Reckoning with History
Event Highlights: A Critical Discussion on the Reparations Debate
On Tuesday, 8th October, The Equiano Project hosted a significant event at the House of Lords, bringing together influential figures to engage in a critical discussion on reparations.
Below is a summary of the event, highlighting the key points raised by the panellists, the questions posed by attendees, and other noteworthy discussions that emerged.
Panel speakers
Rasheed Griffith, Director of Caribbean Progress Studies Institute
Professor Robert Tombs, emeritus professor of history at the University of Cambridge. and author of several books including The English and Their History (2014) and This Sovereign Isle: Britain In and Out of Europe (2021).
Professor Alan Lester, Professor of Historical Geography, University of Sussex and author of Deny & Disavow: Distancing the Imperial Past in the Culture Wars (2022)
Dr Tiffany Jenkins, sociologist and author of Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums - And Why They Should Stay There (2016)
The discussion begins with an exploration of the complex legacy of colonialism and the topic of reparations, particularly focusing on the Caribbean and Britain. The initial reference is to Orlando Patterson’s book, The Confounding Island, which critiques post-colonial governance in Jamaica compared to other Caribbean nations like Barbados. The absence of reparations discourse in Patterson’s work is highlighted, especially given the central role this issue plays in current Caribbean intellectual and political discussions.
Recent developments
The conversation touches on recent movements in Britain regarding reparations and Britain’s colonial history. The Church of England and other institutions have started to acknowledge their involvement in slavery, and calls for reparations have gained momentum, including a UN estimate suggesting that the UK owes £18 trillion in reparations. Parliamentary groups are mobilising to influence policy.
Perspectives from the panel
1. Rasheed Griffith from the Caribbean Progress Studies Institute provides historical context for the reparations movement in the Caribbean. He traces its roots back to Eric Williams and Sir Hilary Beckles, whose work laid the foundation for the argument that the Caribbean’s economic struggles are linked to colonial exploitation. However, Griffith criticises contemporary Caribbean governments for using reparations as a political distraction, arguing that their focus should be on solving internal economic challenges. He highlights that some territories still under colonial rule or with dependent status outperform their independent counterparts, questioning the narrative that independence or colonial legacies are solely responsible for economic disparities.
Griffith criticises contemporary Caribbean governments for using reparations as a political distraction
2. Professor Robert Tombs discusses a British perspective, noting that discussions about Britain’s colonial past have become contentious due to the influence of American racial politics. He emphasises the politicisation of historical scholarship and the pressure on academics to align with certain narratives to secure funding. Tombs also critiques the Church of England’s reparations efforts, citing inconsistencies in identifying perpetrators, victims, and funds genuinely tied to slavery.
3. Professor Alan Lester advocates for acknowledging Britain’s role in the slave trade and argues that there is a valid case for reparations. He suggests that reparations should not be limited to financial compensation but should include development aid and technology transfer, aligning with Britain’s geopolitical interests. He presents reparations as an opportunity for Britain to strengthen its global influence and counterbalance other powers, like China. He also emphasised the important of being very careful not to trivialise trans-Atlantic slavery, given how it transformed the world, helping to make Britain the advanced industrial society that it is, and was at the same time one of the greatest crimes against humanity in history.
4. Dr Tiffany Jenkins identified three key influences that contributed to the rise of reparations discourse, which she notes began to gain momentum on the international stage in the 1990s. First, she describes it as a top-down effort aimed at legitimising leaders and institutions. Second, Jenkins argued that since the late 1960s, those on the political right have promoted a version of national history that, despite being framed as robust, is in fact weak and feeble. Third, the political left has shifted its focus from envisioning the future to a struggle over the past. As she put it, the old motto ‘Don’t mourn, organise’ has been flipped over to, ‘We must organise to mourn.' Jenkins cautioned that these trends risk reinforcing a fatalistic sense of victimhood, rather than fostering agency.
Read in full on our website, including audience contributions, additional points, and final reflections. Follow the link below.
Full summary of ‘A CRITICAL DISCUSSION ON REPARATIONS’
You can also read John Root’s insightful analysis of the event:
Is anyone considering the fact that without Britain slavery would not have ended?
Britain was followed by the USA in ending slavery nearly 200 years ago.
Nobody alive today contributed towards slavery and nobody alive today benefited from it either.
What about the Arab leaders who rounded up the Africans to sell to the slave trade?
What about the Slavs? Will they get reparations?
Lots of British people were effectively slaves down mines and in factories, their descendants are the ones who will pay the taxes to fund these reparations NOT the wealthy Oxford elites that are pushing this ridiculous agenda.