Slavery !

[ditchy]

Is it right forTony Blair to apologise over the Slave trade that happened over 200 years ago ?

 

[Marc]

I think its pathetic!

Blair...just f*** OFF

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I've thought about this a lot, for some reason.

The conclusion I came to was that it is right to celebrate the anniversary of the abolition of slavery and Blair can apologise if he wants to, but his apology is not in my name.

I've been doing a lot of research into my family history of late and have managed to trace every single line of ancestry I have (all sixteen of my great great grandparents and 28 of my 32 great great great grandparents) back to the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Looking at the occupations and circumstances of every single one of my ancestors who were alive 200 years ago, I see nothing but low status occupations, poor housing and minimal prospects for any sort of upward mobility. I have ancestors who were forced into migration. I have ancestors who were street sweepers. I have ancestors who died in the workhouse.

None of them were members of the affluent classes who made a fortune out of slavery. None of them showed any sign of benefiting from the slave trade. Like millions of ordinary people in Britain, they were down-trodden and exploited.

Blair's class may have been different. He may have something to apologise for, on behalf of his ancestors. But he can keep my family out of this.

Yes, we can all celebrate the end of slavery. And we can celebrate a general escape from exploitation. But to apologise "on behalf of the British people" is to insult those millions of us (including ALL my forebears) who were not implicated in the evils of the time.

 

[ditchy]

thats a great response LB and something i agree with entirely

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

It's just lip service until he returns all lands aquired by conquest during those times and are still in english hands.

Up until then he's full of shit.

 

[clapham_gull]

Sorry, but he DIDN'T apologise.

Just expressed "sorrow", he's actually been criticised in some quarters for NOT apologising.

Unless I read the story wrongly.

Far be it from me to defend Blair, but the question should read :

"Was Blair right to NOT apologise.."

 

[Juan Albion]

I've thought about this a lot, for some reason.

The conclusion I came to was that it is right to celebrate the anniversary of the abolition of slavery and Blair can apologise if he wants to, but his apology is not in my name.

I've been doing a lot of research into my family history of late and have managed to trace every single line of ancestry I have (all sixteen of my great great grandparents and 28 of my 32 great great great grandparents) back to the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Looking at the occupations and circumstances of every single one of my ancestors who were alive 200 years ago, I see nothing but low status occupations, poor housing and minimal prospects for any sort of upward mobility. I have ancestors who were forced into migration. I have ancestors who were street sweepers. I have ancestors who died in the workhouse.

None of them were members of the affluent classes who made a fortune out of slavery. None of them showed any sign of benefiting from the slave trade. Like millions of ordinary people in Britain, they were down-trodden and exploited.

Blair's class may have been different. He may have something to apologise for, on behalf of his ancestors. But he can keep my family out of this.

Yes, we can all celebrate the end of slavery. And we can celebrate a general escape from exploitation. But to apologise "on behalf of the British people" is to insult those millions of us (including ALL my forebears) who were not implicated in the evils of the time.

Can't agree with that at all. If you are British, by birth or by naturalization, you are part of a nation with many good things that you or your ancestors didn't necessarily to contribute to in any way whatsoever. You also are part of a nation that has benefitted as a whole from slavery. Maybe your ancestors didn't own slaves, but society as a whole got richer through the exploitation of slaves and that filters down to all parts to greater or lesser degrees. People buy and sell goods that somewhere down the chain involved slavery. It is completely impossible to seperate out who did and didn't benefit from it. Therefore the apology can only be given in the name of the whole nation.

In just the same way, we all now benefit from the continuing exploitation of 'slaves' in sweat shops. We ourselves might not benefit directly (although I'd suggest it is almost impossible not to), but British society as a whole certainly does. If you do not buy a T-shirt that has come from a sweat shop, you perhaps getter a better rate of mortgage because the companies that do use them are doing well, the economy is buoyant, etc. Everything is too tangled to unravel a single person or a single family from involvement.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Can't agree with that at all. If you are British, by birth or by naturalization, you are part of a nation with many good things that you or your ancestors didn't necessarily to contribute to in any way whatsoever. You also are part of a nation that has benefitted as a whole from slavery. Maybe your ancestors didn't own slaves, but society as a whole got richer through the exploitation of slaves and that filters down to all parts to greater or lesser degrees. People buy and sell goods that somewhere down the chain involved slavery. It is completely impossible to seperate out who did and didn't benefit from it. Therefore the apology can only be given in the name of the whole nation.

I'm not sure I fully understand your meaning. If 'it is completely impossible to seperate out who did and didn't benefit from it(slavery)' who exactly should be apologised to? Should a 'naturalised' Briton who happens to be the descendant of a slave apologise to himself?

Society as a whole may have got richer through the exploitation of slaves but it also got richer through the exploitation of the working masses. The British government treated plenty of it's own people very, very poorly and had them working and living in conditions that were equivelant to a modern day third world sweat shop. Those were my ancestors, not the ruling class who engaged in the slave trade. Should Britain apologise to itself for the way it treated it's own people?

I fully agree with L.B. I see no reason why the British people should apologise. The British government maybe, but not the people. Condemn the slave trade for what it was-a nasty, brutal, exploitation of people- but don't try and make people who had no role in it and who were equally exploited apologise.

 

[Brovion]

I think it's typical Blair political grandstanding. And it's just meaningless, empty words. For a start 'slavery' hasn't been abolished and we still play an active part in the trade. Ok we don't buy and sell the poor bastards any more but as Juan says we're quite happy to buy goods assembled by far east sweatshops. There are all sorts of disgusting practises go on where the workers are paid a pittance which is then deducted to pay for their accomodation, food, 'travel' and perhaps to reduce a family debt

I'm also opposed because the whole debate has been hijacked. Say 'slavery' and what image comes to mind? Probably black people being taken by white people from Africa to the Americas and yet that was just one short experience in the long and sorry history of human slavery. It has such a high profile because rich African-American organisations and individuals have elevated it to almost iconic status. Yes it was bad but it's over, we don't expect the Scandanavians to apologist for pillaging us or the Normans for subjagating us.

 

[Hadlee]

1) How can anyone apologise for something they had no direct responsibility over ?

2) Why not say Britain was the first Country to abolish Slave trading.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

2) Why not say Britain was the first Country to abolish Slave trading.

Possibly because the revolutionary government in France abolished it thirteen years earlier.

Napoleon did, however, try to re-establish it in 1802 and it was only the 1848 Second Republic that resolved the issue finally.

 

[crosbysleftear]

Possibly because the revolutionary government in France abolished it thirteen years earlier.

Didn't they only abolish slavery in France? I'm fairly certain slaves were still kept in France's Carribean colonies.

Britain was the first country to abolish the slave TRADE but slaves were still kept in Britain's colonies.

 

[Commander]

we don't expect the Scandanavians to apologist for pillaging us or the Normans for subjagating us.

Well maybe we should!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Whilst we are at it. Perhaps we should publicly thank the Romans for everything they did for us.

What have they ever done for us

 

[Man of Harveys]

If one person's awareness of the slave trade and Britain's massive involvement in it, is increased by this apology, or if one single descendent of slaves feels a less oppressed as a result of this apology, then, yes, he was right. And at virtually no cost too.

 

[NMH]

Don't tell my cotton-pickers about this, they are still waiting for the Union soldiers to knock on the gate.

 

[El Presidente]

It's all very well for Lord B to OPPOSE the apology, but what about when I worked for him in the Virgin Megastore in 1977 for 50p an hour on Saturdays. Perhaps he should get his own house in order first, to add insult to injury, two words, TUBULAR f***ing BELLS at least twice a day.

It's enough to make me want to FLOUNCE.

 

[London Calling]

I've thought about this a lot, for some reason.

The conclusion I came to was that it is right to celebrate the anniversary of the abolition of slavery and Blair can apologise if he wants to, but his apology is not in my name.

I've been doing a lot of research into my family history of late and have managed to trace every single line of ancestry I have (all sixteen of my great great grandparents and 28 of my 32 great great great grandparents) back to the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Looking at the occupations and circumstances of every single one of my ancestors who were alive 200 years ago, I see nothing but low status occupations, poor housing and minimal prospects for any sort of upward mobility. I have ancestors who were forced into migration. I have ancestors who were street sweepers. I have ancestors who died in the workhouse.

As a member of the lower working class I totally agree here. My family never condoned slavery, never directly benefitted from slavery and were economic slaves to the upper class and establishment of this country.



None of them were members of the affluent classes who made a fortune out of slavery. None of them showed any sign of benefiting from the slave trade. Like millions of ordinary people in Britain, they were down-trodden and exploited.

Blair's class may have been different. He may have something to apologise for, on behalf of his ancestors. But he can keep my family out of this.

Yes, we can all celebrate the end of slavery. And we can celebrate a general escape from exploitation. But to apologise "on behalf of the British people" is to insult those millions of us (including ALL my forebears) who were not implicated in the evils of the time.

As a member of the lower working class I totally agree here. My family never condoned slavery, never directly benefitted from slavery and were economic slaves to the upper class and establishment of this country. We didn't have the vote, we didn't have any more ecomomic power than the slaves who lived in Britain, in fact, the poor house and work house fixture in our family history. We were unable to influence the Governmnet politically or socially. Slavery was long abolished b4 any working people got the vote in Britain.

LC

 

[withdeanwombat]

Slavery still exists in my house.

My daughters call me Dobbie.

 

[Brovion]

If one person's awareness of the slave trade and Britain's massive involvement in it, is increased by this apology, or if one single descendent of slaves feels a less oppressed as a result of this apology, then, yes, he was right. And at virtually no cost too.

I have to respectfully, if not disagree, then say that that comment is just a shallow, sugar-coated George Bush style homily. Rare for you MoH as I know you're a highly-intelligent poster who thinks deeply about the issues and it's unusual for you to come out with something so trite.

Sorry, I'll just run that through my NSC translator ....

(clunk ..... clunk ...... clunk ....)

Ah, yes, here it comes in more appropriate language:

That's bollocks MoH, bloody hell you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes.