's a fairly recent phenomenon brought about by the home-grown monsters that came in after independence.
I think you'll also find if you look into African history they were not averse to having slaves themselves, as I've commented above.

stormkeeper

It's really a case that most countries in the world have - as others have said before me - been involved with the slave trade. Why should just Britain apoligise though? Other countries are just as guilty as the British were, although all this said, for most of those countries, the slave trade ceased centuries ago, and no one involved in it is alive today. While I'm still on the subject of slavery... what about those sex slaves that are being trafficked around the world as well, or the fact that even today slavery is still going on within countries of the developed world. There's a lot of people who are slaves that we don't even know about.

The people whose ancestors were slaves are no longer slaves, and are free... yet people seem to forget that there's still plenty of people out there who are still slaves, be it sexual or labour. I do think reparations are quite pointless though. For the most part, the people whose ancestors were slaves centuries ago have done alright for themselves and are pretty much on equal footing with everyone else. There's enough troubles in the world as it stands without people trying to make a quick buck off the government.

Wouldn't those "reparation costs" be much better off going towards ending poverty (be it local or international), as well as going to the authorities to crack down on the current slave trade (wehever it may be)?

I'm sorry if some of that seems incoherant, but I was pretty much doing a brain dump. I hope at least some of it makes sense though.

Erin Go Brath

@ to whim and robinph

This paragraph from the Ops attached article sums it up for me:

"the theological mode of "atonement" which defined the high-profile service at Westminster Abbey last week (challenged by a lone protester, Toyin Agbetu), might actually undermine the case for facing up to the past squarely.

Atonement-speak obscures the distinction between "guilt" - a private, often religious emotion connected to personal wrongdoing - and a more demanding and necessary move: acknowledging that our lives are shaped by historical processes through which we have accrued benefits at the expense of others. As the service itself demonstrated, the atonement mode of acknowledging the past comes complete with built-in absolution, a rhetorical clean chit that you can give yourself without further consideration of how the past lives on in the present, and how you might redress material inequities inherited from that time."

This is a fairly typical attitude it seems to me. Fair enough people might not be denying the happenings of the past as such, but people don't really want to acknowledge it. The premise of the whole article is that, fair enough current Britons weren't involved in slavery, but Britain benefitted from and still benefits from the fruits of slavery and colonisation. As such, I believe the UK government has a duty to say sorry for slavery. Reparations should also be forthcoming, although the form they would take, and how it would be dispensed would be tricky.

layke

mike65 wrote:

More nonsense of our times. I feel your pain. Its fine to acknowledge past wrongs but for the current government to apologise for the actions of many governments from over two hundred years+ ago is foolish beyond words.

I'd love to see them work out the reparations too.

Mike.

Agreed, we are living in a world gone PC mad. It was different times with different mentalitites. Apologising is going to accomplish what exactly? Or make what difference to peoples lives?

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

@ to whim and robinph

This paragraph from the Ops attached article sums it up for me:

"the theological mode of "atonement" which defined the high-profile service at Westminster Abbey last week (challenged by a lone protester, Toyin Agbetu), might actually undermine the case for facing up to the past squarely.

Atonement-speak obscures the distinction between "guilt" - a private, often religious emotion connected to personal wrongdoing - and a more demanding and necessary move: acknowledging that our lives are shaped by historical processes through which we have accrued benefits at the expense of others. As the service itself demonstrated, the atonement mode of acknowledging the past comes complete with built-in absolution, a rhetorical clean chit that you can give yourself without further consideration of how the past lives on in the present, and how you might redress material inequities inherited from that time."

This is a fairly typical attitude it seems to me. Fair enough people might not be denying the happenings of the past as such, but people don't really want to acknowledge it. The premise of the whole article is that, fair enough current Britons weren't involved in slavery, but Britain benefitted from and still benefits from the fruits of slavery and colonisation. As such, I believe the UK government has a duty to say sorry for slavery. Reparations should also be forthcoming, although the form they would take, and how it would be dispensed would be tricky.

and it would also be a good opportunity to embarrass the British government:rolleyes:

what do you mean by reparations? to whom? for what? how far back do you go?

Britain took control of Trinidad in 1797, not long before the end of slavery so who pays reparations for the slaves taken to Trinidad, the British because it was a former colony, the Spanish because they controlled Trinidad for 300 years or the French because they took most of the slaves there?

Who gets paid, the Jamaican because 300 years ago his forefather was sold to British slave traders by his neighbouring village, or his forefathers former country because they sold him in the first place? how much is paid, what is their loss and how do you measure it? would that person have had a better life in the Ivory Coast or in Jamaica?

I joked earlier, but how much do Ireland pay for Saint Patrick, one of the most famous slaves of all.

What level of reparations would Ireland be expected to pay, how many Irish people were involved in the buying and selling of people or because it was done whilst Ireland was part of the UK can Ireland conveniently forget that they have undoubtedly benefitted from it as well.

Reparations are not just tricky, they are impossible and as far as I can see, the only people who would really benefit would be the lawyers arguing the millions of cases.

DadaKopf

Erin Go Brath wrote:

This is a fairly typical attitude it seems to me. Fair enough people might not be denying the happenings of the past as such, but people don't really want to acknowledge it. The premise of the whole article is that, fair enough current Britons weren't involved in slavery, but Britain benefitted from and still benefits from the fruits of slavery and colonisation. As such, I believe the UK government has a duty to say sorry for slavery. Reparations should also be forthcoming, although the form they would take, and how it would be dispensed would be tricky.

It's obviously a very tricky issue. I tend to think that 'saying sorry' isn't the right move if it's not accompanied with something substantive. If Blair woke up tomorrow and said 'sorry', people could claim the issue is over. But as a few people in the thread have said, slavery continues today, and as you rightly point out, the rich world got there on the backs of centuries of exploitation which continues today.

For the same reason, I don't see much sense in reparations. It's still not certain how many slaves there were, and can you really put a monetary price on generations of human suffering? Most of all, if reparations were to be made, it'd be similar to a public apology - pay them off and do nothing.

Many bring up the point of Africans enslaving other Africans, which they use as an excuse to not even apologise. I find this the worst insult of all. Yes, it happened, but prior to Westerners arriving, slavery was rare and not of the horrendous kind - chattal slavery - that Europeans engaged in. And, yes, it's said that Africans capturing other Africans to sell into slavery form one root of the 'African Crisis' today. But both of these have their causes in European interference and exploitation. At the heart of it is the injustice that Europe did to its colonies through its 200-year incorporation into the global economy - an abuse of power achieved through economic and political exploitation.

However, I do think restitution is due.

Real acknowledgement, IMHO, would come in the form of global economic, political and social reform that truly pave the way for developing countries, exploited for centuries, to genuinely exist as equals in the world.

And that change can come about if people will it to happen through actions like changing lifestyles, donating to development charities, engaging in national political processes, buying and working ethically, etc. By acting in solidarity with people in developing countries who are the inheritors of slavery.

And, maybe, it's not up to Britain to say sorry. Maybe it's up to descendants of slaves to forgive. But forgiveness should not come so easily.

joolsveer

Few people today realize that from 1600 to 1699, far more Irish were sold as slaves than Africans.

There is an interesting article at http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78714. I always knew that Irish slaves were sent to Jamaica and Montserrat but I had no idea that so many Irish people were exported to North and South America as well as to the West Indies.

Although the Africans and Irish were housed together and were the property of the planter owners, the Africans received much better treatment, food and housing. In the British West Indies the planters routinely tortured white slaves for any infraction. Owners would hang Irish slaves by their hands and set their hands or feet afire as a means of punishment. To end this barbarity, Colonel William Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging the importation of Negro slaves on the grounds that, "as the planters would have to pay much more for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was wanting in the case of (Irish)...." many of whom, he charged, were killed by overwork and cruel treatment. African Negroes cost generally about 20 to 50 pounds Sterling, compared to 900 pounds of cotton (about 5 pounds Sterling) for an Irish. They were also more durable in the hot climate, and caused fewer problems. The biggest bonus with the Africans though, was they were NOT Catholic, and any heathen pagan was better than an Irish Papist. Irish prisoners were commonly sentenced to a term of service, so theoretically they would eventually be free. In practice, many of the slavers sold the Irish on the same terms as prisoners for servitude of 7 to 10 years.

Erin Go Brath

DadaKopf wrote:

Real acknowledgement, IMHO, would come in the form of global economic, political and social reform that truly pave the way for developing countries, exploited for centuries, to genuinely exist as equals in the world.

And that change can come about if people will it to happen through actions like changing lifestyles, donating to development charities, engaging in national political processes, buying and working ethically, etc. By acting in solidarity with people in developing countries who are the inheritors of slavery.

This is probably the most sensible idea I've heard so far. Reparations would be too unwieldy and probably undo-able in reality. Laywers, and tribunals and suchforth. I think that all European Countries involved in slavery and colonisation should be to the forefront in this. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Holland amongst others have a lot to answer for.

Fratton Fred

joolsveer wrote:

There is an interesting article at http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78714. I always knew that Irish slaves were sent to Jamaica and Montserrat but I had no idea that so many Irish people were exported to North and South America as well as to the West Indies.

I'm not saying this is not true, but it is new to me.

I do note however, that the same author also talks about Irish Holocaust denial being part of the campaign against Sinn Fein.:rolleyes:

DadaKopf

Erin Go Brath wrote:

This is probably the most sensible idea I've heard so far. Reparations would be too unwieldy and probably undo-able in reality. Laywers, and tribunals and suchforth. I think that all European Countries involved in slavery and colonisation should be to the forefront in this. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Holland amongst others have a lot to answer for.

I should probably have added that former colonialist countries use this reason as an excuse to use aid to further exploit developing countries. EPAs are one example. In a sense, the will is there, but the flesh is weak.

Akrasia

mike65 wrote:

More nonsense of our times. I feel your pain. Its fine to acknowledge past wrongs but for the current government to apologise for the actions of many governments from over two hundred years+ ago is foolish beyond words.

I'd love to see them work out the reparations too.

Mike.

well there's no way they could fully pay for the harm they caused or compensate for the unpaid labour, but there is one thing they should do, Cancel all "third world" debt immediately (which is unrepayable and amounts to intergenerational "debt bondage" which is another word for slavery.
The U.S. and U.K. governments should also cancel the corporate charters of any corporations that use sweatshop labour. Corporations do not have a right to exist, they exist by the grace of our courts who can withdraw their charter (articles of incorporation) at any moment if they are found to be in breach of the common good.

(in reality, after abolition, the slave traders and slave owners received vast sums of money in compensation for the loss of their 'assets'. The slaves got nothing.)

Fratton Fred

Akrasia wrote:

The U.S. and U.K. governments should also cancel the corporate charters of any corporations that use sweatshop labour. Corporations do not have a right to exist, they exist by the grace of our courts who can withdraw their charter (articles of incorporation) at any moment if they are found to be in breach of the common good.

yes they should. Ethical sourcing is something close to m heart and fortunately most global companies are now doing this. I have studied what companies such as Gap, Nike and Nokia do with regards to their "Third World" suppliers and their work is commendable (now), however there are still a lot of companies not doing enough. There are also, for example, farmers in Africa using forced labour so it is not just corporations exploiting people.

It is important to note, that just because a company uses labour in the developing world, they are not necessarlty exploiting that labour, just the economics of doing so. Companies will always manufacture where it is most economically viable and if done properly can bring prosperity, Ireland is a good example of this.

as for third world debt, I thought the G8 summit in St Andrews agreed to take positive steps in removing it, they seem to be moving very slowly.