Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Cambridge University Slavery Research

133 replies

CallumDansTransitVan · 31/08/2023 17:42

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/31/ex-tory-mp-threatens-sue-cambridge-university-slavery-research-antoinette-sandbach

Read this article today & I'm sure it will bring mixed feelings. Interested to know other peoples thoughts on it.

My personal feeling is if I had been the lady in question. I would of ignored her name being included, as the likelihood was that the paper in question would of been fogotten about fairly quickly.
But I do believe she should not be outed for the actions of ancestors who were dead long before she came into existence. Nor do I see any justification for including her name on the paper.

Before anyone starts on oh but she has family wealth due to the history. None of these families were exactly paupers even before slavery.

Ex-Tory MP threatens to sue Cambridge University over slavery research

Student says he has been pressured to remove a reference to Antoinette Sandbach, a descendant of a slave merchant

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/31/ex-tory-mp-threatens-sue-cambridge-university-slavery-research-antoinette-sandbach

OP posts:
Scottishskifun · 31/08/2023 17:49

I'm kind of in agreement with her she has only been named as she's a public figure.

My great great great grandfather ran a mill in the North West of England with terrible conditions and often using people and children from the work house
barely paying them and many would have died. I only know this because an Uncle did a full family tree back generations.
Am I responsible for my great great great Grandfather along the same veins..... I don't think so and nor would someone publish it as it wouldn't really mean anything as I'm not in the public eye.

midgemadgemodge · 31/08/2023 17:50

How many people in total were named?

jimmyhill · 31/08/2023 17:50

I thought Tories were all in favour of academic freedom?

LylaLee · 31/08/2023 17:52

Streisand effect

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect?wprov=sfla1

CuriousPorg · 31/08/2023 17:54

I'm in agreement with her because in any other discipline you would need to go through an ethics review and usually not name 'participants'. I realise this is secondary data but bringing a descendent of an original data set makes this personal. Usually pseudonyms are used to hide the identity of people and organisations in these type of cases. As she didn't give her consent to be named in this research then I'd say it should be redacted.

Scottishskifun · 31/08/2023 17:56

midgemadgemodge · 31/08/2023 17:50

How many people in total were named?

Just her it would appear

midgemadgemodge · 31/08/2023 18:15

That seems unnecessary- no wonder she felt singled out

thecatsthecats · 31/08/2023 18:20

I'm not sure this falls under Right to be Forgotten, because she didn't do anything, and nor did anyone else, to bring the information to the public's attention prior to this paper.

But it sure as hell doesn't fit within any usual grounds for this level of intrusion, and it's not required for the paper itself. The ethical application of data protection law here is pants.

MrTiddlesTheCat · 31/08/2023 18:21

What is she suing him for? If it's factually correct surely she doesn't have a leg to stand on, regardless of how much she dislikes it.

parietal · 31/08/2023 18:31

My ancestors also have a very dodgy track record and have probably done some awful things. If I were named in connection, I'd say 'yes those are my ancestors but I'm not them' and leave it alone. Suing definitely makes the issue much bigger.

Alycidon · 31/08/2023 18:34

She can't be held responsible for the actions of her ancestors - I don't think she should have been named.

thistimelastweek · 31/08/2023 18:35

Boo hoo her.

IWFH · 31/08/2023 18:45

It's a really interesting one this and I'm in two minds about it.
While I don't believe that the sins of the fathers should be visited on their descendants; it would appear that a substantial amount of the family wealth is as a result of profits made through slavery, including (quite possibly) the holiday homes now let by her business.
Assuming that this is factually correct I'm not sure why this should be kept a secret.

The stupid thing she has done is protesting about it. All that has done is to ensure that it is now very visibly in the public domain.

midgemadgemodge · 31/08/2023 18:46

It's not that the way she has benefitted shouldn't be talked about

But I suspect there are hundreds of successful people who are in a similar position - why pick on her in particular

Original poster
CallumDansTransitVan · 31/08/2023 18:49

MrTiddlesTheCat · 31/08/2023 18:21

What is she suing him for? If it's factually correct surely she doesn't have a leg to stand on, regardless of how much she dislikes it.

I'd imagine shw would of approached the University and requested first. I can see a claim for personal loss due to her being a public figure and that she may lose eg her good name by association.

Parietal. I imagine most of us if we dug back a couple of generations will have relatives we would rather keep quiet about. I very much doubt the author of the paper will have posted every skeleton he has in his own closet.

OP posts:
WeaselCheeks · 31/08/2023 18:50

It's a tough one - on one hand, we have a lot of people in this country who are woefully ignorant of where a good chunk of Britain's wealth came from, and see slavery as a 'American issue'. I think that historical research into this sort of stuff is important, and, like any academic discipline, research and conclusions normally need to be backed up by published evidence.

In the other, I can see how it'd be annoying to have your name dragged under the spotlight for the crimes of your ancestors. However, she is still benefitting from those crimes via inherited wealth - but so are a lot of the country's elite, whether chunks of that wealth was gained by slavery, or by running factories and mills during the industrial revolution that had tiny children killed and maimed by machinery (because the occasional death of a child worker cost less than shutting the machines down for their safety).

Perhaps a better response would be to denounce those ancestors, or just keep quiet, rather than trying to censor academic research and invoke the Streisand Effect.

Original poster
CallumDansTransitVan · 31/08/2023 19:03

WeaselCheeks · 31/08/2023 18:50

It's a tough one - on one hand, we have a lot of people in this country who are woefully ignorant of where a good chunk of Britain's wealth came from, and see slavery as a 'American issue'. I think that historical research into this sort of stuff is important, and, like any academic discipline, research and conclusions normally need to be backed up by published evidence.

In the other, I can see how it'd be annoying to have your name dragged under the spotlight for the crimes of your ancestors. However, she is still benefitting from those crimes via inherited wealth - but so are a lot of the country's elite, whether chunks of that wealth was gained by slavery, or by running factories and mills during the industrial revolution that had tiny children killed and maimed by machinery (because the occasional death of a child worker cost less than shutting the machines down for their safety).

Perhaps a better response would be to denounce those ancestors, or just keep quiet, rather than trying to censor academic research and invoke the Streisand Effect.

I agree wholeheartedly we should all learn history warts and all. But again to do the research properly, You need to look at how these poor slaves became into the property of European or American slave traders. A great many were captued by other Black African tribes and sold to the traders for guns, spices, tobacco decorative items etc.

Has anybody ever done research into family trees of wealthy or influential African families.

OP posts:
MrsSquirrel · 31/08/2023 19:05

A video of a talk by a PhD student? Who would have noticed? It certainly wouldn't get an article in the Guardian, let alone a MN thread. Complete Streisand effect.

bongsuhan · 31/08/2023 19:07

"Al Nasir claims he has been pressed to remove a reference in his work to Antoinette Sandbach, a former MP for Eddisbury in Cheshire, who is a descendant of Samuel Sandbach and beneficiary of his estate."

She seems to be literally still benefiting from slavery.

Mrburnshound · 31/08/2023 19:10

It's a bit Streisand effect isn't it.
Although he was singling her out unfairly. My ancestors were all the downtrodden poor people who were slaves/indentured servants/ many other non fun things however we found out a ggg father was basically a massive shit, I wouldn't want my name being linked negatively with that- I'm quite nice 🤣

Moooooooooooooooooo · 31/08/2023 19:12

CallumDansTransitVan · 31/08/2023 19:03

I agree wholeheartedly we should all learn history warts and all. But again to do the research properly, You need to look at how these poor slaves became into the property of European or American slave traders. A great many were captued by other Black African tribes and sold to the traders for guns, spices, tobacco decorative items etc.

Has anybody ever done research into family trees of wealthy or influential African families.

Show quote history

@CallumDansTransitVan the most informed and sensible answer/statement I have ever seen on mn.

Diffrent · 31/08/2023 19:13

CallumDansTransitVan · 31/08/2023 19:03

I agree wholeheartedly we should all learn history warts and all. But again to do the research properly, You need to look at how these poor slaves became into the property of European or American slave traders. A great many were captued by other Black African tribes and sold to the traders for guns, spices, tobacco decorative items etc.

Has anybody ever done research into family trees of wealthy or influential African families.

Show quote history

I imagine that the Cambridge PhD student probably has "done the research properly".

Skinthin · 31/08/2023 19:14

CuriousPorg · 31/08/2023 17:54

I'm in agreement with her because in any other discipline you would need to go through an ethics review and usually not name 'participants'. I realise this is secondary data but bringing a descendent of an original data set makes this personal. Usually pseudonyms are used to hide the identity of people and organisations in these type of cases. As she didn't give her consent to be named in this research then I'd say it should be redacted.

But She’s not a participant in the research ???!!

shocked by the responses here. YABU OP, this is an academic paper simply reporting facts.

Skinthin · 31/08/2023 19:14

Moooooooooooooooooo · 31/08/2023 19:12

@CallumDansTransitVan the most informed and sensible answer/statement I have ever seen on mn.

Show quote history

You what??

Diffrent · 31/08/2023 19:17

Skinthin · 31/08/2023 19:14

But She’s not a participant in the research ???!!

shocked by the responses here. YABU OP, this is an academic paper simply reporting facts.

Show quote history

Indeed. Also puzzled by the posters saying "it's not her fault, she didn't do it!!", when I don't think the student is saying she did, is he? If she's still benefitting from slavery money, she's still benefitting from slavery money. So are loads of people. It's the way of the world. I wonder if the real reason she's upset is because she's worried about reparation claims?