The Tribune

By ALICIA WALLACE

LAST week felt like a month, with all of the inconveniences and insults brought by the presence of the monarch and the embarrassing song and dance that ensued for his entertainment in this former colony. The Bahamas National Reparations Committee (BNRC) described it as a “carefully executed charm offensive.” It’s one thing to show hospitality, as Bahamians are, fortunately or unfortunately, conditioned to do for tourists at all times, and another to give the “royal treatment” while enduring a series of royal pains: from road closures and excessive traffic to the refusal to address important issues like reparations and the performance of culture without meaning.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham got the attention of the public when, ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), he hinted at a formal apology for the transatlantic trade in enslaved people. Stopping short of an apology, he expressed his “sorrow and regret,” following the footsteps of former prime ministers.

Burnham said, “The transatlantic slave trade was a brutal and barbaric violation of those people. They were denied their humanity. They were separated from their families, treated as property and worked to their deaths. I want to express my sorrow and regret for the pain and suffering of so many millions and to recognise the way it still shapes our world today.”

It’s important to note the last six words of that quote. “It still shapes our world today.” The trade in enslaved Africans, slavery, genocide, and colonisation did not end with the abolition of slavery. The consequences, endured by Afro-descendant people, continue today through racial capitalism and hetero-patriarchy which permeate our lives in tangible and intangible ways, from the racial wealth gap to persistent, violent, often-ignored, frequently-denied anti-black racism. While it’s not surprising, it’s ignorant at best and disrespectful at worst for the British prime minister to acknowledge the violence enacted by Britain against African people and the continued harms today, while refusing to pay the debt that is so clearly and undeniably owed.

He said, “I do not think that British people today can be held liable for historical wrongs, however heinous, that happened in a different age under different laws and in which they played no personal part.”

The fact of the matter is that, regardless of personal actions of the descendants of enslavers, British descendants of enslavers are direct beneficiaries of the gravest crime against humanity. They, today, have land, money, and other resources as a direct result of the wealth hoarded by their ancestors, who stole the labour and the lives of African people. The descendants of those African people are in socioeconomic situations directly resulting from the atrocities of the transatlantic slave trade and slavery. This can, in fact, be addressed through reparations, however unpopular it may be for those accustomed to and currently enjoying inequality.

Burnham said, “The Britain I believe in is confident, decent, and brave. We led the world in abolishing slavery – and we can show leadership again today.”

The refusal to acknowledge and pay the debt owed is not decent. The shirking of the responsibility to take the first step toward reparations in the form of an apology is not brave. The confidence is undue. Britain is squarely in the wrong and will continue to be until it actually shows moral courage, risks the ire of the people benefitting from inequalities, and meets the demand for reparations.

Rather than an apology or reparations, Burnham said he is offering “a structured dialogue with those affected by the transatlantic slave trade.” He said,” Listening to calls for a formal apology on behalf of the British state will form an important part of this process and I am open to them.” That he deems merely listening to the call for an apology--when he has stated he has no intention of delivering one--to be important is particularly ridiculous. The CARICOM Ten-Point Plan has articulated this and been in circulation for more than 10 years. We all need to pay attention to the discussions at CHOGM, the ways our elected officials represent us, and their engagement with us during and following the meetings.

Caribbean responses to the non-apology and offer to talk, not pay

CARICOM governments have been responding to the prime minister’s statement, reiterating the call for reparations, and making clear their openness to the discussion at CHOGM, noting other areas on which there may be agreement among parties.

In a written statement, Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley said, “On reparations in particular, our views differ, and we will say so plainly and respectfully. Honest disagreement on some questions should not hold back progress on the many others where we can readily agree.”

She continued, “An apology, a commitment to eradicate a mindset that is anchored in Afrophobia and against all things “black,” investment in health and education, development partnership that fights systemic poverty and institutionalised inequality, and fairer terms on debt for vulnerable states, as called for by the Bridgetown Initiative, are a few of the areas where we believe understanding can be reached and settled.”

Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne said, “The Caribbean’s longstanding position on reparatory justice remains unchanged. Differences over financial compensation should be addressed through dialogue, but they need not prevent progress in areas where agreement is possible”

Jamaica Prime Minister Andrew Holness said, “We have always been open to having full and meaningful dialogue on this important issue. We welcome this development, coming in the wake of our legal petition which is now before the Privy Council.”

CARICOM Chair and Prime Minister of St. Lucia The Hon. Philip J. Pierre said, “The Caribbean Community does not accept that reparations are "not the right answer.” Nor do we accept the argument that responsibility falls away because the people of Britain today played no personal part in these crimes. Reparatory justice has never been about individual guilt. It is about the responsibility of states and institutions — and that responsibility does not expire with the passing of generations. We do believe that the successive generations continue to be the beneficiaries, materially, socially and psychologically of that crime of racialised chattel enslavement. “

Response by Bahamian Prime Minister Philip Davis

The statement from the Office of the Prime Minister said what it was completely opposed to articulating during the royal visit. It said, “The histories of The Bahamas, the wider Caribbean and the United Kingdom are deeply and inextricably intertwined through the institution of slavery, its abolition, and its enduring consequences. The wealth accumulated through the exploitation of enslaved Africans contributed significantly to the development of Britain and other economics, while leaving profound and lasting social, economic, and institutional consequences across our region.”

It continued, “The Bahamian experience is an important part of this shared history. The islands of Long Cay and Crooked Island were significant contributors to the cotton production that supplied British mills during the era of slavery. The tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Poor Black Kate, remembered as a national heroine, stand as a sobering reminder of the cruelty and human suffering endured by enslaved people in the cotton fields of The Bahamas.”

“The Bahamas approaches this dialogue with a clear understanding that the issue is not simply one of historical remembrance. It concerns the enduring consequences of slavery and the importance of justice, acknowledgement and meaningful redress for the generations of Africans and their descendants who continue to live with its legacy.”

We should expect at least this level of clarity and decidedness on national issues, with historical context, including the call to become a republic, now that we see that the Office of the Prime Minister has found the capacity for it. Certainly, this is not a mere performance for other CARICOM and Commonwealth nations whose messages carry weight. The days of constant equivocation, word salads, and dancing around issues must be behind the Davis administration now. Perhaps real discussions can begin on national development and the centering of people’s needs.

Making repair

In 1834, in compensation for the abolition of slavery, the Trevelyan family was paid the equivalent of 3 million GBP. Almost two centuries later, Laura Trevelyan researched her family’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. She learned that her ancestors enslaved more than 1,000 Africans over six plantations in Grenada. She recognized the relationship between the life she enjoys today and the grave crimes of her ancestors and their proceeds.

Trevelyan said, “My own social and professional standing nearly 200 years after the abolition of slavery had to be related to my slave-owning ancestors, who used the profits from sugar sales to accumulate wealth and climb up the social ladder.”

When a person recognizes a wrong, they need not be prompted to make an apology, inclusive of steps to repair. In 2023, a 100,000 GBP fund—to be used to build the Reparations Research Fund at the University of the West Indies—was launched in Grenada. A written apology was signed by 104 descendants of enslavers on the six plantations in Grenada. The letter urged the British government to “enter into meaningful negotiations with the governments of the Caribbean in order to make appropriate reparations through CARICOM, and bodies such as the Grenada National Reparations Commission.”

While some may commend the move by Laura Trevelyan, it raises questions about agency in the reparations discussion and implementation. Who gets to decide the appropriate form and amount of reparations? Who determines how the resources should be applied? In the case of the Trevelyan family, the amount contributed to the Fund is one-third of a percent of the amount paid to the family. Was this a move to preempt a demand for reparations from the beneficiaries of slavery? While it sets a certain kind of example for other beneficiaries, it does not meet the demand and raises more questions about intention, agency, and legal possibilities.

A take from the British Labor Party

The Trevelyan move prompted responses from British politicians. The British Labour Party’s Nadia Whittome acknowledged the extraction from colonies that built the work of the United Kingdom. She also issued an important reminder that “compensation” was still being paid to enslavers a little over a decade ago. She said, “The case for former colonial powers to pay reparations to the descendants of enslaved peoples is particularly strong, given that the UK government was making compensation payments to descendants of enslavers, families and organisations in 2015. And the reason why reparations is the right and fair thing to do is, yes, because of the legacy of slavery and because wealthier countries like ours extracted and underdeveloped those societies, but also because of our role in the climate crisis – and the fact that threatens the very future of the Caribbean.”

What now?

Be attentive to the proceedings at CHOGM. Pay attention, not only to communications from and about the government of The Bahamas, but to other CARICOM governments—especially those that are more resolute on this issue and forthcoming in their public messaging. CARICOM must stand together on this issue, and Bahamians need to ensure that The Bahamas is not the weakest link.

As the BNRC noted its statement following the royal visit, “The harm done was intergenerational; consequently, the response must also be intergenerational. Reparations are not about guilt. They are about responsibility. It’s not about punishment. It’s about repair.”