Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British Empire and Slave Trade Reparations

The British Empire paid massive compensation when it abolished the slave trade. It’s just that they paid it to (checks notes) the people and companies that owned other people as property.

We should definitely get that money back now. Many of the companies still exist, and lots of the families involved don’t actually own that wealth , as that would mean they would pay death duties like little people do, so we could get a lot of that back too.
 
Last edited:
The compensation payments to former slave owners only ended in 2015. It would probably be legally very difficult, if not impossible, to get that money back as most payments were converted to annuities which were sold to foreign buyers.
 
Bahnhof Strasse said:
What could reparations even look like now?
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be money for individual descendants of victims. Maybe some sort of financial help for those countries which suffered from the slave trade. On Radio 4 this morning someone said one way the US does this is by providing scholarship places for students who are descendants at Georgetown University.
 
Humberto said:
Calls for this apparently. I imagine the UK government will simply say no. Interestingly it seems the 'Commonwealth' isn't the happy club it purports to be.


www.bbc.co.uk

Commonwealth heads of government to defy UK on slavery reparations

Downing Street insists a discussion about the issue is not on the agenda for the summit of 56 Commonwealth countries.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

The way this story is being presented is interesting.

Commonwealth heads of government are preparing to defy the United Kingdom and agree plans to examine reparatory justice for the transatlantic slave trade, the BBC has learned. Downing Street insists the issue is not on the agenda for the summit of 56 Commonwealth countries, which begins in the Pacific island nation of Samoa on Friday. But diplomatic sources said officials were negotiating an agreement to conduct further research and begin a “meaningful conversation” about an issue which could potentially leave the UK owing billions of pounds in reparations.
Click to expand...

Whatever you think about the substantial issue, it doesn't seem like a great look for the UK to simply refuse to discuss it with the rest of the members of the Commonwealth.

To present it as the rest of the Commonwealth "defying" the United Kingdom kind of suggests that the UK is still an Imperial power which can dictate to the rest of the Commonwealth.
 
andysays said:
The way this story is being presented is interesting.



Whatever you think about the substantial issue, it doesn't seem like a great look for the UK to simply refuse to discuss it with the rest of the members of the Commonwealth.

To present it as the rest of the Commonwealth "defying" the United Kingdom kind of suggests that the UK is still an Imperial power which can dictate to the rest of the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...

Not convinced - firstly how it's presented by the media is the media's fault, i rather doubt you'll find the FCDO briefing it in that way.

I don't have a problem with the idea of X party simply refusing to discuss Y subject because they have no interest in changing their position - they may as well be honest and say so if they aren't going to change their position.

The US isn't going to change it's position on Alaska with regards to Russia. Poland isn't about to return a third of it's territory to Germany. Argentina isn't going to give up it's claim to the Falklands, and the UK isn't going to change it's position on self-determination.

There's no point having conversations on those subjects, because those positions aren't going to change - and actually having those conversations is likely to lead to more strife, because someone is going to walk away feeling that they've been lead up the garden path.
 
A380 said:
The British Empire paid massive compensation when it abolished the slave trade. It’s just that they paid it to (checks notes) the people and companies that owned other people as property.

We should definitely get that money back now. Many of the companies still exist, and lots of the families involved don’t actually own that wealth , as that would mean they would pay death duties like little people do, so we could get a lot of that back too.
Click to expand...
Yup. This. It’s funny how “we” is never really all of us.
 
kebabking said:
Not convinced - firstly how it's presented by the media is the media's fault, i rather doubt you'll find the FCDO briefing it in that way.

I don't have a problem with the idea of X party simply refusing to discuss Y subject because they have no interest in changing their position - they may as well be honest and say so if they aren't going to change their position.

The US isn't going to change it's position on Alaska with regards to Russia. Poland isn't about to return a third of it's territory to Germany. Argentina isn't going to give up it's claim to the Falklands, and the UK isn't going to change it's position on self-determination.

There's no point having conversations on those subjects, because those positions aren't going to change - and actually having those conversations is likely to lead to more strife, because someone is going to walk away feeling that they've been lead up the garden path.
Click to expand...

From the BBC article

It is understood the Downing Street position – that reparatory justice is not on the agenda – while technically correct, has angered some Caribbean ministers when it was obvious the issue would be discussed at the summit. The BBC understands that the tenor and tone of language from the UK government has contributed to "irritating even more" some members who might not have expected the UK to change its view and "suddenly start shelling out a lot of money".
Click to expand...
 
A380 said:
Yep, Any reparations are going to come straight out of tax ( or borrowing) Not from the fucking Duke of Westminster or Reese-Moggs of this commonwealth…
Click to expand...

I heard an interesting peice on, I think, R4, from some bloke I didn't catch the name of - his view was that the UK was a 'going concern' - that it was effectively the same entity as it was in 1830 or whatever, and that nearly by living in the UK in 2024, you benefited from slavery because the country was far richer than it would otherwise have been. That the profits of slavery (and the profits of industries that were invested in with the profits of slavery) built the railways, the shipyards, the civic buildings, the museums, and the wealth that built the universities, the NHS, the welfare state, the 1880 Education Act...

I have some sympathy with that view - that I'm not a descendant of Slavers, indeed my family was dirt poor at the time, but that I have benefited enormously from the wealth that slavery brought to the place I live - the view continued that everyone who benefits should pay, and that that means everyone who lives here, regardless of how comparatively rich or poor you are, you are richer (in both the narrow and much wider sense) than you would have been without slavery.

Having lived in Bristol, and Glasgow, and London, I find the view persuasive - bit not professing to be one of the great moral figures of the age, I'm still not keen on coughing up...

My cynicism says that the attitude people take to the morality of slavery reparations is intimately tied to whether they think they're going to end up paying them...

Duke of Westminster? Oh yes, absolutely - squeeze the bastard!

£6bn out of the housing budget? Fuck off, nothing to do with me...
 
kebabking said:
I heard an interesting peice on, I think, R4, from some bloke I didn't catch the name of - his view was that the UK was a 'going concern' - that it was effectively the same entity as it was in 1830 or whatever, and that nearly by living in the UK in 2024, you benefited from slavery because the country was far richer than it would otherwise have been. That the profits of slavery (and the profits of industries that were invested in with the profits of slavery) built the railways, the shipyards, the civic buildings, the museums, and the wealth that built the universities, the NHS, the welfare state, the 1880 Education Act...

I have some sympathy with that view - that I'm not a descendant of Slavers, indeed my family was dirt poor at the time, but that I have benefited enormously from the wealth that slavery brought to the place I live - the view continued that everyone who benefits should pay, and that that means everyone who lives here, regardless of how comparatively rich or poor you are, you are richer (in both the narrow and much wider sense) than you would have been without slavery.

Having lived in Bristol, and Glasgow, and London, I find the view persuasive - bit not professing to be one of the great moral figures of the age, I'm still not keen on coughing up...

My cynicism says that the attitude people take to the morality of slavery reparations is intimately tied to whether they think they're going to end up paying them...

Duke of Westminster? Oh yes, absolutely - squeeze the bastard!

£6bn out of the housing budget? Fuck off, nothing to do with me...
Click to expand...
This is basically my view. The UK as an entity has a debt. I am also of the view that the UK as an entity is far too unequal, so the rich should be paying much more in tax. The cases for both of these views dovetail quite nicely.
 
If they want an insincere apology then by all means, it's one thing that Starmer is good at anyway. As for the idea that people who were not alive at the time slavery existed (some of whom themselves will be the remote descendants of slaves) paying reparations to other people who were also not alive at the time slavery existed then I don't favour it. Extra money raised in the UK be it from taxes or the desirable but unlikely squeezing of the rich can be better spent here in the UK.
Who would the money go to anyway? The descendants of the long dead slaves? The governments of the Carribean nations? the African nations where the slaves came from? (which are not necessarily in the Commonwealth).
 
MickiQ said:
If they want an insincere apology then by all means, it's one thing that Starmer is good at anyway. As for the idea that people who were not alive at the time slavery existed (some of whom themselves will be the remote descendants of slaves) paying reparations to other people who were also not alive at the time slavery existed then I don't favour it. Extra money raised in the UK be it from taxes or the desirable but unlikely squeezing of the rich can be better spent here in the UK.
Who would the money go to anyway? The descendants of the long dead slaves? The governments of the Carribean nations? the African nations where the slaves came from? (which are not necessarily in the Commonwealth).
Click to expand...
Some ideas have already been suggested. Scholarships for students from particular countries are a good idea. As mentioned above, investment in things like universities did come from the proceeds of slavery here in the UK, after all.

I do think the idea that the UK as a whole has benefited from greater development as a result of wealth from the slave trade has a very strong case. In many ways, 6 billion quid is quite small potatoes - less than the revenue from fag taxes each year. Establishing these kinds of schemes would be a way for the UK to reset its relations with the rest of the world. No longer the naked exploiter, recognising that it once was just that.

After all, the term 'Commonwealth' is nowadays something of a sick joke. It is anything but.
 
kebabking said:
I heard an interesting peice on, I think, R4, from some bloke I didn't catch the name of - his view was that the UK was a 'going concern' - that it was effectively the same entity as it was in 1830 or whatever, and that nearly by living in the UK in 2024, you benefited from slavery because the country was far richer than it would otherwise have been. That the profits of slavery (and the profits of industries that were invested in with the profits of slavery) built the railways, the shipyards, the civic buildings, the museums, and the wealth that built the universities, the NHS, the welfare state, the 1880 Education Act...

I have some sympathy with that view - that I'm not a descendant of Slavers, indeed my family was dirt poor at the time, but that I have benefited enormously from the wealth that slavery brought to the place I live - the view continued that everyone who benefits should pay, and that that means everyone who lives here, regardless of how comparatively rich or poor you are, you are richer (in both the narrow and much wider sense) than you would have been without slavery.

Having lived in Bristol, and Glasgow, and London, I find the view persuasive - bit not professing to be one of the great moral figures of the age, I'm still not keen on coughing up...

My cynicism says that the attitude people take to the morality of slavery reparations is intimately tied to whether they think they're going to end up paying them...

Duke of Westminster? Oh yes, absolutely - squeeze the bastard!

£6bn out of the housing budget? Fuck off, nothing to do with me...
Click to expand...

The view that everyone living in the UK has benefitted sounds legit. Starts to feel a bit strange when those who came over on the Windrush and their decedents should pay up...
 
Presumably with a straight face, Reeves has rejected the call for reparations, saying that the UK would (and I quote):

"Prioritise research into reparations justice."
 
kebabking said:
I heard an interesting peice on, I think, R4, from some bloke I didn't catch the name of - his view was that the UK was a 'going concern' - that it was effectively the same entity as it was in 1830 or whatever, and that nearly by living in the UK in 2024, you benefited from slavery because the country was far richer than it would otherwise have been. That the profits of slavery (and the profits of industries that were invested in with the profits of slavery) built the railways, the shipyards, the civic buildings, the museums, and the wealth that built the universities, the NHS, the welfare state, the 1880 Education Act...

I have some sympathy with that view - that I'm not a descendant of Slavers, indeed my family was dirt poor at the time, but that I have benefited enormously from the wealth that slavery brought to the place I live - the view continued that everyone who benefits should pay, and that that means everyone who lives here, regardless of how comparatively rich or poor you are, you are richer (in both the narrow and much wider sense) than you would have been without slavery.

Having lived in Bristol, and Glasgow, and London, I find the view persuasive - bit not professing to be one of the great moral figures of the age, I'm still not keen on coughing up...

My cynicism says that the attitude people take to the morality of slavery reparations is intimately tied to whether they think they're going to end up paying them...

Duke of Westminster? Oh yes, absolutely - squeeze the bastard!

£6bn out of the housing budget? Fuck off, nothing to do with me...
Click to expand...

I do have some issues with this argument - firstly that the "benefits" that are cited as being around today are not localised here, and are to one degree or another global at this point.

Secondly it does inevitably minimize the serious exploitation which was happening here at the same time to the majority of the population and being carried out by the same people who owned slaves; the whole of the UK was (edit) not like Bridgerton and up until living memory the lot of many people was a very bad one.

I must say though that this debate over "reparations" seems, at least in the way the press / politicians are talking about it here and elsewhere, does seem to be framed in such a way to deliberately stoke divisions. The ten-point CARICOM plan that was raised a while ago (and which I think is still the basis of their position) is very difficult to find anything to object to as the starting point for negotiations.
 
Reparations wouldn't even be wanted if the world's economic system were socialist instead of capitalist, because wealth would already be systematically flowing from where it was produced but surplus, to where is was actually needed. Under the circs I'm not against reparations, but I think they are (or will turn out to be) a sticking plaster, when what's actually needed is global revolution.

The yaa boos on the radio all frothingly against reparations nOt frOm mE I tEll yOu would be even more cross about that :thumbs:
 
tony.c said:
Chris Williamson, former Labour MP now Workers Party of Britain, was on midday Radio 4 suggesting that cancelling the debts of countries which were victims of slave trade could be part of the reparation.
Click to expand...

Are the countries themselves victims of the slave trade though? Would they even exist today without it? (thinking Caribbean countries, not African ones...)
 
Bahnhof Strasse said:
Are the countries themselves victims of the slave trade though? Would they even exist today without it? (thinking Caribbean countries, not African ones...)
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge virtually all the Caribbean islands were already populated by various indigenous peoples prior to the arrival of Europeans and the slave trade. IIRC I think it was the either the Caribs or Arawaks in Jamaica, I'm probably wrong though.
 
tony.c said:
Chris Williamson, former Labour MP now Workers Party of Britain, was on midday Radio 4 suggesting that cancelling the debts of countries which were victims of slave trade could be part of the reparation.
Click to expand...
What countries were those? Because we're not talking about actual African countries who are the people that actually enslaved the African slaves in the first place and then sold them to European merchants. Remember every African slave was owned by a black man before he was owned by a white man.

You do know that black people in the USA have the highest living standards of any black people in the world and the Caribbean people are not far behind and I would love to live in Jamaica or any of the other Caribbean islands.
 
ID47 said:
To the best of my knowledge virtually all the Caribbean islands were already populated by various indigenous peoples prior to the arrival of Europeans and the slave trade. IIRC I think it was the either the Caribs or Arawaks in Jamaica, I'm probably wrong though.
Click to expand...
You're completely right it was the Caribs and Taino. When England took Jamaica it already had slaves on it, african slaves on it, black slaves on it, and they had already been there 150 years whilst it was a Spanish colony, will the Spaniards be paying Compensation as well?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PTK
British Army Death Squad Soldiers to be Prosecuted
Replies
4
Views
426
PTK
PTK
teqniq
Data breaches/IT security failures at Sellafield, the British Library, the Guardian and UK businesses
2 3
Replies
73
Views
4K
bcuster
bcuster
BristolEcho
Modern Slavery at TN Trawlers
Replies
5
Views
346
CNT36
C
JimW
Grave robbing suspected in unregulated UK trade in human bones
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
furluxor
furluxor
Pickman's model
british trump supporters
Replies
22
Views
896
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
Back
Top Bottom