The Question of Reparations

On October 8th a debate took place in the House of Lords called ‘Reckoning with History: A Critical Discussion on the Reparations Debate‘. The event tapped into an area that is becoming increasingly politicised along cultural lines. Cultural politics straddle party-political lines, as attested by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Afrikan Reparations (APPG-AR). A year ago, the Guardian reported on the group and its aim to take “a very distinct and clear call for reparative justice” and its inaugural conference that was to bring together “representatives from the Scottish National Party, Green Party and Labour Party”. It is notable that Conservative MPs are thin on the ground in this group, and it seems unlikely it will ever include any Reform MPs. However, the issues of reparations and repatriations are pulling every party, every institution and every person in Britain into the vortex of often highly politicised and ideologically based discussions.

What stood out about ‘Reckoning with History’, organised by The Equiano Project, was the attempt to present a truly diverse range of views on the subject. I think the project succeeded rather well in that regard. The discussion was sufficiently wide-ranging to highlight the differences between the speakers’ positions. And what the speakers didn’t cover was covered by the audience members. Report of the discussion is available from the Equiano Project.

One of the major disagreements was to do with the data and the context of specific cases. This brought to the fore the fact that the discussion about reparations far too often veers off into one-size-fits-all solutions. When talking about reparations, too often a case is referenced in one county and the findings applied across the board to other countries straddling the Caribbean and Africa. In addition, the reparations argument relied on sweeping claims. For example:

• That the Trans-Atlantic slave trade system devastated Africa and the Caribbean.
• That it is a continuing contributing factor to the disparities for Caribbean people in the Caribbean and in the U.K.
• That while the evidence of the disadvantage is “difficult to pinpoint”, it is “reasonable to assume because no assets [of the slaves] passed down the generations”.
• That Britain and Western Europe developed because of colonialism.
• That the developmental aid, reparations, repatriations and mitigating climate change are connected remedies for the alleged historical moral injustice.
• That reparations are in the U.K.’s national interest because it will shore up our soft power to counter the influence of China.

Some of this was challenged from the Caribbean perspective that emphasised local culpability and the propensity to blame Britain when things are not going well. Others questioned whether the claims of disparities could be directly attributed to the claimed causes. After all, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and British colonialism happened some generations ago. The related question was: “Is it fair for us, U.K. taxpayers, to pay?” For many this might be the crux of the issue – is there concrete, measurable, uncontested proof of disparities traceable to British slavery, the slave trade and colonialism? The question of fairness rests on the existence of such proof. Unfortunately, there isn’t such proof, and that much was evident from the discussion. The claim that the impact is “reasonable to assume” relies on far too many assumptions. Assumptions are not proofs, and it would make a highly contested and unsound practice for any government to base transfer of funds and property on the basis of untested assumptions. After all, one might claim that a Yeti exists because many people claim they have seen it; that the Yeti will become extinct if the ice in the Himalayas melts any further; that we must stop the ice melting because the Yeti will die. There might be other reasons for trying to stop the ice melting in the Himalayas, but if the claim is that the Yeti will die, should we not first have the proof that it exists before we spend billions trying to save it? In the case of reparations and repatriations, there are far too many studies funded by activist organisations that are accepted without anyone scrutinising the conflicts of interest and the basis for the claims. Before plunging into bankrupting Britain to the tune of over £18 trillion – the amount the UN says Britain owes to descendants of former slaves – it might be worth seeing if the Yeti of reparations actually exists.

One of the most interesting discussions was around the moral justice question and moralising. And, of course, the case of the Benin bronzes and their return to the Oba of Benin came up. An audience member asked whether it was fair to return these objects to the beneficiaries of the Nigerian slave trade. Someone pointed out that Benin traded slaves too. While historically accurate, this somewhat missed the point. Following the argument about the soft power earlier, if Britain is to use reparations as soft power and enforce the moral rightness of reparations for past slave trading, then in effect it asks others to follow suit and atone for their slave trading.

It was rather unsurprising to hear the claim that the Benin objects were stolen and that giving them back is a matter of justice. I’m writing a thesis on this subject, but I’ll forego delving into this claim here. What was interesting about this part of the discussion was the point about conflating moral justice with economic improvement of certain groups. As the person pointed out, post-WWII reparations were about moral justice whereas today reparations appear to be about addressing economic inequality. The question was, if it is about economic inequality then should we still think of them as reparations?

Several questions picked up on the difference between on the one hand the past, justice, grievances and victimhood, and on the other the future, freedom, equality, agency and resilience. The overwhelming sentiment was about focusing on the latter and moving away from reinforcing wounds and incentivising perpetual grievances, especially given the difficulties in identifying the victims today. As Robert Tombs of History Reclaimed said, for any reparation claim to stand, there ought to be a perpetrator, an ill-gotten gain and a victim. Citing the Church of England case, he pointed out that the proposed CofE reparations would go “to black fund managers, social entrepreneurs and historians” and that while as a historian he welcomes the latter, these “are not generally thought of as the principal victims”.

While the discussion was rich and complex, the crux appears in the perception of who the victims are and what evidence there is to support their claims. For the proponents of reparations, the Caribbean and Africa form a Pan-African victim of the white Western slave trade, colonisation and oppression, with the emphasis on the moral injustice of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and the suffering of the estimated 12.5 million human beings. For others, the context of slave trading is less narrow, the contemporary issues are more pressing and the empowering of people to achieve their best irrespective of their ancestral history takes precedence.

The arguments and questions voiced at ‘Reckoning with History’ will be stated and restated over and over – this discussion is not likely to go away during the Labour’s term at the very least. The Don’t Divide Us representative hit the nail on the head by voicing a concern that what reparations appear to create is the moral framework of redistribution but at the expense of undermining the framework of equality. The questions the discussion left open are whether reparations and discussions about reparations can make positive progress towards a resolution of perceived grievances without shattering the framework of equality, without destroying the principle of fairness, without denying agency, and without negatively affecting the future by demonising the past.

Olga Gillies is Finishing a PhD thesis in Cultural Politics at the University of Buckingham.

This piece was first published in The Daily Sceptic, and is reproduced by kind permission.

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please share this piece with your friends, or consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!

Please follow and like us: