Slavery and Past Crimes

It is nearly the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in 1807.

A news report comments:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed “deep sorrow” last week over Britain’s role in the African slave trade two centuries ago, a move that fell short of a full apology, but will still likely reignite debate in the United States about whether the U.S. government should issue its own a slavery apology. Blair said the upcoming 200th anniversary of legislation that abolished slavery in Britain gives his country “a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was -- how we condemn its existence utterly and praise those who fought for its abolition -- but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever could have happened and rejoice at the better times we live in today.”

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=ab45b15f5689e5ba3dbed76e60243efe

Earlier this year the Church of England issued its own apology:The Church of England has voted to apologise to the descendants of victims of the slave trade.

An amendment "recognising the damage done" to those enslaved was backed overwhelmingly by the General Synod. Debating the motion, Rev Simon Bessant, from Pleckgate, Blackburn, described the Church's involvement in the trade, saying: "We were at the heart of it." The amendment was supported by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Archbishop of York John Sentamu. Dr Williams said the apology was "necessary". He said: "The body of Christ is not just a body that exists at any one time, it exists across history and we therefore share the shame and the sinfulness of our predecessors and part of what we can do, with them and for them in the body of Christ, is prayer for acknowledgement of the failure that is part of us not just of some distant 'them'."

During an emotional meeting of the Church's governing body in London, Rev Blessant explained the involvement of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts in the slave trade. The organisation owned the Codrington Plantation in Barbados, where slaves had the word "society" branded on their backs with a red-hot iron, he said. He added that when the ancipation of slaves took place in 1833, compensation was paid not to the slaves but to their owners. In one case, he said the Bishop of Exeter and three colleagues were paid nearly £13,000 in compensation for 665 slaves. He said: "We were directly responsible for what happened. In the sense of inheriting our history, we can say we owned slaves, we branded slaves, that is why I believe we must actually recognise our history and offer an apology."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4694896.stm

I think this may be appropriate, as long as it is also respected that it was from within the Church and Churchmen such as Shaftsbury, that the impetus also came to end the slave trade. That side of the coin must not be forgotten, else the picture is too one-sided.

Darwin was strong against slavery even back then:

Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner and with cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; - what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children - those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own - being torn from you and sold like beast to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.

But how far does one go in apologies for the past? Must the Germans of today be forever condemned to apologies for the atrocities of the Nazis? How much are today's people responsible for the actions of their ancestors? (and did those ancestors even have a say in the matter? - in most cases probably not?).

Clearly, the blatant refusal to acknowledge the crimes of the past, and whitewash it, is not good either historically or morally. The Turkish government still refuses to acknowledge the Amenian genocide, and that cannot be right, for if the past can be glossed over in such a cavalier fashion, what will be their record on human rights today? Those people who deny the holocaust ever existed have to distort history to suit their ideology. While all history is enfolded in interpretation, it is still true that some events either happened or did not.

England's past is often violent and bloody, but not all Englishmen had a say; indeed many were on the receiving end of injustice. Many had no say in how they were governed; indeed to say "the nation (alias the government)", or "the church" had a say in slavery ignores the fact that until recently, with reforms in governance, neither body has been answerable to much degree to its members, and certainly was not at the time of the slave trade. The average person did not vote, and had no representation in Synod or the running of the Church's affairs. How can they be held responsible? Why should they apologise?

And what of those crimes which have no clear anniversary? When did the persecution and wanton torture and judicial murder of witches end? What about the transportation of convicts and vagrants (including children) to the colonies? What about the social workers who fantasised about satanic cults and child abuse, and split families with dawn raids, and interrogation that would not have been out of place in the 17th century witch trials? What about the persecution of non-conformists and Catholics? What about judicial hanging, especially when the innocent were (as has happened on a number of occasions) been hung? Who gives apology for this? Where do we draw the line?

I ask these questions, not to give answers, but because I think that the whole issue of apology for the past is very emotive, but has not been considered thoroughly enough; instead, we have a trend, not unlike that following the death of Princess Diana, when the nation was gripped by a kind of hysteria, which swept the land.

If there is going to be any apology for slavery, then I think it should also be a focus for a strong anti-slavery drive, which names and shames those types of people who still enslave others, and those nations which still permit slavery today.

The Royal Gazette, in Bermuda, is highlighting this, and telling people to sign the online petition at Anti-Slavery International

http://www.antislavery.org/

But there is nothing much in the British press about that at all; most is about the abolition of the slave trade, and attitudes towards that in the past.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=166725640&p=y667z6zzx

Yet just look at this breaking news:

Europe's leading human rights watchdog has criticised Ireland for failing to sign and ratify an international treaty tackling modern-day slavery. The 46-nation Council of Europe approved the new convention in May 2005 to strengthen the campaign against human trafficking. It need to be ratified by at least eight member states to come into force, but the council said today that only three countries had already done so. It needed to be ratified by at least eight member states to come into force, but the council said today that only three countries had already done so.

I checked up and these are:

These are Austria, Moldova and Romania. NOT BRITAIN!

http://www.coe.int/t/DG2/TRAFFICKING/campaign/default_en.asp

The site notes:

Trafficking in human beings is the modern form of the old worldwide slave trade. It treats human beings as a commodity to be bought and sold. The victims are put to forced labour, usually in the sex industry but also, for example, in the agricultural sector or in sweatshops, for a pittance or nothing at all. Trafficking in human beings directly undermines the values on which the Council of Europe is based.

Surely it is sheer hypocrisy for Tony Blair to apologies for the slave trade, yet for Britain to fail to ratify the convention?