The British slave trade was outlawed in 1807. Slavery itself was abolished in 1833, with effect from 1834. The slaves then served an "apprenticeship", which might be described as slavery light, which ended in 1838. That means that the last slave reached the British West Indies 219 years ago, and it is 188 years since the last slave was freed. For the following five generations they followed their own stars as free men under colonial government. It wasn't the best life; after all, they were poor people in a third world environment. But they were better off than if their ancestors had remained in Africa, which is the appropriate comparison. In any case, they've now been independent for more than 60 years, which is plenty of time to correct any problems left over from colonialism.
In point of fact, in 2011 a poll in Jamaica revealed that 60 percent of those questioned recognized that they would have been better off if they were still under British rule, and only 17 percent disagreed. Also, some Caribbean islands still possess a certain amount of colonial oversight, and it has been pointed out that such islands are much better off than the independent ones of similar size.
As for that recent United Nations vote regarding the transatlantic slave trade and the legal case to be brought to the International Court of Justice, one notes that they did not include the Arab slave trade, let alone the African societies which sold the slaves which, as one commentator pointed out, "tells us all we need to know about this affair." They are simply undermining respect for international institutions and law. I notice that my country, Australia abstained from voting. This is typical. They always abstain. Our leaders never have the moral courage to vote No to outrageous propositions.
Three years ago members of the Trevelyan family travelled to Grenada to apologize for their family once owning six sugar plantations on the island, and to donate £100,000 for a community fund for economic development.
Here we see another popular trope: not only are negative experiences permanent, so are positive ones. Once rich, always rich - unless someone decides to give it away, or some Robin Hood government takes it off them. As one whose grandfather was rich but whose parents were poor, I see it differently. Worldy wealth is a delicate plant which must be watered and fertilised continually lest it wither and die. In the 1950s, during the Korean War, wool was sold for a pound a pound, and being a grazier was a licence to print money. But most of those big outback sheep stations are no longer held by the original family. Those that are have this in common: they were led by a patriarch who battled through the Great Depression, and thus learned that riches can never be guaranteed. There are any number of examples of people going from shirt sleeves to coat tails to shirt sleeves in one or two generations.
To be sure, some families, particularly those with what might be called "old money", have managed to get it right. They have learned how to invest, re-invest, and diversify through a constantly changing economic environment. Which brings us back to the Trevelyans. The Grenada sugar plantations would not have been the sole source of their wealth, and that wealth was not held in their equivalent of Uncle Scrooge's money bin. Rather, it was invested in other industries. For almost 200 years, through wars, economic crises, and confiscatory death duties, they have moved their funds around from languishing industries to up-and-coming newer ones. The Trevelyan fortune today is not the same as the one in the days of slavery, any more than the population of Grenada is the same.
This is not, of course, to disparage their gift to the country. It is incumbent on everybody with income surplus to needs - and that means 90 per cent of us - to help those less fortunate, and a community fund in Grenada is as good a charity as any. But let's not pretend that it is any sort of debt owed to descendants of those their ancestors mistreated nearly eight generations ago.
Also three years ago the Church of England initiated Project Spire, which proposed paying £100 million pounds of the congregations' funds as reparations for the church's alleged profiting from slavery 300 years (yes, 300 years!) ago. Well, I suppose any church which elects a woman as leader i.e. the Archbishop of Canterbury, has completely sold out to the politically correct. But what exactly is the Church of England's connection with slavery twelve generations ago?
It all goes back to Queen Anne' Bounty, which was a scheme to augment the earnings of the poorer clergy. Queen Anne's Bounty invested heavily in the South Sea Company, which transported 34,000 slaves to the Spanish American possessions. Now, if you pause to think about it, a number of anomalies will emerge. First of all, Project Spire is not actually planning on giving to the people of Spanish America; they still have the British Caribbean islands in their sight. Secondly, whereas 34,000 is a lot of people if you were one of them, it is still only a third of one percent of the slaves who crossed the Atlantic. And remember, this was a century before any slaves were freed. There are unlikely to be many descendants still available because - I hate to say it - the tendency was for the slaves to be worked to death and be replaced by fresh victims rather than by reproduction. Also, only a fraction of the proceeds of slavery would have gone to Queen Anne's Bounty, and only part of the Bounty was derived from the South Sea Company. In the worst case scenario, the church's profit from slavery was pretty limited.
But the worst case scenario is not applicable. First of all, the Bounty owned shares in the South Sea Company for only six years, during which the company transported 19,000 of the 34,000 slaves, but made a loss. So one much conclude that not much was received by the church for that period. After that, Queen Anne's Bounty invested in annuities. Further research confirms that the church received nothing from the proceeds of slavery. I hope that sinks into the consciousness of the church authorities, because the average person in the pews is going to get a little cheesed off when the message gets out.
