Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Apologising for the slave trade

366 replies

Pennies · 25/03/2007 09:26

Today marks the 200th anniversary of the slave trade and there have been calls recently for there to be a formal apology from Tony Blair and / or the Queen.

Will it make any difference?

My personal opinion is that you can't apologise for someone else's actions - it would be a bit like me apologising for Tony Blair's sanctioning of the war in Iraq (and I have never voted for him so I haven't even approvied those actions vicariously IYSWIM). It would be an empty apology, wouldn't it?

I can't see that it would ever change anything, or am I missing something.

OP posts:
DominiConnor · 26/03/2007 17:37

Yellowrose, I don't give a toss where they came from, that is my point. We should help people on the basis of need, not who enslaved who's great great grandfather.
As for teaching all ethnicity, relgions and all that other bollocks, it turns out that I have a very good understanding of them.
But I am far from convinced that is a good part of me. I have noticed for many years that the people who cared about exact origins enough to work them out were exactly the people who were the source of the problem.

When I see a black kid with a distended belly, I see a kid and know people who can tell you which bit of Africa he comes from by the shape of his head. I just see a kid about to die.

Drosophila, I'm mostly an Economist reader, but get most news these days from a variety of web sites.
As for the ignorance of Americans, I am entertained that a Brit gets smug about education. We are scraping along the bottom of the developed world in almost all league tables.
Except maths.
That's because, in the last big roundup, Britain failed to get the stats in the right way.
Botswana succeeded at this task, as did the Palestinian Authority, at a time when the education ministry had been shelled, and the minister was in an Israeli cell.

margoandjerry · 26/03/2007 17:37

no it's not that D. It's that the identification of black people as victim and white people as oppressor is not the whole story and is unhelpful to the debate.

I think it's important because of the point I made earlier about people identifying themselves with what they see as a culture more familiar and more sympathetic (ie, African) when the truth is more complex than that. When the time comes for my daughter to trace her heritage, if she can, it will be really important that she doesn't idealise it before she goes looking for it.

I just think and hope that many black British people have more in common with me than they do with their African antecedents of 2 centuries ago but if the slavery story becomes a story about black vs white, the links between us could be damaged. Already I have heard people in discussion on the radio say they find it difficult to be friends with white people because of what white people did which is just completely misguided.

Also, the point is, who should make reparations to whom? White aristos to black slaves (and British native peasantry). Black aristos to black slaves. Germans to Britons. Britons to Irish. Vikings to ancient Britons. Romans to everyone. Protestants to Catholics (Henry VIII). Catholics to Protestants (For Queen Mary). Men to women.

PS I read the guardian..

DominiConnor · 26/03/2007 17:44

Drosohpila it is disputed that Africans sold other Africans into slavery. Read some of those posts on this thread if you don't believe me.

Of course it ain't disputed by anyone who isn't indulging a form of mirror racism.

African involvement would not alter our liability, you don't get less prison time for kidnapping if you have an accomplice, indeed you can also be done for conspiracy as well.
But we didn't commit these crimes. some of the ancestors of current inhabitants of the UK did bad things.
I don't think we should forget slavery any more than any other of the very bad things people have done to each other.
But the reason for remembering should be to stop it happening again, or in the case of slavery to motivate people to finish the job of abolishing it.

DominiConnor · 26/03/2007 18:03

We part company morgotandjerry, my point is that blacks were victims of that phase of history. At other times white people were, and that should be taught as well.

I think the root of our difference is what we see culture as. I see it as a servant, not a master. I'm picking and choosing bits of history varying from area bombing in WWII (British), though the various gangs of Christians murdering each other (European) to the moral ambiguity of Shylock (English/Portuguese) and the contemporary Lex Luthor (American). Not long ago I used Shrek to illustrate an ethical point on bullying (American/Jewish/German) My use of the Irish potato famine is entertaining as it seems to offend absolutely everyone who hears it.

I don't really care or hope what black Britons have in common with me. As a hard line Trekkie, I believe that diversity is strength. I have links to some black people, but not as "black people", but those I've worked with and others who have become my friend, or occasionally enemy,
I don't make allowances for people based upon events 200 years ago.
I'm quite happy to talk to my black godchild about it being black vs white, indeed I've explained the historical context of her christian name. You can't understand American slavery without use of "black" and "white".

This is of course wrapped in the message that people will sometimes try to screw you over, and that they will use whatever justification that comes to hand.

I also reject the argument that just because it's hard to work out who should pay all the reparations that we should pay none, that alone betrays a long time Guardian readership.

Imagine you were in a car crash that was someone else's fault. It also turned out that the car's brakes weren't installed properly, and your injuries were made worse by the air bag failing to work.
Lawyers get good billable hours freon this sort of thing, but would you really expect to get no compensation because it was hard ?

As for the even more bogus argument that other have suffered, hundreds of thousands of car related awards are made per year. Would you expect to get no compensaton because someone else hadn't got their fair share ?

No...
If someone could point to something done to them personally by the British state, then I'd be all for compensating them. But them personally, not the kleptocracy who happened to be running that patch of land this week.

drosophila · 26/03/2007 18:50

DC you still haven't explained your beef with Guardian readers. What is your point about the potato famine. How does it offend people. I have no strong feeling about saying sorry but I do wonder why it causes such strong feeling in others. How would it make you feel if TB did say sorry?

Growing up in Ireland I was often told stories of atrocities done to my family (My Grandfather being shot by British soldiers) and whilst I have no ill will towards the British as a whole I would worry if I met people who disputed the part Britain played in the famine.

My DP parents are from the caribbean and I get a little confused about who he identifies with. His family are from Trinidad in the main and he does not identify with Jamaicans or Africans other 'small islanders' more so. Culturally there is a world of difference between some of the islands. He supports England in football but the west indies in Cricket. He is a fan of Tim Henman but not of Greg R. Musically he is not a fan of white British pop music preferring artists I know little about probably Black American in the main.

Our children have Irish passports (Nor allowed British ones and DP and I are not married)and are mixed race. I wonder what and who they will identify with.

Pann · 26/03/2007 19:56

this is an effing groundhog day!!

The same people asking the same basic question as if their eyes have glazed over parts of this thread they don't wish to accept, and then ask "what difference would it make?", or "doesn't it mean we all have to apologise to everyone else, and them to someone else.." Or "how DO you work out reparation to whom..?".
And DC STILL banging on about the Guradian, and it's readers!

margoandjerry · 26/03/2007 19:57

and the same people ignoring said questions

Pann · 26/03/2007 19:59

no margo, it's all there, if you bother looking rather than getting all defensive about a request for comparatively bugger all.

SecondhandRose · 26/03/2007 20:12

Will admit to not having read it all so sorry if I'm going over old ground.

What about the British people that worked for peanuts in the cotton mills, in the fields, up chimneys all for rich landowners/business owners only to die young and starving. Children worked as soon as they were old enough to earn something. Anything to put enough food on the table.

It was not that long ago that this was normal life for British people. These people suffered terrible degradation. No they weren't owned or sold but life was hard for everyone then unless you were rich or titled or both.

margoandjerry · 26/03/2007 20:22

I'm sorry I haven't seen any response to my posts on women's enslavement or on the points my brother in law raises about the best way to deal with historical injustices so we can all claim that we're not being listened to.

I don't actually object to paying reparations - could possibly be done in the form of aid and regeneration budgets targeted on areas with a high proportion of people of Caribbean/African origin. You could never be sure to get the "right" people but as a broad brush measure I think it has some merit.

My concerns are more about how and why people identify themselves in certain ways and I haven't seen any responses on that either. Which is fine - this is not an exam. It's an interesting exchange of views.

DominiConnor · 26/03/2007 20:55

Guardian reader is a shorthand for middle class people typically with arts degrees who have never experienced poverty but feel that having "roughed it" as a student (with a grant+help from daddy) they should run the lives of poor people.
In other contexts it means a racist hatred of Americans. As in "all Americans are stupid",(would you say that about Pakistanis ?) A dislike of globalisation/capitalism is a mandatory corollary of this, as is an attitude that there "must be something to" homeopathy/chinese herbs/crystal therapy/ feng shui.
Since capitalism is "obviously" wrong, it follows that artsgrad run government is good, and thus we see that it panders to the hopes and aspirations of those who work for local councils and benefit from state subsidy in the arts.

My take on the Irish potato famine is offensive to many because I've read up on what happened, and why it kept happening.
There's lots of blame to go round.
My ancestors sent their best and brightest to study the prevailing form of superstition. Thus they failed utterly to even guess that there was such a thing as genetics. Ironically of course this was discovered by a monk.
They failed to spot that they were using cloning as a critical part of their food supply. When yuo chop a potato in two, you can grow 2 plants which obviously have the same genes. They did this enough times that there was very very little genetic diversity in their main food crop. When one plant got sick, it spread much more quickly than an equivalent in a diverse crop like wheat.

Many Irish had allied themselves to the Catholic cause, which was useful for European Catholics fighting Protestant England, but they did nothing to help Ireland when things went pear shaped.
Much of the land was run with highly variable competence by absenteed Irish/English landlords. However, much the same applied to to England, and starvation was common all across these islands. There was simply no concept of famine relief. When Irish farmers dug themselves into a hole, the prevailing Protestant Christian ethos was that they should work their way out of it.
Both the Protestant and Catholic churches had acquired truly huge sums which the collected "for the benefit of the poor". However you may note that the majority of church building s date from this time, and that senior clergy enjoyed a lifestyle which compared well to the top tier of landed gentry.
The English weren't evil, they genuinely saw it as nothing to do with them. The priests were corrupt, but was it not ever thus ? The landlords sometimes suffered to the point of starvation as well since notr all of them were rich (and of course became poorer), and Ireland's European "allies" left them to starve.
Britain wasn't what we'd now call a democracy, but was far from a dictatorship, and Irish citizens were granted the same rights in helping choose a government as any Englishman. OK, that's not universal sufferage, but not racism either .It is stil the case that Irish citizens can vote in UK elections.

I don't see what TB has to apologise for. Yes the British government did little to help Ireland, but it didn't "do" helping the poor, because the electorate didn't want it.

The people of Britain may be guilty of something, but not it's government. To me the corollary of this ethical position justifies the area bombing of German cities in WWII, especially Dresden. Germany was run by Germans, they did terrible things. Not it's government for Hitler never killed anyone, though he was a genuinely decorated war hero, but "ordinary decent" Germans did the holocaust, ran the Gestapo, built the bombers and fought to the death even when it was obvious they could not win.

DC you still haven't explained your beef with Guardian readers. What is your point about the potato famine. How does it offend people. I have no strong feeling about saying sorry but I do wonder why it causes such strong feeling in others. How would it make you feel if TB did say sorry?

Growing up in Ireland I was often told stories of atrocities done to my family (My Grandfather being shot by British soldiers) and whilst I have no ill will towards the British as a whole I would worry if I met people who disputed the part Britain played in the famine.

My DP parents are from the caribbean and I get a little confused about who he identifies with. His family are from Trinidad in the main and he does not identify with Jamaicans or Africans other 'small islanders' more so. Culturally there is a world of difference between some of the islands. He supports England in football but the west indies in Cricket. He is a fan of Tim Henman but not of Greg R. Musically he is not a fan of white British pop music preferring artists I know little about probably Black American in the main.

Our children have Irish passports (Nor allowed British ones and DP and I are not married)and are mixed race. I wonder what and who they will identify with.

speedymama · 26/03/2007 21:13

I have just come back to this and want to redress a few points.

DC, with respect to this comment "I appreciate you have clearly had no formal training in analysing logic or reasoning"

I have a degree and PhD in chemistry and have retrained as a system engineer since having my twins. My parents are Jamican immigrants who only had basic education, courtesy of British rule. I went to a comprehensive school so I do not have the refined qualities that privately educated folk no doubt have but I speak English very well, I have manners, I am well read, and I am raising my mixed race sons the same way. I also have compassion, a strong sense of right and wrong and I am intolerant of the intolerant. I'm perfectly able to analyse logic and provide coherent reasoning. You on the other hand appear to delight in parading your misguided, deluded over-inflated ego because you think, wrongly, that you are cleverer, more analytical and more informed than the rest of humanity.

Also, I use the term indigenous for good reason. In 2007, I'm still asked if I was born here or where do I come from originally. My personal experience and that of my black friends and family is that as long as you are non-white, you are still viewed as an outsider. That is reality, it is not me being uppity or walking around with my victim halo wailing "wo is me". It's reality.

FWIW, I don't want or expect an apology. I did not ask for that in my post. What I would like is that there is an unequivocal and unconditional acknowledgement for what happened. The Holocaust in WW2 was an atrocity but I cannot recall anybody having the temerity to downplay how horrific it was. Every November, we remember it and all who died in WW2 because by remembering, we hope that it will never happen again. (However it did, in Rwanda).

With the slave trade, we get "Yes it is wrong that it happened but..." It is the but that sticks in my throat. It was wrong, period. Also, to be clear I am not defined by my history but I acknowledge that my history is limited because of what happened. I am not a victim because I am black and a descendent of slaves but I want to understand my heritage and in my own way, pay my respects to my ancestors who suffered horribly and lived miserable lives. However, you know what, despite every indignity that was heaped upon them, they survived and because they survived, that is why I am here. That is something with which to be proud. That is why I do become upset when it appears that everything they went through is deemed inconsequential and of no significance to some people.

Peachyclair, at my discussion group at work, I gave two presentations on the slave trade. The first one was on the African slave trade, why it happened, how Britain and Europe grew wealthy from it and how its demise came about. The second was on modern slavery. The slave trade happened because after the European colonisers had annilated the Arawak Indians in the West Indies, they had to seek replacement bodies to work the sugar plantations. That is one aspect of the slave trade that is never mentioned. The original West Indians no longer exists. That is one of the many human tragedies associated with the Slave trade.

Wilberforce is often credited as the architect for the abolition of slavery but the movement started long before he became involved. The first seeds for the abolition movement was sowed in Jamaica by the arrival of Moravian missionaries in 1754. This was the first denomination to the teach the slaves about Christianity and spearhead the call to end slavery. Then came the Wesleyan Methodists followed by the Baptists.

As the 19th Century approached, two key events were to have an impact on the British slave trade. The first was the rise of the industrial revolution where nascent mechanisation was growing and consequently, doubts were being voiced about supporting the West Indian slave based economy. More importantly, in Europe there were demands for more liberty, especially in France (this led to the uprising in St Domingue which became the first black republic in 1804 and is now known as Haiti). In response to this, a wave of humanitarian reforms swept Britain and was led principally by John Wesley, and his brother Charles. This wave of reform awakened concern for the welfare of prisoners and other unfortunates including slaves.

Also, like to add, that in 1671, George Fox, founder of the Quakers, urged all members of his sect in Barbados to treat their slaves well and set them free after a certain period. However, only a few responded to this.

In 1765 Granville Sharp, a lawyer went to the aid of Jonathon Strong, a slave who had been bought to Britain by his master, beaten badly and left for dead. Sharp took him to his brother who was a doctor. After he had recovered, Sharp found him a job in a chemist shop. Sharp then devoted his life to work on behalf of slaves and consequently, gained many enemies. Sharp represented another ill treated slave called James Somerset who had been freed but whose former owner wanted to put him in bondage again and on 22nd January 1772, won a court judgement that slavery was not allowed or approved by the law of England. The Quakers, on the back of this judgement, formed the anti-slavery committee. Wilberforce joined later when he became affected by the religious revival sweeping the country and the significance of him being involved was that he was a member of Parliament and therefore provided the leadership in the House of Commons.

Also, Denmark abolished the slave trade in 1803, 4 years before Britain. Slave trading still continuted illegally however, and in 1827, a law was passed that treated slave trading as piracy punishable by death. Emancipation of the slaves finally came on 29th August 1833, 4 weeks after Wilberforce had died. Slave traders, plantation owners were paid millions in todays money in compensation, the slaves themselves got nothing.

So there you are. Those who profited from the slave trade were compensated for loss of earnings. The victims of the slave trade got absolutely nothing. That is why I don't think an apology now means anything.

For my part, my discussion group (who were all white British), were so thankful for my presentation because they had no idea of what slavery really represented. This research has awakened my interest in my history and the plight of modern day slavery. I'm doing my little bit because through literature that I received from Tearfund, I am actively raising awareness about the Stop the Trafficking initiative. It's not much but it is better than nothing and I can rest easy knowing that.

margoandjerry · 26/03/2007 21:15

"I appreciate you have clearly had no formal training in analysing logic or reasoning"

I have clearly been skim reading this thread. Shocked.

yellowrose · 26/03/2007 21:23

DC - the word "liberal" is a dirty word in many parts of the world, including in certain parts of the political system in the USA. Objecting to US foreign policy and the illiteracy of the Bush admin. is NOT one and the same as being a racist anti-American.

Perhaps only pinko Guardian readers with a good arts degree see this interesting and totally valid distinction ?

margoandjerry · 26/03/2007 21:23

Speedy, I haven't read your post carefully enough as I am off to bed soon but you make an interesting point. You are not asking for an apology and you say you don't want one. Do you think the fear of being asked to offer an apology for something people don't feel personally responsible for is what is stopping people acknowledging the true horror of slavery?

Eg with the holocaust there is no doubt that we in Britain had no part in it so are very free emotionally, to engage with it fully.

I'm not making excuses, btw. I'm just interested in why you think people are reluctant to delve too deeply into it.

FWIW, I think education may be a part of it too. I was not taught about slavery at school at all (70s and early 80s) but then we also did not cover the Magna Carta, the Civil War, or WW1 or WW2 so it was not exactly a comprehensive historical education. But my point is, I have literally come to a proper awareness of slavery in the past couple of years and the debate has all been around "apology or no apology" and "compensation or not" rather than the facts of slavery and how it was for people in real life.

paulaplumpbottom · 26/03/2007 21:32

Growing up we were taught in our history classes about slavery in great detail. It was also present in our literature classes when reading Stowe and others. We were encouraged to speak openly about it with eachother. We got to hear how our African American Peers felt about what had happened. It was enlightening. I think educating people on slavery in the past and present is very importnant.

yellowrose · 26/03/2007 21:41

"As for the ignorance of Americans, I am entertained that a Brit gets smug about education. We are scraping along the bottom of the developed world in almost all league tables." Quite.

However, it is a total cop out for a parent to say "oh, 22 year old ds or dd can't point out Taiwan on the map or doesn't know the capital of Iraq because they don't teach him geography at school". Why the feck don't we as parents encourage or teach them to understand some basic stuff about other countries ?

Or am I being too liberal ????

DominiConnor · 26/03/2007 21:47

I find it impossible to reconcile the assertions made about your education with your inability to read or understand my posts. Also what pray tell is a "system engineer" ? Google on my name and ask yourself if you want to stick by that label with respect to logic.

If you'd bothered to read my posts on mumsnet you'd have noticed me saying that I too went to a comprehensive, and not a good one either.
I am not saying that I am cleverer than people on mumsnet, merely clever than you given the poor quality of tohught you demonstrate.
You use the language of racists, being black does not excuse that in my eyes. The white racists I know feel as "justified" as you do.

I have never claimed there is no racism here, indeed in this thread I have written of my contempt for such people. I regard it as such a hideous vice that I don't excuse black people having it any more than white.

I fail to understand what you mean by "unequivocal and unconditional acknowledgement". The PM has said it was awful. The state controlled curriculum for history has slavery in it, and the state owned channel emits any amount of stuff about it. We even members have the official state church wandering the streets in chains as penance. Hardly a denial by Britain of it's part in that crap.
I'm not aware of any "downplaying" of slavery. My (really crap) comprehensive taught me of whippings, rape, and various forms of torture. We spent longer on slavery than on the holocaust, though I don't know how standard that is.

Mass murder on the grounds of race is as old as humanity, it may be the death of us all, and I sadly predict Rwanda is not the last.

I don't recall using the term "it was wrong but...". However I will just to spite you.
It was wrong, but lots of other bad things have been done. Black slavery is not even in the top 20 worst things people have ever done to each other. Doesn't make it good of course.
You have what most people choose to use as "pride". Stuff what other people have done, si I won't criticise you for that. But I am proud (or not proud) of things I have done.
I may have been born in Britain, but did not defeat the European fascists, discover pennicllin or cause the slave trade to be ended. I have no pride in these things because I didn't do them. My ancestors had various bad shit happen to them, on a scale comparable to slavery, and as a far higher % of our racial group. I have absolutely no pride in that. The lesson my kids will be taught is that the Britih did that to us not because we were a different race, or our ancestors had a different form of superstitious hysteria, but because they could.
You're only sort of right about the Indians in the West Indies. The death rates amongst everyone were such that people had to be shipped in. Even for white people the death rate was atrocious,
Also you may note it was me who was the first person to point out that abolition was far more down to Quakers than the CoE who have spun the BBC into their pocket over this.

Clodhopper · 26/03/2007 21:48

You know I would love to hear from some of the black people whose parents are from the carribean. In other words - West Indians who actually can tell us what it's really like for them, if they have an issue with this or not.

I appreciate Speedymama has posted but would love to hear from more black people on this subject.

yellowrose · 26/03/2007 22:04

I really don't understand why anyone who claims to have "logic and reason" needs to get PERSONAL ? Reason requires that one can REASON not use personal and abusive language, surely ?

yellowrose · 26/03/2007 22:05

Sorry my last post was directed at DC's comments to speedymama.

QueenBrenda · 26/03/2007 22:07

This is nuts, it'd take a lifetime to apologise for all sins of our fathers, from whatever race, colour, creed or time.

speedymama · 26/03/2007 22:50

"I am not saying that I am cleverer than people on mumsnet, merely clever than you given the poor quality of tohught you demonstrate.
You use the language of racists, being black does not excuse that in my eyes. The white racists I know feel as "justified" as you do".

DC, There is something definitely up with your thought processes. You should really talk to someone, seriously. When you do, please try to refrain from personal, vituperative invective. It's demeaning.

Also, if you don't know what a system engineeer is, especially as you work in recruitment, you are not as clever as you think you are, doh!

PeachyClair · 26/03/2007 23:12

Wow, Speedy thanks [s,mile] that will really help!

the only date I can add that you don't have is that the first town to petition against salvery did so in 1785, a dicks town called Bridgwater (where I come from, somehow they keep that quiet in the facts, nota glam enough palce I suppose ) but it adds structure.

I will print off your post and spend many hours using it as a key I expect. Again, appreciated.

Clodhopper · 26/03/2007 23:14

Speedymama, you put a proper post there, take no notice.