Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

I wonder why the Guardian is wasting top news space on Proof of slave ownership by direct ancestors of Charles III!!!

[Tamas]

I wonder why the Guardian is wasting top news space on Proof of slave ownership by direct ancestors of Charles III!!!

Yeah, what a shocker, family with deep aristocratic roots has slave-owning ancestors.

Actually, this reminded me of something.

So, I don't really read about such things much, especially in the US where I imagine it's a more directly linked history for the black population so I am very ready to admit ignorance and change my views, but I was wondering if the whole 400-years-too-late outrage over slave trade/ownership (although I understand parts of it like wanting to remove statues deifying people who got rich trading slaves) is of actual importance to the black community on average, or it's one of these white self-flaggelating virtue signaling things?

I am asking because "repent, REPENT for the sins of your ancestors of 400 years ago, REPENT!!!" does not seem like a great way of going about fighting racism. I don't think anyone but the most obscure lunatic nowadays thinks (let alone openly proclaims) that enslaving black Africans was ok. And those who are racist cannot be guilt-tripped into dropping those views by this approach. In fact I wonder if highlighting the ancestors-kidnapped-from-Africa-against-their-will part of people's ancestry and putting it on a pedestal as the key part of their current identity can actually hinder efforts to fight racism and exclusion of blacks.

And then of course there are the far less important but still niggling things about history. I understand that due to skin colour these are infinitely less relevant, but e.g. I am sure Turkey and the Balkans are full of people with Hungarian slave ancestry from the 1600s thanks to the Ottomans. Not to mention people with Slavic slave heritage hidden across the Mediterranean. Or going back long enough the near-certainty that we have ancestors both on the slave-owning and slave side of things.

Sorry for the rambling, it's just been on my mind.

[Josquius]

I wonder why the Guardian is wasting top news space on Proof of slave ownership by direct ancestors of Charles III!!!

Its like their two  recent non-news seasons on historic slavery and the monarchy have combined.

Yeah, what a shocker, family with deep aristocratic roots has slave-owning ancestors.

Actually, this reminded me of something.

So, I don't really read about such things much, especially in the US where I imagine it's a more directly linked history for the black population so I am very ready to admit ignorance and change my views, but I was wondering if the whole 400-years-too-late outrage over slave trade/ownership (although I understand parts of it like wanting to remove statues deifying people who got rich trading slaves) is of actual importance to the black community on average, or it's one of these white self-flaggelating virtue signaling things?

I am asking because "repent, REPENT for the sins of your ancestors of 400 years ago, REPENT!!!" does not seem like a great way of going about fighting racism. I don't think anyone but the most obscure lunatic nowadays thinks (let alone openly proclaims) that enslaving black Africans was ok. And those who are racist cannot be guilt-tripped into dropping those views by this approach. In fact I wonder if highlighting the ancestors-kidnapped-from-Africa-against-their-will part of people's ancestry and putting it on a pedestal as the key part of their current identity can actually hinder efforts to fight racism and exclusion of blacks.

This is something the far right in America are really big on. This idea that all white people are bad and need to bow down and apologise profusely.
The reality is nothing like this.

The issue with slavery (.... you know what I mean) is that the historic setup still has echos today. Though officially everyone is equal, there are still some people sitting on vast fortunes off the back of slavery. I would agree to some extent that the UK does owe the old Caribbean colonies and should take a big active interest in building up the quality of life in the less developed ones.

And then of course there are the far less important but still niggling things about history. I understand that due to skin colour these are infinitely less relevant, but e.g. I am sure Turkey and the Balkans are full of people with Hungarian slave ancestry from the 1600s thanks to the Ottomans. Not to mention people with Slavic slave heritage hidden across the Mediterranean. Or going back long enough the near-certainty that we have ancestors both on the slave-owning and slave side of things.

Sorry for the rambling, it's just been on my mind.

The thing with the Islamic slave trade though is today the christian countries are substantially better off. They clearly did overcome this. Same too if we go way back in history to Roman slavery et al. With black people... the inequality persists.
Though it is definitely worth noting the echos of feudalism persist in modern Europe and seeking to tackle these.

[Sheilbh]

I believe Charles has supported a research project into slavery and the royal family (like the Guardian or the CofE did).

I suspect he won't be allowed by the current government but will end up making some form of formal apology once there's a new (non-Tory) government.

[Jacob]

I don't think self-flagellation is necessary, but as someone interested in history I'm definitely interested in knowing about things like which massive fortunes were built on the slave trade, which beloved institutions have ties to slavery, and so on. It's far from the only thing I'm interested in, nor is it anywhere near the top in terms of things I'm care about, but I think whitewashing stuff and ignoring it because it's awkward or whatever is the wrong thing to do.

If it is of use to various Black communities - because they're interested or because it bolsters various social justice arguments they want to make - that's great. But independently of that, it's worthwhile because... well, it's a non-trivial part of how our current society was built.

That said, I don't think taking down monuments put up to commmemorate folks who built their wealth and social success on the slave trade is "self flagellation." I think that's a perfectly fine action to take.

[Barrister]

When it comes to the UK though - although the UK absolutely participated in the slave trade and many profited off of it, the UK were early leaders in both abolishing the slave trade and in combatting it worldwide.

That has to count for something.

[Oexmelin]

Count for what?

[Sheilbh]

I don't think self-flagellation is necessary, but as someone interested in history I'm definitely interested in knowing about things like which massive fortunes were built on the slave trade, which beloved institutions have ties to slavery, and so on. It's far from the only thing I'm interested in, nor is it anywhere near the top in terms of things I'm care about, but I think whitewashing stuff and ignoring it because it's awkward or whatever is the wrong thing to do.

I agree.

If it is of use to various Black communities - because they're interested or because it bolsters various social justice arguments they want to make - that's great. But independently of that, it's worthwhile because... well, it's a non-trivial part of how our current society was built.

I'd add that in the case of the Guardian it's also involved a commitment to ten years of funding projects in certain areas of Jamaica and the Sea Islands based on their founding funders links. They've also committed to I think a number of new full time reporting roles in the Caribbean (which I think is a really positive step) - as well as other steps.

Similarly it's a small amount but the Church of England has set aside £100 million for spending on projects in areas historically affected by slavery.

It doesn't need to be the final step. It isn't even that these are beloved institutions but companies and universities and churches live for a very, very long time - so there is no stuff they can do.

That said, I don't think taking down monuments put up to commmemorate folks who built their wealth and social success on the slave trade is "self flagellation." I think that's a perfectly fine action to take.

I agree and it's also about the space we want to live in now.

And then of course there are the far less important but still niggling things about history. I understand that due to skin colour these are infinitely less relevant, but e.g. I am sure Turkey and the Balkans are full of people with Hungarian slave ancestry from the 1600s thanks to the Ottomans. Not to mention people with Slavic slave heritage hidden across the Mediterranean. Or going back long enough the near-certainty that we have ancestors both on the slave-owning and slave side of things.

I suspect part of that is simply that the UK isn't near the Balkans or the Med but was enormously involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. In the same way as I think it would probably be quite weird for Hungary or Romania to be having a massive debate about Atlantic slavery.

I think there's a vague awareness (especially in those areas) of the odd Barbary raides on these isles but that's not really a big part of Britain (or Ireland's story). It is normally an evasion and one that sort of reinforces it being about race - that somehow it is relevant from a position in the UK to point to Ottoman slavery in the Balkans. Similarly I imagine for historians and communities in West Africa there is awareness and consideration of both the Saharan and Atlantic trade in slaves (though I think there were real and significant differences in the Atlantic - not to excuse slavery in the Islamic world).

[Sheilbh]

When it comes to the UK though - although the UK absolutely participated in the slave trade and many profited off of it, the UK were early leaders in both abolishing the slave trade and in combatting it worldwide.

That has to count for something.

It's the Eric Williams line: "British historians write almost as if Britain had introduced Negro slavery solely for the satisfaction of abolishing it."

What you say is true. The wealth generated by the slave trade is also true - as is Williams' thesis that it helped Britain become an early leader in industralisation. It is what funded many long-established and august institutions. It is often hiding in plain sight - as David Olusoga pointed out about the ship on Manchester's coat of arms and the crest of both its football clubs, which was carrying cotton. Even away from the royals and the wealth of the people directly engaging in that trade, Britain also acquired a taste for sugar in its tea and built the economy of great (radical, liberal, reforming) cities, like Manchester, on cotton mills.

Britain did commit a lot of forces to stopping the slave trade in an early example of sort-of unipolar imperialism (seizing Brazilian ships, for example). There were people who campaigned against it from the start and I think there was a genuine deep-seated revulsion by the 19th century. But that meant Britain also used the existence of slavery in a territory as a justification for imperial expansion - while it just traded with territories that had slavery and a maxim gun.

I think that's all true at once. The King or the Guardian or the CofE doing research into slavery in their history does not change those things, but, hopefully, will add to the common knowledge of other equally true things.

Edit: I also think on the many profited from it point that I think that's true, but in a way would be my issue with how it's talked about now. Which is that I think there is maybe too much focus on the people who directly profited or the "establishment" - revelations that the royal family made money that way, or that x Lord or Lady or, say, someone with a surname like Cumberbatch did, are, I think widely known. I think the reassuring story British people tell ourselves about our past is to silo slavery as one of the many, many sins of the establishment and elite.  But, as I say, I think it profoundly changed the economy of the country as a whoe - it is part of the beloved story of the industrial revolution, it is part of shifting tastes and consumption of everyday British society.

They did not directly benefit in the same way but it is also a working and middle class story. We can't as easily separate the gout-ridden rich in wigs and the radical denizens of a Lowry painting as we'd like.

[HVC]

When it comes to the UK though - although the UK absolutely participated in the slave trade and many profited off of it, the UK were early leaders in both abolishing the slave trade and in combatting it worldwide.

That has to count for something.

Portugal has a weird distinction of being one of the first to abolish slavery in europe, but one of the last to abolish slavery in its colonies.

[Admiral Yi]

This is something the far right in America are really big on. This idea that all white people are bad and need to bow down and apologise profusely.
The reality is nothing like this.

The idea that all white people are bad and need to apologize profusely seems to me to be exactly what structural racism and the original version of wokeness are.

[Barrister]

Count for what?

I don't know.  Something.  As a set-off against the amount of metaphorical self-flagellation that Britain as a whole must endure for its complicity in the slave trade.

[Valmy]

When it comes to the UK though - although the UK absolutely participated in the slave trade and many profited off of it, the UK were early leaders in both abolishing the slave trade and in combatting it worldwide.

That has to count for something.

It's the Eric Williams line: "British historians write almost as if Britain had introduced Negro slavery solely for the satisfaction of abolishing it."

What you say is true. The wealth generated by the slave trade is also true - as is Williams' thesis that it helped Britain become an early leader in industralisation. It is what funded many long-established and august institutions. It is often hiding in plain sight - as David Olusoga pointed out about the ship on Manchester's coat of arms and the crest of both its football clubs, which was carrying cotton. Even away from the royals and the wealth of the people directly engaging in that trade, Britain also acquired a taste for sugar in its tea and built the economy of great (radical, liberal, reforming) cities, like Manchester, on cotton mills.

Britain did commit a lot of forces to stopping the slave trade in an early example of sort-of unipolar imperialism (seizing Brazilian ships, for example). There were people who campaigned against it from the start and I think there was a genuine deep-seated revulsion by the 19th century. But that meant Britain also used the existence of slavery in a territory as a justification for imperial expansion - while it just traded with territories that had slavery and a maxim gun.

I think that's all true at once. The King or the Guardian or the CofE doing research into slavery in their history does not change those things, but, hopefully, will add to the common knowledge of other equally true things.

Edit: I also think on the many profited from it point that I think that's true, but in a way would be my issue with how it's talked about now. Which is that I think there is maybe too much focus on the people who directly profited or the "establishment" - revelations that the royal family made money that way, or that x Lord or Lady or, say, someone with a surname like Cumberbatch did, are, I think widely known. I think the reassuring story British people tell ourselves about our past is to silo slavery as one of the many, many sins of the establishment and elite.  But, as I say, I think it profoundly changed the economy of the country as a whoe - it is part of the beloved story of the industrial revolution, it is part of shifting tastes and consumption of everyday British society.

They did not directly benefit in the same way but it is also a working and middle class story. We can't as easily separate the gout-ridden rich in wigs and the radical denizens of a Lowry painting as we'd like.

It is kind of a problem that somehow presumes that structural problems in systems only exist because bad people exist. The bad people didn't help or anything but...I mean how many of us here today are benefiting from something that is or will be considered morally reprehensible to people? We might even be somewhat aware of it but it is hard to fight every injustice at once. It is a process.

That doesn't mean we should build statues of people who benefited from, endorsed, and eagerly participated in those systems. Those aren't admirable qualities or anything.

But look at slavery. People born into that system, it is kind of a radical move to suddenly fight against it. And even if that person did take a radical anti-slavery position despite being born into a slave owning family like James Gillespie Birney, the Liberty Party being the original Birney-bros as it were, he probably still benefited from it and other bad things going on around him. I don't think he was out there demanding the indigenous people be given their land back or the tons of other bad things going on. It is hard not to be effected by the systems around you.

It is complicated. It seems to lack an amazing bit of self-awareness though for modern people observing all the unjust systems in our current societies to claim that these people in the past who had unjust systems were necessarily just bad people. It isn't that simple.

Besides the fact that basically everybody on this planet can track their ancestry to both a slave and master as well as a peasant and a king it gets a little ridiculous to start claiming ancestral guilt. Why don't we just all agree those things are bad and we should work to undo their persistent impacts as well as maybe stop doing them in our present day? Maybe? That would be cool.

[Jacob]

The idea that all white people are bad and need to apologize profusely seems to me to be exactly what structural racism and the original version of wokeness are.

Apologizing profusely does very little to address structural racism. I'm not surprised that folks link the two, but it's rather missing the point.

[Sheilbh]

I don't know that it's about guilt - I certainly don't think in terms of guilt. Or that it's about the profuseness of an apology but I think there is a role for formal apologies in looking at the past - because institutions don't really die easily so their past isn't just past. It's about record keeping in a way. I think the difficulty institutions have in making apologies shows exactly that there may be worth in doing so. 

Where I think there is a responsibility, is for us in the present (if we're interested in history) to reckon with and face the past. That doesn't mean that we are responsible or should feel guilty on a personal level - but I think (if we are interested in the past) then the least we owe it is to know, or try to.

It's not about taking away or diminishing the past, but trying to look at, know, reckon with it more completely. Seeing both at once.