The former MP has asked for her name to be removed from on-going research into slave ownership in the West Indies on the grounds of privacy and that she felt she was being "singled out" when there were plenty of other living descendants of slave owners. To me, this is another interesting example of the current questions around Britain's colonial past and potential reparation payments.
Personally, I do not think that the view of simply forgetting about such things as they "happened a long time ago" is the right one. At the very least I think there should be an acknowledgement if families or businesses owe much of their original wealth to the slave trade. In Sandbach's case, not only would it appear that, as a descendant, she personally benefited from it in terms of her more privileged upbringing but, moreover, continues to benefit from it via holiday let properties on the same lands in the West Indies. I am not in any way saying that she is condoning what her ancestors did, but she is still reaping material benefits from it. From a moral point of view, should she not at least acknowledge this and, perhaps, give something back?
Of course, whilst it is true that some of the country's wealthy families may owe considerable proportions of their founding wealth to the slave trade triangle, there are many more that owe their inherited wealth and status to other forms of exploitation. These include, for example, those that made their monies out of the exploitation of empire as well as those who made it out of the exploitation of the British working classes in their mines and factories etc.
Much of the old, traditional, aristocracy owe their wealth and power to William Conqueror who stole swathes of land from the Anglo-Saxons for himself and then rewarded his Norman followers with some of them. These land owning families became exceptionally powerful and marriages between themselves sought to ensure the continuation of this power. There is a pretty convincing argument to say that many of this country's inequalities can be traced back to the customs brought over by the Normans. On top of this, the power of the Church has to be factored in. Until Henry VIII, the Church was the most powerful force in the country and certainly much of its wealth was made from the tithes and exploitation of the people.
It is difficult to draw a line and, of course, human nature is a such that there will always be the more powerful few who attain their wealth and power through the exploitation of others as much as through their other abilities and money does tend to beget money. This applies to all nations and slavery, for example, has always been a world-wide historical phenomenon. Having abolished it, the British fought it wherever it then found it, particularly in Africa. The Atlantic slave trade itself was always enabled by Black African and Arab slave traders.
You cannot undo the past but we should surely be able to learn from it and try and do better and I believe that the first step to this is to acknowledge any mistakes or wrong-doing. The researcher in this case, Al Nasir, claims that "a fundamental right is being put under threat by the notion that anyone who doesn't like what you find can demand censorship" and I don't disagree with him. Antoinette Sandbach cannot be held responsible for the actions of her slave owning ancestor-but she can be held responsible for her responses to that.
Even having acknowledged past actions, it is still clearly far more complicated to decide on how -or if -any reparations should be made and ideas about legally enforcing this are even trickier. Suggestions by some that Britain, as a country, should pay reparations for example is surely wrong as this means using tax payers money, taking from a population who overwhelmingly did not benefit or take part in the trade. I just think it might be nice to think that some individuals who are innocent themselves but whose privileges have been founded on the less salubrious actions of their ancestors might seek to make some kind of amends out of a pricking of conscience should they be able to do so. To be fair, some have already chosen to do this (though they have also then put themselves in the line of fire of those claiming that they should do even more). What I do disagree with is those who try and paint (white) Britain as a whole of being guilty of the sins of slavery or colonialsim. Whilst it is certainly true that culturally, ideas of British superiority and racism were fed to all, and for a long period, in reality, only a comparative few really benefited with far more being exploited themselves.
Apologies for the long post but while I await news of new acquisitions before the transfer deadline (😂 ) I just think it's an interesting issue and wonder what others think?
Reply With Quote
