[DEBATE] : Making history fit the multicultural script

[Soenke Zehle]

<http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F3B0B291-1821-410B-A481-6F7EA483D213/0/Slavery.pdf>
<http://www.irr.org.uk/2006/april/rw000023.html>

IRR > Comment

COMMENT

Making history fit the multicultural script
By Rosie Wild
12 April 2006, 3:00pm

A government pamphlet about the upcoming bicentenary of the abolition of 
the slave trade in the British Empire, published last month, interprets 
history in a way that serves government concerns.

On 25 March, the government published the pamphlet Reflecting on the 
past and looking to the future: the 2007 bicentenary of the abolition of 
the slave trade in the British Empire. A joint effort by the Department 
of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Home Office, the pamphlet has 
been distributed free to a variety of cultural organisations and 
community groups around Britain.

Divided into four sections, it gives a brief history of slavery and the 
abolition movement; reflects on how the past has affected the present; 
discusses contemporary inequalities and what the government is doing to 
tackle them; and finishes with the specific plans the government has to 
help community, cultural and faith groups celebrate the bicentenary.

Although the government's desire to remember and mark the start of the 
end of British slavery is no doubt laudable, any attempt to make the 
past serve the political agenda of the present should be looked on with 
suspicion. In this case, the government clearly wishes next year's 
bicentennial celebrations to be an empowering, inclusive multicultural 
affair and so the history of abolition is presented in these terms.

Strategic ommissions

This is probably why the pamphlet omits to mention the less altruistic 
reasons for the slave trade's demise, like its increasing economic 
unviability in the dawning era of industrial capitalism, or the 
sustained and often violent resistance of the slaves themselves. The 
contentious issue of reparations is also noticeable by its absence. 
Remembering just how much some sections of White society profited from 
the enslavement of Black people and how resistant to relinquishing these 
privileges those sections were, does not fit the government's 
celebratory, multicultural script. And whether people from African and 
Caribbean heritages would agree that the history of slavery and 
abolition belongs equally to all sections of British society is for them 
to decide.

The pamphlet jumps straight from 'Reflecting on the past' into 'Looking 
to the future'. This, and a very narrow definition of slavery that 
mainly focuses on people-trafficking, allows it to gloss over a whole 
range of issues that are contemporary forms of slavery tolerated and, in 
some cases, actively promoted by our government. 'In addition to 
reflecting on this country's diverse past, 2007 is also a chance to make 
a collective commitment that in another two centuries' time no-one 
should feel the need to express regret on our behalf for our actions 
today', explains the pamphlet.

In 200 years, however, it is likely to be the spread of economic slavery 
in the Third World caused by multinationals and global capitalism, the 
prolonged incarceration of political prisoners without charge under the 
war on terror and the incarceration and violation of the human rights of 
people seeking asylum in Britain that will be the subject matter of 
government pamphlets about 21st century slavery. And future readers may 
well think our society was just as morally bankrupt as we now see 
slave-trading Britain before 1807.
Vague promises for the future

Instead of engaging with these thorny issues of contemporary 
enslavement, or giving specific information on how the government plans 
to decrease the racism and discrimination it says are a legacy of 
historical slavery, the second half of the pamphlet makes statements so 
vague and equivocal they are rendered meaningless. A representative 
example is the following sentence about another government pamphlet, 
Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society, published last year. 'It 
signals the government's intention to give greater emphasis to the 
importance of strengthening society by helping people from different 
backgrounds come together, supporting people who contribute to society 
and taking a stand against racists and extremists.'

Elsewhere we are given a more specific pledge that one of the objectives 
of the government's new Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force is that, 
'[i]n seven years' time no-one should be disadvantaged in their 
employment prospects because of their ethnicity'. But as no information 
is given on who is currently disadvantaged and in what ways and there 
are no details on how the task force hopes to achieve its objectives, it 
is just an aspiration masquerading as a strategy.

Funding for bicentenary events

The pamphlet concludes with a short section on specific plans for the 
bicentenary and how groups can apply for funding if they wish to run 
events of their own. Although the government is directly funding a 
national educational project, Understanding Slavery, the funding 
allocated to all other bicentenary events is being disbursed by the 
Heritage Lottery Fund. The role of the government's bicentenary advisory 
panel, convened in January, is therefore only to coordinate and 
publicise the various events and projects that are being planned by others.

The panel is chaired by John Prescott, a prestigious figure, certainly, 
but otherwise not generally identified by his personal commitment to or 
knowledge of the issues surrounding ethnic diversity and racial 
equality. But then the tradition of great and good White people being 
appointed to decide what's best for Black and minority ethnic 
communities is long and deeply held. In this respect, at least, the 
government perpetuates one historical inequality even while trying to 
celebrate the demise of another.

The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate 
view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.