Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

£100 million to 'address past wrongs of slavery'

95 replies

Sausagenbacon · 12/01/2023 08:09

AIBU to think that the Anglican Church has lost it's mind?
Slavery was, as is (though the church isn't as interested in that) abhorrent. But how can you address historical wrongs by spending money?

OP posts:
tickychicky · 12/01/2023 16:04

Msstakes · 12/01/2023 08:18

It's about money because it is directly linked to an investment fund that made money through slavery.
Absolutely the right thing to do.

This

tickychicky · 12/01/2023 16:07

Sausagenbacon · 12/01/2023 13:51

I don't believe we can address past wrongs. That's all. We should focus on the present by ensuring that everyone has equal opportunities.

They aren't saying it's going to make it all better. They are saying they've profitted of slaves. The only morally right thing to do with that money is to somehow "give it back" the best they can.

tickychicky · 12/01/2023 16:10

Say you are anti animal testing and didnt research properly and accidentally invested in animal testing. Then you give the money and profit to an anti animal testing charity. It won't help the rabbits that have had the shampoo squirted in their eyes but it should help other rabbits

TodayInahurry · 12/01/2023 16:10

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

KnittedCardi · 12/01/2023 16:21

In terms of what they do with the cash, the UK already has several aid funds for the Caribbean nations, spending hundreds of millions on things like health, hospitals, roads, general infrastructure etc etc. Do we think that is enough to right past wrongs. As a nation, we are actually already pretty good at providing aid to developing countries especially those with whom we had previous "links" ie: colonial.

mimbleandlittlemy · 12/01/2023 16:30

Preggingswearingleggings · 12/01/2023 09:12

How can the UK possibly start giving money based on historical wrongs? I think the idea is ridiculous. Where would you stop? India and the trauma of partition? Ireland? Over one million died of famine in Ireland while food was being shipped to the UK. How does money put it right anyway? The British people now were not the same people alive at those times, so why should they be held accountable? I just think it's a stupid idea. Money won't put it right.

You do know the UK only finally paid off the compensation bill to the slave owners in 2014, don't you? So the UK has happily paid millions and millions to the people who owned the slaves and their descendants but not a penny to the slaves themselves. If the church wants to pay out £100m to descendants of slaves then that's a good thing. And it's the CofE's money through investments in the trade, not the UK's. It's the CofE that is trying to address the wrong, which, frankly, can't ever be righted.

Willyoujustbequiet · 12/01/2023 16:35

lifeinthehills · 12/01/2023 08:44

The wrongs of the past can't be righted, however they can be acknowledged and steps taken to amend ongoing damage. Many indigenous people all over the world face worse health, lower educational attainment, more poverty, as examples, because of the action and effect of being colonised or enslaved. Making an effort to acknowledge this and work towards bridging that gap is worth doing.

So have women though since time began.

Why is one group more worthy?

Rosamunde · 12/01/2023 16:43

I think it becomes really difficult when you can’t directly trace the profit and the victim. The point about Britain being bankrupt after the war is a good one and means that British taxpayers in general are no longer directly profiting from slavery. With the church there is a direct link to the original fund, but the link to the victims is less clear. This makes it hard to know where reparations should go but it needs to be done carefully to avoid spunking the lot on dubious education and consultancy. I think while they’re at it there should be a review of all former investments that may have resulted in harm.

atteatimeeverybodyagrees · 12/01/2023 16:48

What on earth is your beef with the anglians? They are doing the right thing it's their money if they want to try and do something it's better than them doing nothing and just lining their own pockets with the blood of slaves.

SammyScrounge · 12/01/2023 16:54

Sausagenbacon · 12/01/2023 08:22

But do you think that money can address historical wrongs from 2 centuries ago?

All parties are long dead, slavers and enslaved. The sins of the father cannot be blamed on the child. That would be unjust.

Ginmonkeyagain · 12/01/2023 17:04

As an aside what is interesting is far from being just a ruling class issue, many many ordinary people and organisations invested money in slavery. People of very modest means would sometimes buy an investment in a single slave, like today someone may have a few shares. It was seen as a perfectly fine investment vehicle for people of modest means to provide a small income or pension. I suppose because the slaves were on plantations in the West Indies it was out of sight out of mind.

I wonder what our descendants will find abhorrent about our lifestyles - probably the conditions of people that make our cheap tech and clothes I suspect. Or the casual way we pollute the environment to maintain convenient lifestyles.

LemonTT · 12/01/2023 17:05

SammyScrounge · 12/01/2023 16:54

All parties are long dead, slavers and enslaved. The sins of the father cannot be blamed on the child. That would be unjust.

Show quote history

Nobody is blaming sins on anyone. The Anglican Church has admitted that they as an institution financially benefited from a sin. It is giving some of that money back to address the injustice caused by slavery through generations.

Given the Anglican Church has branches communities throughout the commonwealth it can do that directly with communities. It is not a reparations or compensation fund.

They admitted a sin and are paying for it.

Ginmonkeyagain · 12/01/2023 17:06

I agree. It seems a reasonable decision for the church to take.

atteatimeeverybodyagrees · 12/01/2023 17:08

It's their money. They can do whatever they want.

Hawkins001 · 12/01/2023 17:08

Why are they not focusing on funding social programmes that can help in the present moment and here and now, rather than events in history ?

LemonTT · 12/01/2023 17:27

Hawkins001 · 12/01/2023 17:08

Why are they not focusing on funding social programmes that can help in the present moment and here and now, rather than events in history ?

They are. The intersection is huge. Something they have researched and established.

BabyOnBoard90 · 12/01/2023 17:51

nancy75 · 12/01/2023 12:45

the family continued to receive reparations from British government just up a decade ago

That's not actually right. The British govt at the time took out a huge loan to pay off the slave owners and it is the loan that was still being repaid. The families weren't still getting money.

Show quote history

Potato tomato

AbsolutePixels · 07/05/2023 20:26

I don't understand the people who moan about slave-owners being compensated by the Government 200 hundred years ago. It was realpolitik: that's what it took to secure abolition. Would they have preferred slavery to have continued on?

KnittedCardi · 08/05/2023 12:29

As all the former colonisers, and imperial powers, in Europe have targeted their overseas aid and development funds to their former colonies, does this get taken into account? Apologies and recognition of past wrongs is fine, but in pure monetary terms, I wonder how much has already been "reparated".

New posts on this thread. Refresh page