THE EDITOR, Sir:
I HAVE never agreed with calls, regardless of their origin, for repatriation to Africa. I have been more sympathetic to calls for reparations to the descendants of slaves and to those who suffer the consequences of slavery. This is not to say, though, that I agree that all poverty and all misery that all descendants of slaves suffer is the result of slavery.
I agree that the jury is still out on both issues of reparation and repatriation. Nevertheless, I am simply appalled at the sentiments, coming from the Crown of England, in response to a claim for reparations, as reported in today's Gleaner (January 8). Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth declared, effectively, that since the historic slave trade was not a crime against humanity or contrary to international law at the time when the UK government condoned it, then the sum total of Britain's response and responsibility is an "appropriate form of UK slavery commemoration".
Commemoration? I should hope that this is one of Her Majesty's royal misnomers, diplomatic understatements or euphe-misms; otherwise, it is royal impotence and we are not amused. The vast majority of Jamaicans and peoples of African descent including the majority of those who live in Britain and in the British Commonwealth commemorate slavery every day by suffering various consequences of it! So much for Her Majesty's assertion that "these shameful activities (of slavery) belong to the past"! If they do, why commemorate them?
If commemoration is all that London can say or do, to respond to her engineering and executing one of the ugliest eras of human history, then London Bridge has fallen down! Flat!
We know that Her Majesty is no Roman Catholic, so we would not expect her to have been moved by His Holiness the Pope's recent apology for all the sins of the Church of the past. Neither is the lady a Baptist, so we do not expect her to have been inspired by the recent apology from the predominantly white Southern Baptist Convention (of the USA) for its silence in the days of slavery and the Civil Rights struggles. But, good grief, isn't she, in a manner of speaking, the first among humans?
Her Majesty's argument that it is a fundamental principle of international law that events have to be judged against the law as it stood at the time when they occurred is absolutely correct. However, the issue of reparations is not just a legal issue it is a moral issue. It may be true that British governments of the 18th and 19th centuries did not see slavery as a crime against humanity. This only proves how inhumane they may have been. It may be true that slavery was not on the international law books as a crime. But, does legislation precede injustices and immorality, or does it arise because of it?
Was it not Her Majesty's predecessor's loyal subjects, William Wilberforce, James Phillippo and others, who successfully sensitised the government of the day that the slave trade and slavery were immoral, and crimes against humanity? And did not the government subsequently stop it ostensibly because of moral suasion? (although, Her Majesty's comments give credence to the long-asserted position that slavery was discontinued for economic, rather than moral, reasons).
I wait, with bated breath, to see how, in time, Her Majesty's letter shall be used, as hinted at, by Public Defender Howard Hamilton, as grist, not for sugar mills, but for the mills of reparation.
I am etc.,
MICHAEL P. FRIDAY
rev_manfriday@hotmail.com
109 Cumberland St
Hartford, Connecticut
Via Go-Jamaica
