The continuing impact of slavery past and present
|
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/02/continuing-impact-of-slavery-past-and-present Version 0 of 1. Kris Manjapra does well to remind us of Britain’s slave legacy (When will Britain face up to its crimes against humanity?, 29 March). It would be no exaggeration to say that the entire Atlantic economy of former times, from which Britain profited more than most, was based on slave labour. Far from representing the new birth of freedom, what the discovery of the Americas brought about was a new birth of slavery. In the settlement of the New World prior to 1820, Africans outnumbered Europeans by roughly five to one. So the typical American settler was neither a swaggering entrepreneur nor a Bible-wielding Puritan, but a terrified African captive. Where Manjapra errs is in applying today’s moral assumptions to the past. What was truly extraordinary about abolition was not that parliament paid £20m to slave owners, but that it put paid to a system that had served Britain well in the past and would doubtless have continued doing so. Parliament’s ex gratia payment was the least of the sacrifices involved. By withdrawing, first from the slave trade and then by freeing its slaves, Britain was effectively handing over lucrative markets to its continental rivals. The result, clearly seen at the time, was the economic ruin of the British West Indies, the rise of Cuba as the world’s principal slave-importer and sugar producer, and higher costs to British consumers.Howard TemperleyNorwich • Kris Manjapra’s excellent article reminds us of some uncomfortable contemporary truths. One is that many political and business “leaders” are where they are in part because their families benefited from the trade; millionaire and ex-prime minister David Cameron is only one such beneficiary. Another is that business has always been able to exert pressure to ensure that its interests are put before those of slaves. In the contemporary context, the extraordinarily weak clause 54 of the Modern Slavery Act allows companies to present modern slavery statements on their website as an indication that they are addressing the issue (Felicity Lawrence, 2 April), whereas research shows that most companies covered by the clause are doing little to root out slavery in supply chains here or abroad, much in line with Manjapra’s comment that “the British habit is to externalise the problem of slavery as playing out in some distant place”. What he might also have mentioned is that this distancing occurs within the British state: while the Home Office exhorts us all to address the evil of modern slavery, the government steadily creates the conditions for slavery to occur through its continuing drive to deregulate the labour market, exposing increasing numbers of workers to the risk of severe exploitation.Professor Gary CraigYork • Kris Manjapra is wrong that the University of Bristol’s Wills Memorial Building was named after slave owners. The accusation that has been made is that the Wills family firm bought tobacco from slave owners, not they were themselves slave owners. That may have been true before the abolition of slavery in the US, but WD and HO Wills remained relatively a small firm until well after abolition. It was not until 1883 that the company acquired the UK rights to an American machine for making cigarettes, and only after that date did the money really start to roll in. The money that paid for the Wills Memorial Building, and much else in Bristol, was actually generated by the exploitation of the labour of British workers, mostly women and girls, in the Bedminster factories, built after 1886. The Wills family have more to apologise for in relation to the sale of cheap mass produced cigarettes, causing immense damage to the health of millions of people in the UK and across the world.Peter MalpassBristol • Twenty centuries on from the crucifixion of Jesus, Jonathan Freedland (31 March) recounts that within living memory, Christians blamed the Jews, and not the Romans, for the deed. Some may still do so. So what hope is there for settlements of more recent outrages against humanity, such as slavery (which has not been eradicated)? Lenny Henry (My Caribbean trip has opened my eyes to the empire’s legacy, 31 March) has a suggestion that could go some way to making amends for slavery. Following Brexit, he tells us that Jamaican friends say the UK will need new friends. Why not create a rebranded Commonwealth? Lenny says: “Allow [the Commonwealth] to look to the future and not be so weighed down by the past … a big family of nations working together. We should try to make that happen.”Amanda NorrieLondon • Your long read on slavery is one of the best. One of the interesting facts is that 6% of the claimants received more than 50% of the compensation, similar to the 7/84 theatre company’s guiding fact that 7% of the Scottish population owned 84% of the land. Which begs the question: were any of the Guardian founders involved in the slave trade? Margaret VandecasteeleWick, Highland • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters Slavery David Cameron Bristol Lenny Henry letters Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Share on LinkedIn Share on Pinterest Share on Google+ Share on WhatsApp Share on Messenger Reuse this content |