A rather large bill......

Certainly, if the person in the UCL database was him nothing in the way of money came down to my branch of the family (of one of his daughters (my 2xgt gmother).

So if a slave owner didn’t receive any money that person’s descendants can’t possibly be expected to contribute towards any reparation.

brown eyed

It’s the practicalities that I think would verge on the ridiculous.

Should my blood blue eyed son ( my family genes) be part of the apologies and reparations to my dark brief eyed son
( fathers family genes) when they both come from the same heritage?

That’ll go down well😬

Which one of them was the oppressor and which the victim?

Luckygirl3

I do not think the current generation should be asked to financially compensate for the actions of their ancestors - it makes no sense, however abhorrent we recognize their actions to have been. Who gets this money? How will it help social cohesion, which has to be the ultimate aim?

We need to work towards that cohesion via the education and legal system.

How on earth could anyone prove that their ancestors were in any way involved in the slave trade and, if not, in what way were they responsible for the actions of the Government in those times?
Most people did not have the franchise then so could not vote. Many men could not vote until Representation of the People Act was passed in 1918 which also gave the vote to women over the age of 30, then eventually all women over 21 in 1928.

So the majority of people had absolutely no say in this.

I would think the majority of us were descended from these disenfranchised people.

I only said that some of my Caribbean forebears were 'probably' slave owners.

I have found a possible one in the UCL database of compensated persons but, from my own family history research the connection is tenuous and is possibly a case of confusing two people with the same name. No compensation amount is given and if it is 'my' connection by 1834 he probably owned about 3 slaves. He was a 3x gt greandfather. Certainly, if the person in the UCL database was him nothing in the way of money came down to my branch of the family (of one of his daughters (my 2xgt gmother)

www.ucl.ac.uk/social-historical-sciences/history/research/research-projects-and-centres/centre-study-legacies-british-slavery-cslbs/cslbs-projects-and-partners/legacies-british-slave-ownership?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The wealth that they received is long gone.

Not necessarily. Many of those who received large sums in compensation used them to create more wealth and there are families which benefit from that wealth today.

I asked Chatgtp if it could identify currently wealthy families whose wealth originated in compensation payments

It came up with this
start

The Gladstone family — John Gladstone (father of Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone) was one of the largest individual recipients of compensation (he received a very large award for hundreds of enslaved people). The Gladstone descendants remain a well-known, landed and prominent family; in recent years members of the family have publicly acknowledged and apologised for those links.

The Cameron / ancestral network — UCL’s research showed that some ancestors of former Prime Minister David Cameron were paid compensation. David Cameron himself is wealthy and the family’s connection has been widely reported.

The Pinney family (Bristol / Nevis) — the Pinneys were plantation owners in the West Indies, received substantial compensation, and used that money to buy property and consolidate social standing (their Bristol house is now a museum). Their wealth in the 19th century was directly tied to plantation profits and compensation.

It also said this:

“Wealth established by compensation” is often mixed with earlier plantation profits, later investments, marriages and business activity — so for many families the compensation was one important element among several that built lasting wealth. Economic historians emphasise that the payments were concentrated (a small share of owners received a large share of the money) and those large payments were reused as capital.

End

You obviously think people are responsible for the actions of their ancestors over whom they had no control so what something more concrete would you and your family be prepared to give?

IF my family had benefitted from compensation payments, or the ownership of plantations using slaves, which it patently hasn't, I would feel very uncomfortable about the source of our wealth and would seek to use some of it in some way to benefit people of the island we were connected with.

As far as reparations is concerned, the UK, as a nation, benefitted from slavery. As I have said before, I am not sure that the former colonies were given much help at independence and it could be incumbent on us to do more.

I'm not arguing the toss any further with this.

I do not think the current generation should be asked to financially compensate for the actions of their ancestors - it makes no sense, however abhorrent we recognize their actions to have been. Who gets this money? How will it help social cohesion, which has to be the ultimate aim?

We need to work towards that cohesion via the education and legal system.

KQ you keep asking questions like these.

What about the wealthy families whose wealth is based on the 'compensation' they received for the loss of their 'property'?

If they were still alive and sitting on that compensation pot, you could demand the money was returned to the government.
But they’re not and neither are those who were enslaved.

Do people think that they should continue to enjoy that wealth 'because they're not responsible for the actions of their forebears.

The wealth that they received is long gone. Some, like Edward Coulston, used their wealth for purposes that benefitted others.
I’m sure not all those who received compensation used it for philanthropic purposes.
However, their descendants had nothing to do with the slave trade.

You wrote about your ancestors involvement so the “issue” is, as I asked, what you personally, as someone who has involvement on both sides, would do.

You obviously think people are responsible for the actions of their ancestors over whom they had no control so what something more concrete would you and your family be prepared to give?

Of course poor people have suffered at the hands of the rich- but that wasn't the point of this post which was solely about some imaginary financial reparation being made as a consequence of the Atlantic tri-angular trade in whch human beings were exchanged for sugar and other commodities...

friendlygingercat

There were plenty of us white kids who grew up shit poor in the 1940s/50s - terraced house with an outside toilet alongside the railroad track. One miserable little fire and ice on the inside of the windows in winter. I do not feel the slightest guilt for what the rich and powerful did back in the 19th century.

I feel life for my ancestors, toiling in our dark satanic mills, living in poor housing etc were badly served by the rich and powerful.
They weren’t enslaved despite being tied to these tough lives to survive. They weren’t chased down with men on horseback, whipping and setting dogs on them
They understood the next generation should be literate and the next, my generation, shiukd stay at school and get work that was less back breaking

I’ve been reflecting on what we now see as abhorrent, ie slavery and compensating slave owners not slaves when it was abolished. After ww2, the German government did pay reparation to Jewish people. Slavery was a different horror than the holocaust. Of course, slaves should have been helped not thrown out with nothing, to try and survive.

We now share the UK with many people whose ancestors came from commonwealth/british empire. The majority of these people live good lives, contributing positively to the country. As Lenny Henry points out, the descendants of slaves are over represented in the prison and mental health population. The same happens in America

I don’t believe old money families should lose their ancestral homes to financially compensate slaves. I don’t believe money would change the lives of struggling people. Invest it in mh services, teach our history honestly. Don’t deny the legacy of slavery but we must move on together. The past is a different country.

Regarding people as property is abhorrent. People realised that a long time ago, which was one reason, along with economics, that slavery was stopped.
Awarding people money for the loss of property is unacceptable because the property was people.
Now we insure our non-human property so that in case of loss we will receive repayment and we regard that as acceptable.
How would you solve this issue?

I’m sorry, Mollygo but I don’t understand what the ‘issue’ is. (or why I’m expected to solve it’

There were plenty of us white kids who grew up shit poor in the 1940s/50s - terraced house with an outside toilet alongside the railroad track. One miserable little fire and ice on the inside of the windows in winter. I do not feel the slightest guilt for what the rich and powerful did back in the 19th century.

MaizieD

What about the wealthy families whose wealth is based on the 'compensation' they received for the loss of their 'property'?

Do people think that they should continue to enjoy that wealth 'because they're not responsible for the actions of their forebears?'

Regarding people as property is abhorrent. People realised that a long time ago, which was one reason, along with economics, that slavery was stopped.
Awarding people money for the loss of property is unacceptable because the property was people.

Now we insure our non-human property so that in case of loss we will receive repayment and we regard that as acceptable.

How would you solve this issue?

You mentioned that some of your ancestors were slave owners.
How would you decide which of their descendants will be responsible for making it and to whom it should be given?
Or what reparation you must make because of your ancestors?

I don't know about all those who acquired wealth through the slave trade but Edward Colston, for instance, funded charitable projects, founded schools, hospitals, almshouses etc but his name has now been eradicated from public buildings funded with his money.

What about the wealthy families whose wealth is based on the 'compensation' they received for the loss of their 'property'?

Do people think that they should continue to enjoy that wealth 'because they're not responsible for the actions of their forebears?'

In your situation, I appreciate that it’s difficult to say whether you blame yourself for the actions of your ancestors or blame your current problems on their actions.

Recognition and acknowledgement that slavery was horrific and wrong is important.

Education to help people understand that it meant the buying and selling of other humans, and that it involved trade not only the people who bought slaves, but by those who sold their own people.

The concern that an apology would be seen as a basis for making further demands is one reason why many leaders are reluctant.

The posts on GN referring to their ancestors enslaved by Romans, Vikings etc. may seem frivolous, but they highlight the problem of making living people responsible for the actions of those long dead.

It's a difficult one, Mollygo

Threequarters of my grandparent's generation, which is where the Caribbean strain was introduced, were of solid British stock, and part of the other quarter was British stock, too.

But if you look at the way the slaves, and former slaves post abolition, were treated, it was shameful. And I can't help feeling that there was a certain amount of abandoning the former colony to its fate at independence. Not to mention the way the Windrush generation were treated (and still are to some extent) . I feel that something more concrete than an 'apology' (which was given in 2008) might be appropriate.

Evidently France is not making financial reparations for slavery, and the government has rejected calls for them, prioritising symbolic acts instead.
While France officially recognised slavery as a crime against humanity in 2001, it has consistently ruled out financial compensation, with courts also rejecting legal claims for reparations. Historically, after abolishing slavery in 1848. . .

MaizieD

I have forebears who probably owned slaves as well as forebears who were slaves.

Do you consider yourself to blame for the actions of your ancestors, or blame any of your current problems on them?

It isn't well known that the first European nation to abolish slavery was France, by one of the Revolutionary governments.

The abolition of slavery was decreed in France by the Convention on 4 February 1794 (16 Pluviôse, Year II). It was applied in the West Indies, except in Martinique, occupied at the time by the British. On the other hand, the law did not come into force in the Indian Ocean colonies because of resistance from the landowner/colonists.

However, it was partial and slavery was eventually reinstated by Napoleon, though he had initially said he would maintain the ban

When he came to power, Napoleon Bonaparte had no intention of reversing the law of 1794. He declared this on several occasions, notably in a proclamation of 25 December 1799 to the inhabitants of Saint-Domingue: “The consuls of the Republic, in announcing the new social pact, declare that the sacred principles of liberty and the equality of the blacks will never be infringed or modified among you”.

After the reinstatement slavery continued until France banished it in 1848.

www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/napoleon-the-dark-side-napoleons-re-establishement-of-slavery-2-min-read/

And it took Britain from the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 another 26 years to abolish actual slavery in 1833. Even then, the 'Apprenticeship' scheme, which lasted for a couple of years, was really virtual slavery.

I have forebears who probably owned slaves as well as forebears who were slaves.

As someone said "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there".

We can learn from the past of course.

Allira

^However, it wouldn't do any harm to acknowledge the contribution the slave trade made to the British economy and still does.^

And the fact that Britain was foremost in the abolition of the slave trade along with Denmark.

True. That seems to be ignored though.

The contribution made to the British Economy is in the past and can’t be undone.
It’s important that Education about the impact of slavery is taught in school. One example is found here.
www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zc92xnb/revision/1


Interestingly, according to the BBC, not only Keir Starmer but also Rachel Reeves says the UK won’t be making financial reparations.
If Rachel says it . . .

The UK government refusal to offer monetary reparation does not imply that anyone believes slavery was acceptable.

However, it wouldn't do any harm to acknowledge the contribution the slave trade made to the British economy and still does.

And the fact that Britain was foremost in the abolition of the slave trade along with Denmark.

keepingquiet

Allira

It is a report from 2023, and it was a suggestion that the UK owes £18.8 trillion in reparation.

The report was rejected by Rishi Sunak.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790

Thankyou- that the UK may owe this sum does not mean it is going to re-paid.

The sum has been put forward mostly to demonstrate how much wealth was made as a result of this aberration, but no one is suggestion it ought to be paid back.

I thought I read somewhere (although I can't remember where) that that particular figure had been bandied about because it is today's equivalent of the compensation the slave owners and shareholders were paid for the loss of their possessions.

Much of the money was invested in the new industries in the nineteenth century, which were responsible for the UK's world dominance.

I don't think anybody has suggested that individuals should receive compensation. For a start, it would be impossible to decide who should get it and how much. However, it wouldn't do any harm to acknowledge the contribution the slave trade made to the British economy and still does.

Allira

It is a report from 2023, and it was a suggestion that the UK owes £18.8 trillion in reparation.

The report was rejected by Rishi Sunak.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790

Thankyou- that the UK may owe this sum does not mean it is going to re-paid.

The sum has been put forward mostly to demonstrate how much wealth was made as a result of this aberration, but no one is suggestion it ought to be paid back.

Ps Now Sir Leonard Henry has a book to sell.