SLAVERY AND AN EVOLVING ENLIGHTENMENT

Again, the subject of slavery raises its head, or more precisely the effects of West African and North American traffic in Black slaves becoming a current topic for debate.

?

The Royal Household is conducting a review of its involvement in a practice abolished by Britain in 1807 and enacted in 1833, 190 years ago. The Archbishop of Canterbury is steering the investment policies of the Anglican Church towards an account for righting past wrongs.

?

There are even the voices calling for the rescinding of the national song Rule Brittania with its connotations of colonialism and slavery. Some Caribbean countries are calling for both an apology and reparations.

?

I am all for research of historical facts or enlightenment, but why the debate now and why the profound ignorance?

?

We know the historical facts, the economic outcomes and there are sufficient independent expert historians and economists to correct inaccuracies of recall or context.

?

The lyrics for Rule Britannia were derived from a poem by James Thomson, a Scotsmen, whose theme was a patriotic cry of never-ending independence for the British Nation. Yes, it uses the word slaves but only in the context of Britons never being the victims. What precisely is the offence there?

?

What conceivable benefit is there for a debate now set against the threat of a nuclear conflagration breaking out in Europe, Middle East, or Asia. The problem of starvation in Sudan and populations suffering from war. The world’s nations still reeling from a global pandemic triggered by a manufactured gain of function of a virus and an inflation crisis crippling nations and family’s economic well-being. There are even threats to social cohesion and cultural societal malfunctions.

?

Aren’t we in danger of engaging in a self-indulgent, moralistic, puritanical navel gazing exercise for little practical gain for the well-being of humankind?

?

When you consider some of the factors that spring to mind simply from verbalising the subject one must question the motives or the intentions of the proponents who seek such a debate.

?

The first question is why such a narrow window when viewing historical slavery? Why pick on one ethnic group, one era and one form of it?

?

Slavery was practised in Roman times and is still practised today. William the Conqueror invaded the UK, stripped the country’s landowners of their rights and assets and replaced them with feudal lords of his own choosing. They became the new slave masters over the peasants. Why single out Britain, the Portuguese were the greatest exploiters of the Afro-American slave trade.

?

It was not just the Europeans, Muslims practised slavery widely over Africa as did the indigenous African tribes for over 12 centuries enslaving between 1 – 4 million. Slaves were even taken from the Cornish Coast and Ireland as hostages in large numbers for resettlement elsewhere, including Saint Patrick.

?

The UK abolished slavery in 1807 and in doing so freed 150,000 slaves at a cost of 1600 mariners lives. The USA followed suit in 1865, some 58 years later. In the meantime, Britain suffered badly economically in its terms of trade with other nations.

?

So, who are to be the apologists, for what period and on what scale?

?

The call for reparations, as in civil cases for damages, requires a quantification of the damages that flowed directly from the event and the naming of the plaintiffs and the defendants.

?

In the case of Britain, we would have to prepare a writ against Italy; as Monty Python said, what did the Romans ever do for us. Then we would need another against the French for sequestration of our assets following the 1066 invasion. Then another against those nations that profited from our pre-emptive decision to abolish slavery before they did and the cost to British Naval lives.

?

Further afield to the USA we would need to estimate the damages to those whose ethnic origins stemmed from Africa and assess the loss to their financial well-being now compared to their current brothers still resident in their home countries.

?

Of course, the development of slavery helped promote the Industrial Revolution initiated by Britain for others to follow from the mid 1850’s. It could be argued as the age of greater enlightenment approached global trade was taking to a greater level.

?

Although the global numbers of people suffering extreme poverty has changed little since the beginning of the nineteenth century at three quarters of a billion, as a percentage of global population it has fallen from around 60% to approximately 10% today.

?

It could be argued that slavery was a precursor for this change to occur.

?

Of course, in civilian actions there is the opening for counterclaims. Most of modern technology stemmed from Europe. Who invented the steam engine, alternating current for the large-scale distribution of electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, telephones, vaccines, drugs, internet, jet engine etc? Outside of Europe what were the equivalents. Access to these technologies was free for all, but reparation claims would require these to be considered to measure the net damages.

?

Me, and my fellow semi-retired chartered accountants, would be happy to help. I am quite prepared to apologise to all victims of slavery on everyone’s behalf to save time. Together with my colleagues prepare the invoices for reparations considering all the above if we know who is making the claim, against whom and in which monetary denomination. We could not though guarantee when our work is finished to everyone’s satisfaction.

?

As an alternative shortcut, given there could be a fundamental question as to why this exercise is necessary in the first place, we could look to address the sufferings of those living in our home countries and see to what extent we could help our brothers abroad. In Africa for example investment would be most welcome now, helping to develop their economies for an average return of 16%!

?

None of the proposal or alternatives can be achieved unless we put our own house in order first.

?

I recall making a plea to the Archbishop of Canterbury to intervene in my own church demonstrating a dysfunctional organisation, maladministration, including serious concerns over the safety of the roof. The response was that this was not his responsibility but the direct responsibility of another Bishop.

?

In my secular world we had the principle of functional responsibility too! Fortunately, after four years, corrective action is being taken, but after serious ecumenical damage had been inflicted.

?

In conclusion, I suppose what I am saying is, let us look after the living first and leave the dead to rest in peace.

?