SSP Diaries | Our request to make amends

The journey to reparations for the barbaric act of slavery experienced by our forefathers at the hands of British colonists took on new meaning recently when the Jamaican delegation, led by Minister Olivia ‘Babsy’ Grange, presented our request to the head of the Commonwealth, King Charles III, in London. Jamaica’s petition sought a determination through three questions that speak to the conscience, integrity, morality, and ethics of the British people, as well as the actions and consequences that have impacted our nation and people over the centuries. My brief take on the questions posed to the King follows.

Was the transport and enslavement of Africans lawful?

History has yet to reveal any evidence that our ancestors voluntarily left the west coast of Africa and elsewhere to cross the Atlantic to work on plantations in Jamaica as part of a large body of enslaved labour owned and operated by the British. The question then arises: Under what British law was it established that people could be forcibly removed, or caused to be removed, from their homelands against their free will and enslaved in a foreign land?

Did the practice constitute a crime against humanity?

The transatlantic slave trade is an act well documented by numerous historians both regionally and internationally. The British operated a system that involved bribery, kidnapping, illegal coercion, entrapment, murder, intimidation, the destruction of tribes, families, and traditions, as well as forced labour, forced breeding, rape, the prohibition of African customs, and the dehumanisation of our ancestors. The enslaved were not treated as human beings. They were not paid for their labour and lived and worked under harsh conditions in which refusal or weakness often resulted in death at the hands of their masters.

The system, as we all recall, treated enslaved people not as human beings but as “chattels”, the personal property of plantation owners. In doing so, plantation owners sought to replenish their labour force by forcing enslaved women into reproductive cycles. These conditions created psychological scars in the minds of enslaved people and their descendants, the effects of which are still evident in our society today.

The problem with “mental slavery” is that its impact cannot be erased overnight because many of its negative consequences have become accepted as social norms. This makes national development and the pursuit of First World status far more difficult. Mental slavery is arguably one of humanity’s greatest sins against itself. When one examines the slave trade and colonisation, there can be little doubt that it constituted a monumental crime against African peoples.

Is there a legal obligation to provide restitution and repair the damage done?

This question does not seek to blame the current British population. Rather, it seeks to determine whether they recognise some degree of responsibility for the actions of their system of governance, their ancestors, and the atrocities that were permitted at the time, which contributed to Britain becoming a highly developed modern nation.

This prosperity was achieved, in part, at the expense of Jamaica and other colonies, particularly those in which slavery generated immeasurable wealth. The systematic exploitation of the colonies did little for their development or that of our ancestors even after slavery was abolished.

Let us be clear. When slavery was abolished in 1834, it was intended that formerly enslaved people would eventually receive compensation for their labour following the apprenticeship period. The only compensation that occurred, however, was that paid by the British government to plantation owners for the loss of their “chattels”.

In essence, once there was no further wealth to be extracted, colonies such as Jamaica were abandoned and left to fend for themselves. Our ancestors provided compulsory unpaid labour for more than 300 years and received nothing but abuse in return.

Yes, there is a case for restitution, but the form it should take remains a matter for careful consideration.

The request for reparations

Over time, nations making these requests have taken various approaches. Some have focused on financial compensation for historical damages, while others have demanded the return of national artefacts, or a combination of both.

I do not subscribe to direct financial reparations. First, I do not believe that the damage inflicted can be adequately repaired or compensated for by any sum of money. Secondly, there is the argument that simply dispensing funds in this manner would not achieve the intended objectives in most countries.

I support the position put forward by the present Government. There must be a forthright acknowledgement of the wrong done to our ancestors, their descendants, and the affected nations. Former colonial powers should commit to returning artefacts that were stolen or otherwise acquired unlawfully. They should also commit to supporting the development of our social infrastructure over an agreed period of no less than 30 years, representing one-tenth of their long period of influence in Jamaica.

Such support could include funding improvements to our road and rail networks, expanding university capacity, providing a minimum of 100 annual scholarships to universities in the United Kingdom, facilitating the transfer of technology between our countries, and making special provisions for the continued development, training, and modernisation of our military and police services.

We must not lose sight of the fact that our legal systems share common roots. Therefore, in petitioning Britain to make amends, let us pursue initiatives that will bring lasting benefits rather than short-lived gains.

Notwithstanding that the matter has been referred to the UK Privy Council, we await the advice to be given to our former colonial master, the King. What an irony!

SSP Diaries. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.