Cambridge University Slavery Research

[CallumDansTransitVan]

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.

In the BBC page you link it states she objected to this part:
In emails sent to the University of Cambridge, Ms Sandbach questions the accuracy of elements of Mr Al Nasir's research, including the claim that the Sandbach family made all their wealth from slavery.

Now that clearly isn't the case. As I stated in the OP, they would have money long before any slavery connection.

I agree with whoever commented on the Industrial Revolution. It really did bring real prosperity to the UK. And as others say, it wasn't kind on those working in it.

mathanxiety
I'm sorry you feel that way. To research anything properly, even the facts & history that may not fit the rhetoric you are supporting should be included. I don't think facts like above are common enough knowledge when the issue of slavery is discussed.

It’s true though. Why aren’t we ever allowed to discuss these matters honestly? Just like the one of the very first men to own slaves in The South was a black man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

you can’t leave out the bits you don’t like to suit your preferred political narrative.

Why aren’t we ever allowed to discuss these matters

Literally no one is stopping you. You're allowed to read, write, talk about them. Start a thread about it. Start a podcast. Other people will counter with their own opinions, definitions, facts, whatever. But you are not being prevented from doing anything.

Is that a serious post? He’s an historian.😂

I havent seen it to be honest, but having learned about it a bit over the last few days, I would see why its brought up, it went on for longer and with a wider reach than the transatlantic trade. I dont see it as whataboutery at all. Im not quite sure why its not talked about in the same way.

I do worry about all these posters who are being forced to engage in topics that they aren't interested in. It's a massive safeguarding red flag IMO.

But she benefits from their financial legacy. Is that OK?

But then people like you dismiss it as “whataboutery” and suggest that these facets of the discussion are only being discussed to detract from The Main Issue - ie your preferred political analysis. Overall implication being that’s the only one that counts and only “racists” would think otherwise and wish to study the entire picture.

My extremely limited understanding is they're linked but different. It come across as whataboutery because sometimes it is introduced into the discussion as a way to deflect attention from Britain's role. One does not excuse the other but some people are quite keen to hand wave away Britain's role by bringing in other countries.

No because the discussion isn't The Whole Entire Slave Trade, is it? It's about this lady and her name being brought up in a TED talk about Britain.

You are completely allowed to start your own discussion about anything.

Or perhaps it is putting Britain’s role in the slave trade in its wider historical context?

She is not responsible for the sins of her ancestors, but she is a beneficiary of their I'll gotten wealth. It would be appropriate for her to pay reparations as a result.

It depends how it's phrased and why the person is keen to talk about it, I guess. Context and tone and all that.

No if I was her I wouldn’t give a monkeys

It’s a great mistake to imagine that, just because you didn’t know something, the rest of the world has also existed in a state of blissful unknowing …

And it’s probably problematic to draw firm conclusions based on a very little knowledge acquired minutes or days ago …

@CallumDansTransitVan

"including the claim that the Sandbach family made all their wealth from slavery."

So some wealth was made from slavery just not all?

Sorry… I don’t understand what you mean.

Sorry, I was being silly and sarcastic it didn't come off as I intended. I meant that, the poster who is annoyed by people talking about history is not being forced to click on a thread about it.

I would imagine its about context, slavery has existed for thousands of years and despite laws now, will exist for thousands of years

I find that discussion about the transatlantic slave trade often would give the impression, if one didnt know more, that Britain was the only country in the trade, but empires have come and gone and will come and go again, imperial powers involved a number of different countries, all competing for land and resources and power. That has never changed and will never change.

I dont have any strong feeling about the transatlantic slave trade that is over and above the feeling I have about the roman or greek slave trade or in fact other trades. Britain was no better and no worse

AS another poster set out above, my ancestors (Ive researched back many hundreds of years on most lines) wer edirt poor indentured servants (virtually slaves), a were the majority of the working classes hundreds of years ago.

I guess because it isnt directly relevant to malik's phd which is a fairly specific topic on the 'kinship networks and mercantile hegemony in later day British Slavery - the case of sandbach-tinne'

Which is personal to him.

(Although not having read it, he may reference other things for context. -His longer articles seem quite in depth)

A great uncle of mine was a Nazi. It doesn't mean that I am a Nazi sympathiser.

The discussion is wherever the posters involved take it isn’t it?

@bellac11 did you know that the reason we never hear much about the trans-Saharan slave trade is that the slaves were routinely brutally castrated before reaching their destination so that they wouldn’t be able to procreate? And that is why there are no descendants in those countries to raise awareness of the plight of their ancestry. It was far worse, in far larger numbers, for far longer, but if you try to talk about it, it’s dismissed as “whataboutery”. Did you also know that after Britain abolished slavery and were patrolling the seas to prevent other countries from taking part in the slave trade, when the British Navy would see slave ships and try to save the slaves on those ships, the slave masters aboard would throw them all overboard and leave them to drown in order to avoid being caught with them?

It is not “whataboutery” to expand the discussion or object to the biased discussion of these matters, and question why one particular country is being focussed on. Some might suggest that Brits are easy to guilt and possibly might pay up “reparations” one of those days. In the meantime telling everyone they’re racists for not thinking in a very specific and politically/academically determined way about race sure does shame people into shutting up and letting those who think The Right Way “win” all the discussions. Not to mention make loads of money writing books/articles/giving seminars/teaching diversity courses, with a nice side gig of raising their profiles to sell those books by calling everyone racist on current affairs shows and podcasts.

No question some of the wealth created in the early 1800's was made by the families use of slaves. But there is no way in this world, you could confidently say any money or property held today came directly from it. After all a couple of bad business decisions instead of good ones and they could of been bankrupt. Think 'Names at Lloyds' as an example of rich people becoming very poor suddenly.

MarySmit The above post applies to your suggestion she should pay reparations. I'm interested also in who you think those reparations should be paid to?

I’m embarrassed for you - you need to do some serious reading and switch off Gbeebies. Don’t believe all the nonsense you’re being fed.

I get what you meant now.

I agree. Complaining that historians aren’t focused on the present is like complaining that botanists aren’t writing about bears. 😂😂