Slavery and the UK

Unless you make every effort not to watch or read the news, you will be aware that several former British Colonies have demanded compensation for the damage done by the Atlantic slave trade on their ancestors, the effects of which, it is argued, are still being felt by the origin nations of the slaves today.

Allegedly.

At the recent Commonwealth Meeting the Prime Minister was forced into listening to their demands, even though he had previously rejected the idea. 

An estimate of £18tn has been touted as the amount Britain owes as compensation for its part in the Atlantic slave trade. 

A UN Judge has said the true amount to be at least £2tn greater than this.

So not exactly loose change and if accepted would effectively bankrupt the country for centuries to come.

But we can't ignore the fact that both as a nation and as individuals vast fortunes were made by the slave traders and individuals investing in the industry.

So aren't the ancestors of the traded slaves due compensation.

The African American intellectual WEB Du Bois described the enslavement of at least 12 million Africans as “the sum of all villainies, the cause of all sorrow, the root of all prejudice”.

Which, I will be honest, this strikes me as over stating the issue somewhat. There are other villainies, different causes of sorrow and other prejudices.

Ask women about that, they have been subjected to the constant prejudice over the years. Personally I'm not convinced that slaving is the origin and cause of sexism.

And of course the claim for compensation lays the full blame on USA and European slave traders.

Some questions come to my mind. Why are the African nations, those at least who actively supplied the slaves to the Slavers not being expected to contribute? The slaving nations didn't have to search for their cargo, they were supplied by the Africans themselves. 

And what about the Barbary pirates, who as recently as the mid-1800's were forced by the RN to release up to 3000 'christian' slaves?

In total it is estimated that 1.25m Europeans were captured by the pirates.

A relatively small number in comparison to the Atlantic trade but it had been going on for centuries.

It seems to me that for any compensation to be fair and equitable you would need to be able to:

1. Identify the victims 

2. Identify the beneficiaries of the trade

3. Identify the amount of compensation due.

And none of this is easy. Why should everyone in the UK for example be expected to pay compensation? 

No one alive today took part in the slave trade. No one alive today was bought and sold as part of this trade. And those who made their fortunes as part of this trade were a very small portion of society. The poor remained poor. 

And I will use my own family to illustrate.

My Great, Great, Great Grandparents, were born around 1835,a year after the Abolition of slavery Act in 1834. They were both dead by 1864. An audit was done of everything they owned and it came to 7 items. A table, Two chairs, a bible, which they couldn't read, a saucepan, a sewing box and a bed.

They did have children, the oldest two had already left home and were working in service. Of the youngest three my Great, Great, Gran was the eldest aged 7. They got lucky and were found places in the Mueller Homes Orphanage. Dr. Mueller was in his way a great man, who unlike most of the people who ran an orphanage, ensured that the children left well educated, able to read and write, and having for the times, a reasonably well paid job to go to. The Dr himself would check out the job. Indeed my Great, Great Grandmothers first job failed, she couldn't get on with her employer and she was returned to the orphanage to allow the Dr to have another go at looking for an appropriate position. Most orphanages' of this period, saw themselves simply as providers of cheap labour to local industry.

Typically the children received little or no education.

However going back to her parents we know the following about them. He was a labourer and she stitched gloves. They were dirt poor and from the evidence of their marriage certificate completely illiterate. It was signed with two X's.

So in what way did they, or many thousands or millions of others like them across Europe and the USA benefit from the slave trade? Well they didn't. So why should there be a claim against them and those that came after?

The existence of slavery not only doesn't benefit the poor, it makes their position worse. It makes jobs harder to obtain. It depresses the wages of the poor. It damages their ability to negotiate better conditions.

A slave has no rights and can be forced to work in the worst of conditions. For no pay. This was particularly the case in the USA, slavery had not been allowed in the UK for centuries.

Indeed the law deemed a slave as free once he stepped onto the British isles.

So the poor of the UK, the USA and other countries were not only not benefiting from slavery, they were also victims of it.

The idea that as part of the UK today, their inheritors somehow are liable to fund compensation for the African victims of the slave trade, is not only nonsense, but cruel.

It also represents a lack of  proper joined up consideration of the problem.

It is arguable that the compensation could be funded by those who are on a large income, with many valuable assets and whose ancestors created the wealth through the slave trade. Problem with this is that many of those will have little disposable cash and the money raised will represent only a small fraction of the £18tn, and doesn't therefore represent a solution to the issue for the claimants.

It appears to me that this issue in reality has little to do with fairness but represents an easy way for the politicians in a number of countries to raise money for chosen projects. And as a lot of these countries are run by corrupt leaders, I wouldn't hold out any great hope that the poor would see any substantial benefit.

A lot of those involved with the campaign try and present this as a punishment, retribution for the greed and cruelty of our ancestors.

A country doesn't have an existence separate to those who live within it. So the only way of punishing a country is to punish those within, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

However as a society we rightly don't believe in punishing the children for the sins of the father, so where is the fairness in this?

It isn't fair, there is no fairness, it won't work.

And a Prime Minister would never be able to get the country to accept this. Particularly one who has stolen from the old a heating allowance, which his own research says will lead to more elderly dieing each winter.

If we can't afford to keep our old from freezing to death, how will we afford £18Trillion?

To further offset what is claimed to be owed, what about the money spent by the RN in destroying the slave trade. Confiscating the ships. Releasing the slave. Not too mention the many who died policing the seas.

Let's be real. The sums touted are not feasible. This isn't simply a case of white man bad, African good.

A lot of this is about greed not fairness. We must learn from our history and work to eliminate the horror of modern slavery 

But otherwise we need to move on.