Andy Burnham is right to be prepared to apologise on behalf of the United Kingdom for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade. His willingness to consider a formal apology, while rejecting financial reparations, draws a distinction I support: acknowledging a national wrong does not automatically settle what today’s taxpayers should pay. Sky News
Slavery was an abhorrent episode in our history. Human beings were treated as property, families were torn apart and lives were subjected to violence and exploitation. An apology should acknowledge that suffering plainly. It should neither excuse what happened nor suggest that people living today are personally guilty of crimes committed before they were born.
A country can recognise wrongdoing in its past without assigning inherited guilt to its citizens. That is why I support an apology but oppose imposing a financial reparations bill on the modern British taxpayer.
Today’s Britain is home to people of many backgrounds, including descendants of enslaved people and families who arrived long after abolition. Many taxpayers struggle to meet their own everyday needs. In my view, asking them to fund compensation for historic wrongs requires a stronger justification than the fact that they live in the country whose institutions once committed them.
There are difficult questions, too, about where responsibility begins and ends. Who should pay, who should receive payment, and how should the amount be calculated? How would overlapping histories of enslavement, conquest and exploitation be treated consistently? These questions do not diminish the suffering involved. They matter because any proposed remedy must itself be fair.
Supporters of reparations deserve a fair hearing. Their argument is often about inherited disadvantage and institutional benefit, rather than personal guilt alone. CARICOM’s proposals also extend beyond individual payments to wider measures of repair and development. We should understand that case even when we disagree with its conclusions. CARICOM’s reparatory justice plan
My preference is for cooperation directed towards present needs and future opportunities: education, health, fair economic relationships and action against exploitation. Such partnerships should recognise the equal standing of the countries involved and have clear purposes and accountable spending.
We should also study our history honestly. Britain abolished its slave trade in 1807, and the Slavery Abolition Act followed in 1833, taking effect in 1834. Those were important advances, but they came after Britain had participated in and profited from slavery. Both parts belong in the story. Historic England’s timeline
There is room for pride in British history: in abolitionists, reformers and people who fought to extend freedom. There is room, too, to recognise constructive legacies associated with the Empire and to value the relationships sustained through the Commonwealth. But describing the Empire as a positive force overall is a judgement that must confront the experiences of those who lived under colonial rule. National pride is stronger when it can withstand that scrutiny.
We must be equally careful about describing slavery as forced migration. Forced transportation was part of it, but that phrase alone cannot convey the loss of liberty, brutality and exploitation involved. The achievements of descendants of enslaved people are achievements of those people and their communities. They do not retrospectively justify what their ancestors endured.
What we can celebrate is freedom itself, and the determination of successive generations to build lives, communities and cultures despite injustice. Our task is to ensure that everyone can participate in the modern world as an equal partner.
I also worry that a reparations settlement widely regarded as unfair could deepen resentment and make reconciliation harder. That concern must never become an excuse for racism: discriminatory attitudes remain the responsibility of those who hold and promote them. The aim should be to bring people together through a settlement of our relationship with history that commands understanding and respect.
Forgiveness and reconciliation offer a better future than permanent inherited blame. But forgiveness cannot be demanded, and moving forward cannot mean telling others to forget. It requires listening, honesty and a shared commitment to treating one another fairly.
An apology can be part of that process. So can better historical education, opposition to racism and determined action against every form of slavery that persists today.
Britain should acknowledge its shameful role in the slave trade, take pride in those who challenged it, and work with Commonwealth partners towards a future founded on freedom and equality. We cannot change the past. We can choose what we build from our understanding of it.
Leave a Reply