Daring taboo – should Britain apologise for the slave trade or not?

Café Lumiere is aware that is difficult to talk about slavery without offending someone, but this should not hold people, of the café, back from discussing the topic in a frank and open way. For this reason a few things will be written which, it is hoped, give a more balanced perspective than some of the extreme reactions from both sides of the debate. The main questions of focus will be the following: 1. Should Britain apologise for the slave trade, and 2. Would such an apology be helpful?

Good historians are often careful not to apply anything other than the most fundamental of moral judgements on past events – since past events happened to people who possessed different ways of being from us. Whilst in modern times we pride ourselves on our ethics and judgements, it does not mean that in the future we will look frightfully backward and unsophisticated. One of the greatest faux pas, for a historian, is to read too much of their age into the past without due respect for players in the events they seek to understand. Without naming names, some ‘authorities’ on the subject, seem to believe that because in the 21 century, we believe in the equality of men and women, this somehow means that people who did not have the same beliefs in the past are morally hollow and contemptible. To see someone from 1790 as the same as someone from 1990 is to ignore the effects of 200 years of cultural moulding. As the psychologist Baumeister (1987) would say, selves take time to develop.

Though Nail Ferguson is a famously right of centre historian, it does not stop him having a point when he writes in ‘Empire’ that back in the 16^th century, England was one of the last nations in Europe to get involved in the slave trade. Only the prospect of being completely over taken by other European polities such as Spain and Portugal drove England to adopt the practice initially. Of course, once the habit was started it proved all too hard to break. Essentially, the 17^th and 18^th centuries saw very large scale conflicts between the European nations played out in the new and old continents of the world western world. Thus it was only when Britain’s ascendancy in Europe was apparent at the beginning of the 19^th century that she could afford the luxury of ending slavery, without fear of being overtaken by other nations.

At the time, of course, the nations of Europe genuinely believed that the extermination of their enemy would somehow herald a golden age for themselves – or at least lost of plunder. Nowadays, the Café hopes, the various nations of Europe appreciate that it is in no ones interests for Europeans to fight with one another of plunder. Life is more sacred than territory. Indeed, diversity is what allows us to know ourselves fully. Vive la difference! But just because we feel this way now, it does not mean we can, or should, apologise for events carried out by people 200 or more years ago.

It is also worth saying that, according to one rather insightful writer (George MacDonald-Fraser’s specifically his character Flashman) slavery could not have happened without the complicity of many tribal leaders. For such leaders, slavery was a convenient way of getting rid of political prisoners within a tribe in exchange for prized supplies. It was only sometime later (ie from about 1800 or so) that normal members of the tribe started to be rounded up and sold on in exchange for weapons and other supplies from Britain and other European powers.

On the more liberal side of the debate regarding slavery, a number of good historians have pointed out that many of the great cities of Britain, including Glasgow, Liverpool and Bristol could not have been built without slave labour. It is also worth noting that many of the most magnificent achievements from the Ancient World, such as Ancient Colchester and the Roman Baths at Bath to name just two could not have been built without slave labour. Does this warrant an apology from the Italians for their slavery in Britain circa 150-400 CE? Do Viking raids mean an apology from the Norwegians is long overdue? Does 1066 warrant an apology from the French? Just think about the court cases and compensation suites that could happen!

The cafe would go one step further and link the production of the railways, a generation after slavery was abolished entirely and sing the praises of the Irish navvy. Had it not been for their cheap labour many of Britain’s railways could not have been built. Does the mistreatment of the Irish labourer warrant an apology from Tony Blair? Would such an apology actually mean anything? Is the state of Britain in 2007 really capable of representing in some way that nation of pre 1807? The cafe does not believe it is.

If the café had to chose a side to back, it would probably be the mild ‘nos’ on the grounds that a) an apology to one group over another is just another form of discrimination, b) a culture of apology, where every nation has to say sorry to one another may not be very helpful for harmonious relations in the future and c) it is very dubious as to whether people can apologise for events they were not directly involved in. A statement of regret might be the most realistic approach.

We suggest a celebration of our collective achievements as human beings. Surely the great lesson is that the wonders that are present all across the world, in the form of cities such as London, Bristol, Glasgow, Paris and Kingston (Jamaica) to name a few, were only possible with whole groups acting in concert; some its members not even present in the country the monument now stands. One person did not build Paris many did. In this sense, no achievement is in isolation, but instead is part of a never ending web of cause and effect, action and consequence. All peoples are the inheritors of the great monuments not just an elite few.



(copyright for the image of Arch de triumph PCWorld.com and Baths at Bath Wikipedia.org).