We need a serious debate on slavery reparations

Academics should not be afraid to challenge the wisdom of requiring institutions to make financial amends for their past links to slavery, says Robert Dingwall

November 1, 2018
Source: James Fryer

The current debates over reparations for slavery, and other historical acts that offend contemporary sensibilities, illustrate the extent to which universities are a soft touch when faced with such claims.

Almost any grievance can mobilise the liberal conscience of some section of the faculty or the student body. Institutional leaders tend to prioritise reputational risk – and a quiet life – over intellectual rigour. A few scholarships or a named centre are a small cost compared with the trouble that might be caused by pushing back. The University of Glasgow’s recently announced programme of “reparative justice”, after its investigation into its links with historical slavery, is unlikely to break the bank.

And last week, other universities were urged to set up a £100 million reparation fund.

A university should, though, be asking more critical questions. Who are we compensating for what? When might historical grievances be considered extinct? What are the consequences of one kind of compensation rather than another?

Slavery has never been a homogeneous social institution. Enslavement appears to have been a very common practice in ancient societies, but the treatment of slaves and their civic status varied a great deal. Even within the Atlantic trade, being a slave in Brazil was different from being a slave in the US – which was, in turn, different from being a slave in a British colony. Each had different legal status and economic opportunities.

Moreover, the slave markets of Africa were established long before the export trade developed. If the European traders exploited the labour they purchased more successfully than did their Arab and African partners, is this necessarily a reason to tax their descendants? Are the claims against the global North simply an indication that there are deeper pockets to pick?

We might also ask what distinguishes the Atlantic slave trade from, for example, the raids of 9th-century Vikings on Britain and Ireland, where large numbers of people were seized rather than bought. We might ask a similar question about the kidnapping of people from Ireland and southwest England for sale in North Africa by Barbary traders in the 16th and 17th centuries. Do these give rise to claims against the successor states by the descendants of those slaves, supposing always that we could identify them?

What about people who were expelled or fled historical persecution? Do the descendants of the Huguenots who escaped religious oppression in 17th-century France have a claim against the modern French state for their lost businesses? Are these claims extinguished simply because many of those refugees prospered in the more liberal environment of London? At some point, the tide of history has to wash away the scars on the sand.

Advocates of reparations might also be careful what they wish for. When this issue surfaced in the US in the early 2000s, a number of conservatives were very interested in supporting it. They had always seen equal opportunities legislation as an indefensible state intervention in the market. If black and Native American people were compensated, this would be a permanent buyout of their claims to special protection. It could be a way to liberate the market and roll back the state. In practice, they may also have thought that most of the money would find its way back to traditional white institutions, much as the carpetbaggers – economic opportunists from the North – exploited the post-Civil War settlement in the American South.

Applied to universities, some aspects of equal opportunities policies might come into question. If compensation payments had dealt with the historic economic disadvantages of a specific minority group, would it be justifiable to continue including that group alongside others who were still disadvantaged, for economic or other reasons? If we have compensated black descendants of slaves from the Caribbean, why would we give them the same social or legal protections as black people of free heritage arriving in the UK directly from Africa?

We certainly need a better popular understanding of the extent to which England, and Lowland Scotland, have long been multicultural and multi-ethnic societies – and of the ways in which patterns of advantage and disadvantage between those groups have emerged and been sustained. University historians have produced a substantial body of work that challenges the simple history of an ethnically and culturally homogeneous British nation, but this has not percolated into the wider culture. Similarly, as Jeremy Corbyn has recently observed, the public myths of the British nation have obscured the darker sides of empire. Would rewriting some of those national myths actually be a more appropriate form of compensation than cash?

This is a major challenge to the public engagement work of professional historians, and their media partners. How far will university historians be willing to risk the inevitable controversies from criticising both national myths and militant reactions? Will future historians just be writing peer-reviewed monographs for each other with the popular market left to myth-makers like Boris Johnson?

The reparations movement prompts important questions. While its own answers may be naive, the challenge to scholarship and public engagement deserves a serious, empirically grounded and rigorously argued response.

Robert Dingwall is a consulting sociologist. His most recent book is a translation of Howard S. Becker: Sociology and Music in the Chicago School, by Jean Peneff.

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Buildings and statues dedicated to people whose views clash with modern values can cause difficulties, but is tearing down history the answer?

15 December

Reader's comments (3)

I have never quite understood why people today should apologise for the behaviour of their ancestors, however much that might have gone against current beliefs. What do we do today that people of the 22nd century will throw their hands up in horror about, exclaiming, "How could they?" When, for that matter, will the descendants of slaves express thanks to the descendants of reformers such as William Wilberforce and the brave men of the Royal Navy who fought against the slave trade on the high seas at the risk of life and limb? In reflecting on the past, we need to remember that people then acted correctly according to the ethics of their day. Now we hold different - and hopefully more enlightened - opinions, but cannot judge our ancestors according to today's morality. It's also a red herring to conflate modern concepts of equality between people of different ethnicities with any form of chest-beating about past ills. We now know that all human beings are of equal worth and should be afforded equal opportunities irrespective of ethnicity, heritage, gender or anything else. It's got nothing to do with what their ancestors did to ours or the other way around. That's history - and while it's right to study it and learn from it, there's no value in wallowing in it!
It is not possible to ask of the descendants of past invaders that they compensate present descendants of the vanquished. It's all water under the bridge. There is a very important lesson to be learned from what happened in Africa and elsewhere. Establish a defense force to repel invaders. The same thing holds true for aboriginals everywhere.
Comments 1 and 2 clearly betray where the contributors’s sympathies lie !! But what about this A. Was/ is transatlantic slavery a crime against the enslaved and theirs ? B. If it was/is a crime, were there proceeds from the crime C. If there were proceeds of crime , where are the proceeds to be found. D. If the proceeds can be located, isn’t it natural justice that such proceeds or secondary/tertiary proceeds therefrom be returned in whole or part to the victims or the biological derivatives of victims. E. It shouldn’t be difficult to fathom ABCD . Whst may be difficult though not impossible to fathom is the logistic for execution. Negotiation and honesty and decency and humanity will be inevitably crucial . Not self exculpatory revisionisms and rationalizations but capacity to face up to all aspects of the past so all aspects of the future become less imprisoned in the malignities of that past. Gratuitously wishing away such a past with request for a new and arbitrary starting line as though nothing ever happened neither squares with human decency nor sense of justice. I wonder why Christians dare demand from me daily reparations for sins commited in some gardens zillion years ago to which I was never party !! Food for thought. Basil jide fadipe