Where is the debate on slavery reparations?
by Andrew Carey, CEN:
It is surprising that the first civilisation to abolish slavery – a near universal historical practice – is also the first to be so racked with guilt that it is prepared to make reparations centuries after the practice was abolished. All the victims of slavery are now long dead and the perpetrators as well. This appears absurd to most bystanders, but it seems that the Church Commissioners and more recently the Oversight Group which have produced a report calling for a one billion pound fund, have no inclination to acknowledge or even address this extremely widespread scepticism and discomfort with the very principle of reparations.
The first questions that spring to mind – who are the modern day victims of long-abolished slavery, where are they to be found and who is now to be found who is ‘responsible’ for chattel slavery? This is to say nothing of the suspicion that once we open the doors of reparation this will never stop. Those who contend that ‘slavery’ was such a singular evil over and above that of any other comparable injustice (eg. the grim and dangerous conditions faced by miners and mill workers during the industrial revolution) really believe that it cannot be atoned for. There will never be any forgiveness even for the repentant slave trader who penned the immortal words of the great hymn, ‘Amazing Grace’. Consequently a fund for £100 million has become a fund for one billion.
And ‘whites’ must not just apologise for buying from the internal slave markets of West Africa and bringing slaves to cotton plantations in the Caribbean but for the very fact that missionary activity resulted in the replacement of traditional religions with church and gospel (though not entirely given that animists and witch doctors continue to exist).
One of my concerns is that the direction of travel has already been decided by the church’s leadership and technocrats without once asking the question of the laity and clergy of the Church of England. Where has been the debate in General Synod in which representatives can shape this policy, bring different insights to bear? In a centralised C of E it does not even occur to the powers-that-be to bring such important questions for open debate. To open up the debate would be too risky an option, though given the size of the payroll vote onGeneral Synod(eg the bishops’ blocking vote, the number of diocesan and national staff who are elected) not that much of a risk. Nevertheless, such proposals need and deserve scrutiny and testing in the fire of public debate. It is sadly left to the media – church and secular – to question these proposals.
Andrew Carey Editor’s Notebook Church of England Newspaper March 14
See also: Should the Church generate a £1 billion fund for slavery reparations? by Ian Paul, Psephizo
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
