Abolition of Slavery: Apologise or Not Apologise. Discuss.

[The Lone Gunman]

That's what I'm trying to say. It's ok to take national credit for the great acts of the ancestors of our nation, of course. I take great pride in many things we did long before I was born.

But so many people seem to be completely unwilling to acknowledge national responsibility for allowing the Slave Trade to continue for so long. That's the problem. And it's a national apology which is required. By our leaders, our Prime Minister, our Sovereign.

It won't magically rewrite history, of course it won't. But it would bring a great amount of healing. This last week has shown what a disgracefully arrogant nation we are. Fingers are endlessly pointed - "But the Africans sold the slaves to us in the first place", "France and Spain and Portugal did it too", "It was 'just as bad' working in British factories". Anything but acknowledge what we did.

Just acknowledge it. You won't be admitting to individual guilt, any more than the apology would be given to an individual. It's a national apology to a diaspora of people who are still to this day born into disadvantage. That's all it is.

I think you will find that in my first (or second) post on this subject I acknowledged that our history is littered with unsavoury things. Unsavoury things that were of thier day.

As a nation we have performed our act of contrition. We as a nation abolished slavery. That act announced to the world that we as a nation felt it was wrong.
How many times do you think we should acknowledge that what happened was wrong?
Do you think that a celebration of the 200th aniversary of the abolition slavery is in some way saying that we still think slavery is OK?

We as a nation have nothing to apologise for in this day and age.

[threaded]

So I guess what he's saying is that the one country that when it realised what was going on and stamped it out and then went around the rest of the world trying to stamp it out is only one that should apologise and pay reparations?

[dang65]

I think you will find that in my first (or second) post on this subject I acknowledged that our history is littered with unsavoury things. Unsavoury things that were of thier day.

As a nation we have performed our act of contrition. We as a nation abolished slavery. That act announced to the world that we as a nation felt it was wrong.
How many times do you think we should acknowledge that what happened was wrong?
Do you think that a celebration of the 200th aniversary of the abolition slavery is in some way saying that we still think slavery is OK?

We as a nation have nothing to apologise for in this day and age.

I do acknowledge this argument. We realised the error of our ways and stopped trans-Atlantic slave trading from continuing (as noted above the ownership of slaves and trade of slaves already across the Atlantic continued legally for many years). That is indeed a credit to the nation.

But we have never, as a nation, apologised for the Slave Trade, or even suffered any penalty because of it. No one was prosecuted for what they had done before slave trading was made illegal. But simply changing the law does not make the original crime go away. And it was a crime. Slave trading wasn't, but mass murder was - it was just overlooked, completely ignored.

The problem we've got is that people really do perceive that in abolishing the Slave Trade our responsibility and guilt for the whole episode simply evaporated. But the legacy continues even now, in our nation's great wealth and in the racial inequality experienced by the descendants of the slaves. We as a nation refuse to even see this, let alone feel any remorse.

It's standard procedure in these debates to cite the Nazis, and I wonder what the reaction would be if the Germans had simply said after the war, "Yeah, we've made sure it's illegal to murder Jews now, and that's our act of contrition. OK?" It's almost completely meaningless. Obviously it should be illegal to murder Jews, or to trade other human beings like cattle. But we did it, for hundreds of years. And just saying that we then stopped doing it does not put everything right.

[BrollyBabe]

Who are we apologising to? All decendants from slaves? If so why are we apologising to them, they never went through it and they will never know where they would be now if slavery hadn't of happened.

I wont apologise for this as I took no part in it. How can we take the blame for something I took no part in and wasn't even here for?

[Not So Wise]

Opening up old wounds?

The wounds are already open, that's what needs healing, hence the apology.

The apology will do nothing to heal those "wounds" due to same reason those wounds are still there. Some people NEED to keep them open and bleeding, otherwise who/what could they blame for everything wrong in their lives?

Slavery was wrong and still is wrong, but honestly what real effect does it have on people today beyond them not being born in some war torn/aids plagued/poverty stricken 3rd world country?

None

Same for their parents and in vary majority of cases grandparents,great grandparents and great great grandparents

Instead of wasting time appeasing sad sods with chips on their shoulders because their great great great great grandfather was a slave world would be far better off paying more attention to the injustices happening today and not just apologising for them either but setting things right

[dang65]

I won't apologise for this as I took no part in it. How can we take the blame for something I took no part in and wasn't even here for?

Try reading the last few pages of this thread.

[The Lone Gunman]

I do acknowledge this argument. We realised the error of our ways and stopped trans-Atlantic slave trading from continuing (as noted above the ownership of slaves and trade of slaves already across the Atlantic continued legally for many years). That is indeed a credit to the nation.

Our nation did its bit. It may have taken a while but it was done.
What happens in other countries is beyond our law.

But we have never, as a nation, apologised for the Slave Trade, or even suffered any penalty because of it. No one was prosecuted for what they had done before slave trading was made illegal. But simply changing the law does not make the original crime go away. And it was a crime. Slave trading wasn't, but mass murder was - it was just overlooked, completely ignored.

Civilization is a gradual thing. Slavery had been common practice since the dawn of time. Its abolision being enshrined in law is a huge step.
You can not prosecute someone for acting within the law. It was not a crime at the time.

The problem we've got is that people really do perceive that in abolishing the Slave Trade our responsibility and guilt for the whole episode simply evaporated. But the legacy continues even now, in our nation's great wealth and in the racial inequality experienced by the descendants of the slaves. We as a nation refuse to even see this, let alone feel any remorse.

The legacy of wealth created by the slave trade is also being enjoyed by those who are descended from those slaves.
The guilt of the father must not be visited on the son..

It's standard procedure in these debates to cite the Nazis, and I wonder what the reaction would be if the Germans had simply said after the war, "Yeah, we've made sure it's illegal to murder Jews now, and that's our act of contrition. OK?" It's almost completely meaningless. Obviously it should be illegal to murder Jews, or to trade other human beings like cattle. But we did it, for hundreds of years. And just saying that we then stopped doing it does not put everything right.

I lived in Munich for 5 years and I promise you, they have had enough of being found guilty.
There are possibly some Germans still alive who have something to apologise for.
What the Nazis did was not accepted practice in the civilized world at the time by any stretch of the imagination. You are realy reaching fo ran argument there.
The German people surrendered, they offered up the guilty for trial and they accepted whatever the rest of the world threw at them as their act of contrition.


I know. Lets ask each and every descendant of slavery what their ancestors were before they were slaves. If they were subsistance farmers on the Ivory Coast then lets by the descendants subsistance farms on the Ivory Coast and remove their citizenship from wherever they are now.
Then we can sue the Zulus and Arabs who should never have sold us stolen goods in the first place.

Now about those acts of war and the Normans and stuff.
By your same measure. Invasion and war is illegal. The Normans, and the Vikings before them invaded or stole land and slaves from the native English. How about the Romans doing the same?

Todays rich are there because of patronage to one previous tyrant or another.

You simply can not do what you are asking for one part of history.

[dang65]

Civilization is a gradual thing. Slavery had been common practice since the dawn of time. Its abolition being enshrined in law is a huge step. You cannot prosecute someone for acting within the law. It was not a crime at the time.

What the Nazis did was not accepted practice in the civilized world at the time by any stretch of the imagination. You are really reaching for an argument there.

The German people surrendered, they offered up the guilty for trial and they accepted whatever the rest of the world threw at them as their act of contrition.

These seem like contradictory statements to me.

The Slave Trade was "legal" because we said it was. The same could be said about the Holocaust. The Nazis were the lawmakers in much of Europe at that time and they decided it was ok to kill Jews, so they did it. The only way they were stopped was by being defeated in battle.

The slaves didn't say that the Slave Trade was accepted practice. Ah, hang on, they weren't in the civilised world were they. Sorry, I forgot.

Here's a quote from the BBC site:

Some have argued that some African kingdoms were more socially and economically advanced than many European countries before 1500.

In the 14th century, the West African empire of Mali was larger than Western Europe, and reputed to be one of the richest and most powerful states in the world.

But we decided what was accepted practice and went ahead anyway.

The legacy of wealth created by the slave trade is also being enjoyed by those who are descended from those slaves. The guilt of the father must not be visited on the son.

I don't think that this is the right place to be using Biblical quotes as if they were, er, gospel. When the guilt of the father continues to fund the privilege of the son then the guilt should be visited on the son. And it's unbelievably patronising to claim that the descendants of the slaves are 'enjoying' the legacy of wealth created by the slave trade. That's kind of like if the council had forceably possessed your grandfather's house and left your family in poverty for several generations, but they had built a nice library with the profits from selling it and you could go in there and 'enjoy' reading the books if you wanted.

The advanced civilisation of the west of Africa was destroyed by hundreds of years of slave trading. More than 11 million people transported away in the largest forced migration of humans in history.

I know. Let's ask each and every descendant of slavery what their ancestors were before they were slaves. If they were subsistance farmers on the Ivory Coast then lets by the descendants subsistance farms on the Ivory Coast and remove their citizenship from wherever they are now. Then we can sue the Zulus and Arabs who should never have sold us stolen goods in the first place.

Now about those acts of war and the Normans and stuff. By your same measure. Invasion and war is illegal. The Normans, and the Vikings before them invaded or stole land and slaves from the native English. How about the Romans doing the same?

This is a typical smokescreen put up by 'revisionists' (i.e. the majority of the British population at the moment - I am not denying that!). For a start, there is only a tiny minority of black activists demanding actual financial reparation. Forget it. It's not a big issue and it's not going to happen. The issue is in acknowledging the destruction of west African civilisation in order to enrich several European countries, primarily Britain, and the legacy which continues to this day.

And trying to point to others and say, "Why aren't they apologising?" is also beside the point. What if those against abolition had just said, "Well, Spain, France and Portugal are still doing it, so why should we stop?" and the abolitionists had said, "Yeah, you've got a point there, carry on then". (Incidentally, France has already apologised for its role in the Slave Trade, as have the Church of England and the City of Liverpool. And Ken Livingstone.)

No one is realistically expecting apologies from the Romans, the Vikings or the Normans because, frankly, they improved our society, albeit in a violent manner a lot of the time. They made our early history and gave us the original basis for our powerful European civilisation. Their legacy is a positive one for us in Europe, all things considered.

Today's rich are there because of patronage to one previous tyrant or another.

You simply can not do what you are asking for one part of history.

Today's rich are made to pay for their inherited privilige via taxes. In several European countries they paid for it with their lives and by having their property seized. What we're talking about is the "birthright" we have as native Britons, rich or poor. We are born into a wealthy country, and it became wealthy in the first place in a huge part because of the Slave Trade.

I don't go with this argument that "you simply can not do what you are asking for one part of history". It's not one part of history. We amend history all the time. Parts of Europe have been re-organised many times in recent history. We don't say, "Ah, yeah, Germany took control of that part of Poland by force and that's history and we can't do anything about it". What actually happens is that that part of Germany gets given back to Poland. In the case of the Slave Trade, all that is being requested is an apology, an acknowledgement of the injustice and evil of this massive crime against humanity. And this last week has exposed like a gaping wound exactly how unlikely it is that that apology will come. Personally, I'm f**cking disgusted, but I do realise that the majority of other people don't feel the same way. In fact, people are actually feeling picked on! Unbelievable.

[lordlummee]

Who are we apologising to? All decendants from slaves? If so why are we apologising to them, they never went through it and they will never know where they would be now if slavery hadn't of happened.

I wont apologise for this as I took no part in it. How can we take the blame for something I took no part in and wasn't even here for?

I rarely, if ever, post here but this issue makes my blood boil!

I have to agree with the sentiment above. It really is quite simple. We live in a different world now. What irritates me is the thinly veiled accusations that if you do not apologise then you automatically condone slavery and are a bigotted racist. No, I won't apologise because I have nothing to apologise for!

The pictures of people wearing T-shirts with "So Sorry" emblazoned across them typify the modern prevailing political attitude in this country that makes me weep.

I guess this attitude makes me a paid up member of the BNP does it?

I am sick of the chattering classes trying to make us feel guilty for the sins of people who died centuries ago.

Look forward, not back!

[dang65]

We live in a different world now.

If only that were true.