Sumayya's Blog

It often feels as though Britain has washed its hands of the blood from the American slave trade – an out-of -sight out-of-mind situation. But the remnants from this barbaric era still stain our economy and history and must not be forgotten.

Britain’s relationship with the African continent has been a long and complex one. Starting in the mid 1500s, Britain took an interest in the natural resources Africa had to offer. They decided to establish settlements on the West Coast. John Hawkins, the first English slave trader, was said to have transported 1,500 Africans to Spanish colonies in America. This was a form of chattel slavery whereby humans were treated as commodities, stripped of human rights with the prospect of their children being enslaved too.

It is also important to note that pre-Trans-Atlantic slave trade, instead of enslaved Africans labouring on plantations, indentured labourers who were often poor men from Britain, worked for little pay in British colonies to satisfy the fashions back home for tobacco and sugar. However, supply could not meet demand and thus, the importation of people began.

The fact that slavery is brushed over in the National Curriculum is ever exacerbated by statistics that confirm the power Britain had at this time, shipping over 3.4 million enslaved Africans to the Americas, second only to Portugal (5 million.) To paint a clearer image of the atrocities that occurred, naval officer Bowly described how, on a vessel to the colony of Sierra Leone, less than half of the captives actually survived the passage. He described many as “walking skeletons.” This was the harsh reality of cramming many human bodies into minimal space in order to increase economic profit. They were shackled using chains, naked and barely able to move for the whole two months required to make the journey. Transmission of disease was rapid, the dead nonchalantly thrown overboard. Those who survived were commonly branded, much like cattle, and sold as objects of labour. There is evidence of children being burnt with the initials ‘DY,’ for Duke of York, a repulsive marker of ‘his property.’

Many enslaved Africans were taken back to Britain to work, though the majority were shipped to British American colonies. This was all sanctioned in 1660, under the British Crown, which allowed one of the trans-Atlantic slave companies ‘The Royal African Company,’ to essentially exploit the coast of Africa. However, there was outrage from British merchants who also wanted to partake in this money-making scheme and so, in 1668, the Royal African Company lost its monopoly over the trade; any merchant was now able to join. This was due to independent traders feeling their rights were being curtailed due to not having the freedom to establish their own companies. These rights were acquiesced to on the argument of… freedom. This increased the trade by 300%. During this time, over 6,700 ships made the journey from Africa to America every single year.

Another sickening fact is that, in British ruled Virginia, the law was weaponised. If a slave resisted his master and was then punished for this yet died in the process, it would not count as a felony. In essence, this law legalised the murder of black people; the law could hide from accountability. So, whilst in Britain one could be certain of having civil liberties under the common law, British colonies were subject to slave codes; overtly placing black people under white men.

By the 18th century, the ‘Triangular trade,’ was rife. This meant ships were loaded with material goods from Britain and exchanged in Western Africa for men, women and children. After this, at a great profit, the enslaved were sold in America to work cruel hours in plantations. In return, the British left America with boat loads of commodities, including sugar (the produce of slavery) and returned home to sell these items.

Human lives were, literally, the money maker that fuelled the Industrial Revolution which allowed Britain to establish itself as a dominant economic player. We would not be in this dominant position today, were it not for the toil and barbaric treatment of slaves 200 years ago. We all have the responsibility to acknowledge this. Maybe we should further bear this is mind when we critique developing countries who we consider to be inferior and less developed. A little introspection and humility would do us the world of good.

Slavery was finally abolished through an act of Parliament in 1833. The cause was multi- factorial. Not only was the ‘necessity,’ for slaves less, now that machines were taking over the work force, but the resilience of the enslaved Africans encouraged ideas of liberty and equality. On top of this, many Abolitionists had been campaigning for the end of slavery for many years. This included Granville Sharp, who argued, rightly, that the nature of slavery was evil. He managed to take up the cases of many fugitive slaves, including the beaten nearly to death Jonathon Strong, eventually managing to change the law – forbidding owners with black servants in Britain from deporting them back to slavery in the West Indies.

William Wilberforce was also one of the main figureheads in the Abolitionist campaign. In 1807, the elimination of the Slave Trade Act stopped the slave trade in British colonies. However, this just prevented the trade of enslaved people rather than prohibiting actual slavery. Eventually, in 1833, slavery was abolished in British colonies. However, it is unsettling to note that because of their lost, free, labour, Britain handed out £millions of compensations to land owners.

Britain flourished from the slave trade. When we talk about the Industrial Revolution in school lessons, why do we address the names of specific machines invented and not the back-breaking work of men and women that provided the materials? There were over 4,500 mills in Lancashire and Southern Scotland that provided cotton clothing, Britain’s largest export, employing one in five people. Where did the cotton come from? Plantations in North America. Lancashire even required Food Aid during the American civil war when the production and exportation of cotton decreased. What is troubling still, is that just up until 5 years ago, taxpayers were still paying off the debt of our government used to pay £millions to ‘compensate,’ the slave owners in America when Britain abolished slavery.

As Historian David Olusoga states, this is not just the history of black people. This is the intertwined history and relationship of Britain and Africa that we all have a duty to know. And so today, we should celebrate the dismantling of monuments like that of Edward Colston in Bristol. Colston was greatly involved in the Royal African Company and a monument to a man who was instrumental in the suffering of thousands seems perverse. And so, let us all try and rally for a long overdue change in the curriculum. Knowledge and education are intrinsic in empowering us to never commit these same crimes again.

A summary of a book I read recently called “The New Jim Crow.”

In George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm,’ it states “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

As sad as it is, this quote remains potent, applying to pretty much every country around the globe. Whether it be those of the Jewish race or homosexuals or Muslims or women or those of colour, there have always been minority groups subjugated to marginalisation and discrimination throughout history. Politics will forever revolve around these dynamics, politicians using the current climate to further their campaigns. Recent news has shown Antisemitism playing on the left of the political spectrum whilst Islamophobia is potent on the right.

Until recently, I had always known about the slave trade, but never really more than the fact that thousands of Africans were captured, kept like animals in squalid conditions and then forced into labour on arriving at the shores of America, the land of the free?

The slavery of black people, popular in the western world, although formally abolished in 1865, has left a permanent stain on the western world. In the 1600s, British-ruled-Virginia allowed a disobedient slave to be killed, an obvious indication of a lesser life.

 A timeline of Black rights in the US have evolved from the label of a slave, overt racism, whereby the skulls of African Americans and white Americans were compared to find ‘differences,’ to institutionalised racism via the Jim Crow Laws to a modern, covert system of mass incarceration of predominantly black men. It is so easy to assume racism is mostly a historical concept, especially whilst America showcased their first black president and many African Americans are seen at the top of their work ladders. It seems however, that the success stories of generally middle-class people mask the present struggle of thousands of African Americans, essentially making a big issue seem pretty minimal. 

In order to gain some ‘control,’ after the civil rights movement, a new racial caste system was birthed, the child of slavery and Jim Crow Laws (laws that prevented black and white people from attending the same schools, sitting in the same restaurants etc.) Using anti-black rhetoric, politicians gained power, masking their racialised motivations under a motivation of cracking down hard on crime which was particularly high at the time due to the baby boom. Ronald Reagan subsequently launched a war on drugs in 1982, despite only 2 percent of the public viewing this as a potent issue at the time. 

What followed was an increase of anti-drug funding, laws that allowed stop and searches whereby race could be a contributing factor, civil penalties which allowed tenants to allow those partaking in drug related activities to be evicted and especially vigorous observations of those in ghettos. The severity of the war on drugs meant that in the late 1900s, over of quarter of black men were imprisoned, some for minor offenses such as first-time drug usage. Essentially today, the same issues are as rife as those almost 60 years ago. Black men are trialled for usage of drugs, incarcerated often for first time charges for sometimes around five years. Once released, unable to find jobs for previous criminals, they are unable to support themselves and their family and lapse back into previous activity and into poverty. Yes, the cycle has attempted to be broken with affirmative action but this really only aids those who are able to attend university and come from wealthier backgrounds. It is unfortunately cosmetic. 

Our basic school education desperately needs reform. We need to learn about the slave trade- the UK played an instrumental role and we have to take ownership of that. The whole industrial revolution relied on the slave tried, relied on the imported cotton picked by slaves in the 19th century. Our economy ran because of unjust treatment towards so many. If we expect the holocaust to be taught in Germany, it seems hypocritical that we shy away from teaching children about our role in slavery.

As a teenager, I often find it difficult to recognise our current rights, more often than not met with a barricade of unintelligible information I can’t begin to get my head around. As I begin to read more and delve deeper into issues that encompass our basic civil liberties, I have come to understand the law is not the static, black and white, straightforward rule book that most believe it to be, but more of a nuanced, ever-evolving creature.

I have always thought that in the UK our rights are completely safeguarded, and our autonomy sheltered from the infringement of prying eyes. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Although atrocities, namely Belmarsh Prison, are now in the past, it feels to me greatly dystopic. The concept of a so-called civilised democracy running alongside detaining someone without them understanding what placed them in such a position, are simply incompatible. A society that preaches liberty and equality for everyone, simply cannot decide a group of people are exceptions to mainstream law. Controversially in 2004, Belmarsh Prison indefinitely detained without trial under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 foreign nationals. Our Government felt a prosecution involving court procedure would be unwise due to the involvement of intelligence sources. Although the interests of the majority were placed over a small suspected minority, the subjects were detained regardless of the Human Rights Act of 1998, which protects our Right to Liberty (Article 5.) From my understanding, this is due to the UK’s unwritten constitution, whereby all our laws are regarded as equal; meaning our human rights are on par with other legislation and can be overseen. In other countries such as the US who have a written constitution, anything that conflicts with those laws would be seen as invalid. However, in the UK, our Parliament has sovereignty, having the power to adapt the law at any time, meaning the courts are powerless to intervene. The case was eventually taken to the House of Lords (cases would now be taken to the supreme court) who deemed it incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights due to the interference with liberty and the fact that lesser measures could have been taken, such as electronic tags to monitor the defendants.

Indefinite detention is degrading can impacts the mental health of detainees. To not know a release date takes its toll in the form of depression or self-harm and many inmates are fleeing state oppression and violence, and thus, these centres exacerbate the already pressing issues that face migrants. In my opinion, we should be reducing the period that we can legally indefinitely detain people. Although NGOs such as Liberty have pressed for a 28 day limit it seems the Home Office has still not been moved. There have been countless stories of pregnant women, torture survivors and children being locked up, at the mercy of the Home Office. The fact that people have also died in detention centres simply highlights the emotional and physical trauma of the Government’s schemes. Further, it must also be noticed, the centres are a hub for economic waste. More importantly however, our right to never be subject to degrading treatment is being complacently walked over.

Moreover, the UK played a role in the running of the barbaric Guantanamo Bay. Set up by the Bush administration in 2002 as a result of the War on Terror, suspected terrorists were sent to the off-shore camp without a fair trial and were indefinitely detained. On first hearing about Guantanamo, my reaction was that it seemed fair – that those who have committed such atrocities have no right to be treated with dignity. I now realise the problems that that kind of attitude entails. Despite any crime, it is integral all are given a trial, especially since detainees at Guantanamo have now been proven innocent, having suffered decades of abuse and torture. Moreover, surely if we are saying that terrorists have no rights and can equally be indefinitely detained, it seems odd to me that the vast population of Guantanamo were those connected to ‘Islamic’ extremism. White supremacy and violence is of equal concern and is a current epidemic in the US and UK today; some perpetrators being passed off as mentally ill. 

 Without the protection of the Geneva Convention and without the protection of Prisoner of War rights, the detainees at Guantanamo are subject to torture such as solitary confinement for over 30 days, exploitation of their phobias, feelings of suffocation, sleep deprivation and water boarding. Mohamedou Ould Slahi after being released without charge after nearly 14 years described being shackled, being made to stand for long periods and subject to loud noises. Many detainees alleged that the UK had facilitated rendition to the camp, with the Foreign Secretary at the time, David Milliband, refusing to release information that would prove torture was used in Guantanamo for fear the US would distrust them. With help from the High Court, this information was released, and the British Government ended up paying compensation to many to avoid future litigation.

It seems insane that these criminal movements continue in the 21st century and I feel as though in order to combat them, our generation really needs to try to understand the complexity of the issues that have plagued recent times.