It should be a non-brainer. Was slavery bad? If it was then why does David Cameron not say sorry for it?

[StitchesBurstinBath]

Even though we had Shakespeare and we stood up to the Nazis mostly, historically our country was a nasty piece of work mostly, going round bullying people. Out of all of our crimes, slavery must have been the worst. I read recently that slavery was so profitable that only one slave ship in three had to arrive to make it a successful economic investment, therefore investors would often abandon whole ships to a terrible death if faced with adverse conditions. It was abhorrent- and Daves gong to Jamaica. Will he say sorry? I hope so but people are saying he will not.

I keep trying to post a reply explaining just how fucking stupid the idea of fee remission for the descendants of slavery is, but if people are too short sighted to see that themselves there's nothing anyone can say to persuade them.

I'm not saying just that. Im saying it would be a start!
And it would demonstrate we feel sorry.

Lurkedforever1 fucking stupid is far better than absurd (I was trying to be polite).

Slavers didn't go round capturing slaves, generally. They were sold to them by other groups in those countries. Should the governments there in Africa apologise and make reparation to the descendants of those enslaved now living in the West Indies because their ancestors sold fellow Africans to slavers?

How far do you go?

By this logic, Spain should be financially supporting all of South America. Arabs should be making reparation to the whole eastern seaboard of Africa from which they took slaves (we don't really talk about that part of the slave trade). Germany and Belgium to swathes of Africa. Mongolia to the whole of the western world. And, frankly, every man to every woman on the planet for what our female ancestors were subjected to.

It's impossible to unpick and undo. But also, ethically, I just don't see that blame lies with subsequent generations, especially not those centuries later when privilege is past and spent. Liverpool profited hugely from the slave trade, but would you really ask the city to donate to Jamaica now? Again, by that logic, a murderer's young children would be deemed responsible for the victim's family.

I get where you're coming from, OP, I really do. But you can't unmake the past.

Slavery was awful but it is in the past and the past is littered with awful events. Stalin is estimated to have caused the death of 20m+ people, the famine caused by Great Leap Forward in China may have killed 30-40m people and this is before we look at wars. As well as the horrors of the Holocaust around 50m+ people died in WW2 and around 17 million people were killed in WW1.

So that is over 120m people killed in the last 100 years just in those 4 events.

I'm not down playing the UKs part in slavery, however as far as Britain goes I think it's fair to say the UK should have a bigger national guilt about what they did in the colonies. Purely because a greater % of the British population was involved in the colonies, and the duration was longer. Even if act for act it wasn't as barbaric, the sum total of cruel acts by English people was greater against the colonial natives.

Not to mention if we're talking about people still feeling the direct effect of the UKs involvement, the government knew exactly what Hitler and his cleansing were up to in the 30's and left him to it. It was only recently England made a vague reference to the fact they fucked over Ireland for centuries, what do they do there, find every English person with vague irish ancestors and hand over compensation? Every Indian or person of Indian origin for compensation for the Raj? The English working classes who suffered and died in the industrial revolution?

And where do you draw the line? Let's face it, pretty much anyone who hasn't come from hundreds of years of landed gentry has been screwed over by the English ruling classes at some point in history. And if you start compensating one group there's no place to fairly draw a line. Thus in my mind it should be about who needs support now, today. Not based on who did what hundreds of years ago.

So yes, admit if there's a 'ghetto' with history being a large reason why the current generation are struggling, then the UK should take responsibility if they played a part in that history. But offer compensation to prosperous people based on the fact their skin colour indicates they possibly had slavery in their heritage? No.

Well said, thank god for common sense.

Slavers didn't go round capturing slaves, generally.

Certainly they did, although it is also true that they bought many people who had already been captured and enslaved by their neighbours.

The Atlantic slave trade went on for a very long time, in huge numbers, and involved different methods.

It was an egregious example of slavery (which has been practised in every corner of the world) because of its extent, its cruelty, and the pernicious effects then and now of the racist ideology developed to justify it.

If we balance the harm done by failing to apologise and/or make reparations against the harm done by apologising and making reparations, what wins?

In respect of apologising, there is no harm at all (Ithink) in doing it and some harm in withholding it. Reparations, I don't know. I think it is hard to make a case for them now and even harder to determine who would pay whom.

It's a no brainer that slavery was bad. It's also a no brainer that apologising for it is daft. The point of an apology is an admission of guilt. But who is the guilty party and who is the victim here? If it's actually an apology by Britain to Jamaica, does Cameron have a mandate from the British to offer it? Where's the evidence that the average British resident now was enriched by slavery? And how does an apology from Britain to Jamaica work in respect of British people of Jamaican extraction, or the descendents of white planters who live in Jamaica? What's the point in apologising for something other people did 200 years ago? Or is it really an apology for Britain being so much richer than Jamaica, and by implication an admission that slavery was responsible for this? If Cameron apologises, is he entitled to demand gratitude from the Jamaican PM for Britain's efforts not for abolishing slavery in its own dominions but enforcing its ban on other countries' shipping too?

I really dislike this fashion for apologies for what x country has done to y country some time in the past. They're just words, empty political gestures (as are the demands for them), and they actually cheapen the debate about precisely what legacy various historical wrongs leave and how to put them right. We are not guilty for what our ancestors did, although we may be under a moral duty to rectify the historical effects of what was done. The important thing is stating that slavery was a deplorable evil, and its legacy needs to be dealt with. So why not just say so and leave out the silly apology.

I'm not down playing the UKs part in slavery, however as far as Britain goes I think it's fair to say the UK should have a bigger national guilt about what they did in the colonies. Purely because a greater % of the British population was involved in the colonies, and the duration was longer. Even if act for act it wasn't as barbaric, the sum total of cruel acts by English people was greater against the colonial natives.

I recently saw a demonstration out of my office window here in NZ. The demonstrators were walking over a bridge with placards denouncing colonialism as genocide etc etc. One of my colleagues snorted and said that the bridge wouldn't be there if it wasn't for colonialism. I agree.

nb: my colonial ancestors were Irish and Scottish. The English ones stayed in England, probably because they were nasty & insular rather than brave, outgoing Celts.

The English may have dominated, but every part of the UK played its part in colonialism and the Empire, along with a lot of the Irish. If apologies are to be given there will have to be mea culpas from the Orkneys to the Scilly Isles and all points in between.

Slave owners were paid compensation following abolition. One of Davoid Cameron's ancestors received that compensation.
I think this is why posters are linking him personally rather than a generic 'rich background'

I do seem to remember the UK govt apologising officially. Tony Blair I think.

To be fair though even though most Brits 250 years ago didn't directly make profit off the blood and sweat of slavery, the working class enjoyed the cheaper sugar. So where do we draw the line for culpability?

Tell you what. Instead of worrying about something that happened 200 years ago, try worrying about the homophobia that is going on right now in Jamaica.

And myfavourite the English were screwing over Ireland and inserting their nobles long before the colonies, so compensation would end up being passed round from one to another like some politically correct version of old maid.

David Camerons wife's family were slave traders also.

Corbyn was talking about similar on c4 news. He was saying we made a lot of money out of Jamaica especially.

No he should not apologise.

nb: my colonial ancestors were Irish and Scottish. The English ones stayed in England, probably because they were nasty & insular rather than brave, outgoing Celts.

Maybe that was meant to be tongue in cheek , if not, what a narrow minded comment.
?

compensation would end up being passed round from one to another like some politically correct version of old maid.

Excellent! Let's keep the compensation whizzing around until we have drawn in every country on the planet. It might even revive the world's financial system as everyone has to train to become a compensation calculation input operative.

Toadinthehole
nb: my colonial ancestors were Irish and Scottish. The English ones stayed in England, probably because they were nasty & insular rather than brave, outgoing Celts.

Yeah, right

"Even though we had Shakespeare and we stood up to the Nazis mostly, historically our country was a nasty piece of work mostly, going round bullying people."

What a fabulously reductive history-lesson

It's absolutely true that my Irish, Scottish and Welsh ancestors emigrated (and fought Maori for their land) while my English ancestors stayed in England.

As for the second part of that remark, yes my tongue was in my cheek. I made the point because this thread makes the very typical assumption that the English were responsible for everything (and that everything was bad). Actually, emigration was proportionally very high from Scotland and Ireland, and people from those places were responsible for a very large amount of what happened in the Empire - some of which was good, and some bad. Scots and Irish and English were slave-owners, local administrators and magistrates, soldiers, commanding officers, traders, farmers, you name it.

I don't think David Cameron has ever owned a slave. It really has nothing to do with him.

David Cameron's 1st cousin 6 times removed, the son of his great-grand uncle got compensation.
Sam Cameron 'is linked' to someone who got compensation.

Not a direct profiting by any means. Ainsley Harriott is also descended from some-one who got a payout.

47,000 people got paid, out of a population of 24m, about 1 in 50.

Based on that, I would suspect anyone who is descended from 1830's Britain has one relative that got compensation.