This is well known idiom that is basically saying that I’m going to say what I want to say regardless of how it makes you feel or whether it’s socially acceptable, and that ultimately, I don’t really care about you, just me. I read an article in The Standard Newspaper where the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, will be present at a Commonwealth Heads of Government summit in Samoa. Mr Starmer will be present together with King Charles and they have been asked whether or not the UK government will apologise for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade. The answer to this request is NO, there will be no excuse from the UK, no recognition of their part in the suffering of so many people from West Africa.
This seems to be a matter of principles, more than anything. It seems like they fear to lose face if they recognise the faults of their forefathers. This is a case that has appeared in other countries too. We have had the same case here in Sweden when finally, the Swedish government apologised to our indigenous people. They live up in the northern parts of our long country, where the summers are short and the winters instead very long. These people were forced to become Christians, they were forbidden to speak their own language and their culture was almost completely wiped out.
According to The Standard Newspaper, it is said that last year King Charles expressed sorrow and regret over the atrocities endured by Kenyans during their fight for independence from British colonial rule. This seems to me like King Charles expressed his personal opinion, not supported by the UK government. The UK government has made it clear to BBC that even if historical links to slavery are raised at the summit, there are no plans for a symbolic apology. This case was about Kenya, but it could just as well have been about The Gambia.
Where is the apology for what your forefathers have endured?
It is also said that the Downing Street also stated that the government has no plans to pay reparations for slavery. There had been speculation that the newly elected Labour government might issue an apology for Britain’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. This doesn’t seem to be the case, because there is no political will to look back in history. Better to pretend as it happened such a long time ago, so there is no use for excuses anymore.
Last year, Rishi Sunak rejected the idea of an apology, stating that “trying to unpick our history is not the right way forward.”
In 2006, Tony Blair had described slave trade as a “crime against humanity” in an article for the weekly newspaper New Nation, but stopped short of an official apology, despite calls from campaigners and the Archbishop of York.
A year later, during a news conference with Ghana’s then-president John Kufuor, Blair responded to a question on the matter by saying, “Well, actually I have said it: We are sorry. And I say it again now.” Poor Mr Blair, he didn’t appreciate to be bothered by these endless requests. He wanted to brush them off and tell people to move on. Reading this, I can see him in my mind, looking like a grumpy young boy. Stamping his foot in the ground, whining that he has said I’m sorry already.
“Wasn’t that enough?” No, it is not enough as long as people still live in and suffer from the aftermath of colonization.
There are some good news though that major British institutions, from the Bank of England, a number of universities and Oriel College, Oxford, to companies such as Lloyds of London and the brewery Greene King, have acknowledged their links to the slave trade, slavery and empire is most welcome. The wealth of Britain was paid by the blood of your African forefathers. They were kidnapped and sold to great plantations in the Americas. The produce of these plantations was shipped to Britain, and the wheels of industrialisation span faster and faster. Cotton became thread that was woven to fabric. Tobacco became cigars and cigarettes, smoking these came in fashion. Sugar for the daily cups of tea became a necessity for every person in the UK. Sugar was also used for producing candy and this product could be bought in shops that were able to market their produce in the most appetising ways.
When the enslaved men and women across the British Caribbean, Mauritius and the Cape were emancipated in 1834, it was the slave owners who were compensated. They had lost their human property – the slaves – and were paid in proportion to the market value of each slave they had owned.
People who had been bought and sold were now for the last time priced as commodities, and the money went to the owners. They invested their spoils on a whole range of economic, political and cultural activities – from building railways and developing merchant banks to buying artworks, some of which now grace the national collections in the UK.
They also invested their capital in the development of the new colonies of white settlement in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Emancipated men and women, meanwhile, struggled with their varied degrees of freedom.
It has many times been debated if Europe’s rise to riches was built on the blood, sweat, toil, and death of enslaved people? Europeans enslaved millions of men and women on the African continent during their colonisation of the Americas. Those who survived the transatlantic voyage were forced to labour on sugar, tobacco, cotton, and coffee plantations in the Caribbean and in North and South America.
In the process, Europeans accumulated vast wealth, either from the slave trade itself, from plantation production, or from the wider triangular trade between Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Growth in Europe took off during the century when the slave trade and overseas slavery in European colonies reached their greatest scale. To what extent did slavery wealth contribute to the growth and economic development of modern Europe? There is a lot of research going on in this area to find out the truth. There are historical sources the researchers are able to use, but everything is not documented yet. This important work will, and must keep on, and those who have suffered, and still suffer, must be compensated.
Interestingly, King Charles and his wife Queen Camilla are visiting Australia. As King Charles was holding a speech, he was interrupted by an Australian politician. This politician, Lidia Thorpe, who belongs to the indigenous people the Aboriginals shouted: “This is not your land, you are not my King!” Australia is part of the common wealth, so in theory King Charles is the head of state in Australia. As long as his mother, Queen Elizabeth, lived people were more acceptant of the fact that she was the Head of State, but after her demise things have changed. The Australian people feel that they want to be independent from the UK. Their indigenous people suffered greatly when their country became colonized and they are still not compensated enough. Should we repeat Tony Blair’s words: “We are sorry. And I say it again now.” This was a way to say: Sorry, am not sorry. An arrogant reply on a serious matter. Shameful and cowardly!
