On October 8th a debate took place in the House of Lords called ‘Reckoning with History: A Critical Discussion on the Reparations Debate‘. The event tapped into an area that is becoming increasingly politicised along cultural lines. Cultural politics straddle party-political lines, as attested by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Afrikan Reparations (APPG-AR). A year ago, the Guardian reported on the group and its aim to take “a very distinct and clear call for reparative justice” and its inaugural conference that was to bring together “representatives from the Scottish National Party, Green Party and Labour Party”. It is notable that Conservative MPs are thin on the ground in this group, and it seems unlikely it will ever include any Reform MPs. However, the issues of reparations and repatriations are pulling every party, every institution and every person in Britain into the vortex of often highly politicised and ideologically based discussions.
What stood out about ‘Reckoning with History’, organised by The Equiano Project, was the attempt to present a truly diverse range of views on the subject. I think the project succeeded rather well in that regard. The discussion was sufficiently wide-ranging to highlight the differences between the speakers’ positions. And what the speakers didn’t cover was covered by the audience members. Report of the discussion is available from the Equiano Project.
One of the major disagreements was to do with the data and the context of specific cases. This brought to the fore the fact that the discussion about reparations far too often veers off into one-size-fits-all solutions. When talking about reparations, too often a case is referenced in one county and the findings applied across the board to other countries straddling the Caribbean and Africa. In addition, the reparations argument relied on sweeping claims. For example:
- That the Trans-Atlantic slave trade system devastated Africa and the Caribbean.
- That it is a continuing contributing factor to the disparities for Caribbean people in the Caribbean and in the U.K.
- That while the evidence of the disadvantage is “difficult to pinpoint”, it is “reasonable to assume because no assets [of the slaves] passed down the generations”.
- That Britain and Western Europe developed because of colonialism.
- That the developmental aid, reparations, repatriations and mitigating climate change are connected remedies for the alleged historical moral injustice.
- That reparations are in the U.K.’s national interest because it will shore up our soft power to counter the influence of China.
Some of this was challenged from the Caribbean perspective that emphasised local culpability and the propensity to blame Britain when things are not going well. Others questioned whether the claims of disparities could be directly attributed to the claimed causes. After all, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and British colonialism happened some generations ago. The related question was: “Is it fair for us, U.K. taxpayers, to pay?” For many this might be the crux of the issue – is there concrete, measurable, uncontested proof of disparities traceable to British slavery, the slave trade and colonialism? The question of fairness rests on the existence of such proof. Unfortunately, there isn’t such proof, and that much was evident from the discussion. The claim that the impact is “reasonable to assume” relies on far too many assumptions. Assumptions are not proofs, and it would make a highly contested and unsound practice for any government to base transfer of funds and property on the basis of untested assumptions. After all, one might claim that a Yeti exists because many people claim they have seen it; that the Yeti will become extinct if the ice in the Himalayas melts any further; that we must stop the ice melting because the Yeti will die. There might be other reasons for trying to stop the ice melting in the Himalayas, but if the claim is that the Yeti will die, should we not first have the proof that it exists before we spend billions trying to save it? In the case of reparations and repatriations, there are far too many studies funded by activist organisations that are accepted without anyone scrutinising the conflicts of interest and the basis for the claims. Before plunging into bankrupting Britain to the tune of over £18 trillion – the amount the UN says Britain owes to descendants of former slaves – it might be worth seeing if the Yeti of reparations actually exists.
One of the most interesting discussions was around the moral justice question and moralising. And, of course, the case of the Benin bronzes and their return to the Oba of Benin came up. An audience member asked whether it was fair to return these objects to the beneficiaries of the Nigerian slave trade. Someone pointed out that Benin traded slaves too. While historically accurate, this somewhat missed the point. Following the argument about the soft power earlier, if Britain is to use reparations as soft power and enforce the moral rightness of reparations for past slave trading, then in effect it asks others to follow suit and atone for their slave trading.
It was rather unsurprising to hear the claim that the Benin objects were stolen and that giving them back is a matter of justice. I’m writing a thesis on this subject, but I’ll forego delving into this claim here. What was interesting about this part of the discussion was the point about conflating moral justice with economic improvement of certain groups. As the person pointed out, post-WWII reparations were about moral justice whereas today reparations appear to be about addressing economic inequality. The question was, if it is about economic inequality then should we still think of them as reparations?
Several questions picked up on the difference between on the one hand the past, justice, grievances and victimhood, and on the other the future, freedom, equality, agency and resilience. The overwhelming sentiment was about focusing on the latter and moving away from reinforcing wounds and incentivising perpetual grievances, especially given the difficulties in identifying the victims today. As Robert Tombs of History Reclaimed said, for any reparation claim to stand, there ought to be a perpetrator, an ill-gotten gain and a victim. Citing the Church of England case, he pointed out that the proposed CofE reparations would go “to black fund managers, social entrepreneurs and historians” and that while as a historian he welcomes the latter, these “are not generally thought of as the principal victims”.
While the discussion was rich and complex, the crux appears in the perception of who the victims are and what evidence there is to support their claims. For the proponents of reparations, the Caribbean and Africa form a Pan-African victim of the white Western slave trade, colonisation and oppression, with the emphasis on the moral injustice of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and the suffering of the estimated 12.5 million human beings. For others, the context of slave trading is less narrow, the contemporary issues are more pressing and the empowering of people to achieve their best irrespective of their ancestral history takes precedence.
The arguments and questions voiced at ‘Reckoning with History’ will be stated and restated over and over – this discussion is not likely to go away during the Labour’s term at the very least. The Don’t Divide Us representative hit the nail on the head by voicing a concern that what reparations appear to create is the moral framework of redistribution but at the expense of undermining the framework of equality. The questions the discussion left open are whether reparations and discussions about reparations can make positive progress towards a resolution of perceived grievances without shattering the framework of equality, without destroying the principle of fairness, without denying agency, and without negatively affecting the future by demonising the past.
Olga Gillies is Finishing a PhD thesis in Cultural Politics at the University of Buckingham.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Consultation exercises” are nothing but box ticking exercises primarily because the implementation decision has already been taken. Even when a consultation is convened a negative finding from those consulted always ensures a few tweaks and a rewording and then the original plan is enacted.
The announcement of a consultation exercise is simply confirmation that the scheme is good to go.
I wonder how many years in the slammer you’d get for not obeying this. Is there anything left in the UK that’s *not* a criminal offence? Well, with the exception of invading the country, which appears to be rewarded as opposed to prosecuted, obviously;
”CONTROL – Lockstep, as the UK government moves to control the entire food supply chain, including your own eggs!
From the 1st October 2024 it will be a criminal offence to own a SINGLE hen without registering with the authorities.
Micromanaging you food chain.”
https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1840405900206489651
YOU WILL OBEY!
Brilliant. Just now I registered my kiwi, cassowary, guinea fowl, psittacines, goose, chicken, and many many more. I want to help.
Exactly right. And the questions asked in these “consultation exercises” are always designed to come up with the required outcome: (“Are you happy with children being killed on our roads or do you support our idea of LTNs?) – OK I exaggerate, but not by much – so it’s good to see that some people have the common sense to say what they really think.
The fact that the response to the overwhelming opposition to the scheme was that “the outcome of the consultation resulted in modifications to the scheme not to the principle of a LTN” tells you all you need to know about these utter bar stewards.
I find this an interesting take.
Will they win this legal challenge? Could it be extended to national policies? We could start with the winter fuel allowance, then with Net Zero….
NO. Traffic legislation that would cover the changes that would introduce an LTN has its own specific non-transferable rules. If they win on failure to observe guidance on not proceeding in the face of mass opposition in would set case law for the future.
To make the legislation in the form of Traffic Orders a public consultation MUST be held in accordance with regulations. It has to be a genuine consultation so if for example equipment to implement the traffic scheme has already been purchased you can argue that it is not. I have never worked on a scheme where there was any expectation of NOT implementing it. Consultations are NOT a popularity contest so the number of responses either way – cycling schemes always got the cyclonutters out in force. It is the content of the responses in the form of objections that is most important as these MUST be answered once the legislation has been made. Honestly it is only really an objection on safety grounds that is likely to be heeded by the council. If objectors point out flaws in the plan that come true it does give them a stick to beat the council with that might get them to reconsider. An action in the High Court can ONLY be made on procedural grounds. That the consultation did not follow regulations or the council did not have he appropriate power. In terms of this one where consultation businesses was patchy, there is a case for going to court on ‘legitimate expectation’. If the scheme would affect your business in any way then you would have a legitimate expectation of being formally consulted. If you were sent some flowery scheme bullshit early on but not the formal consultation you have got them bang to rights. The ruse that is often used with these schemes is an Experimental Traffic Order. This does NOT require prior consultation as comments are made on the operation of the scheme for a period of 6 months. Here the council must indicate that it is an experiment – not a cheat to get a scheme in without consultation – and show what the measurement criteria are for judging the experiment. Case law was set with a challenge to the introduction of the Red Routes in London saying that TfL intended to have them so what was the experiment. TfL were able to show that there were elements of the Red Routes that were uncertain. The requirement that LTNs should not be introduced in the face of a lot of opposition is NOT in the regulations and would appear to just be guidance and not certain to be a successful argument.