4 hours ago
7
It is not necessary to agree with the slavery reparations movement in order to see through the crude and threadbare logic of Zia Yusuf’s tirade against it (Reform UK would stop visas for people from countries seeking slavery reparations, 7 April). Britain’s prominent role in ending the slave trade and subsequently slavery neither absolves its involvement in those enterprises nor erases their effects. Endless reiteration of it does, however, encourage a sentimental attachment to a single, insular version of history.
Similarly, to claim that advocates for reparations are using history “as a weapon to drain our treasury” is a wilful misrepresentation, designed to jolt the indignant reflexes of Reform UK supporters too lazy to engage with extensive argument.
But the ugly coup de grace in Yusuf’s diatribe is his willingness to demonise whole populations whose governments have the audacity to question historical narrative or to possess opinions built on principle – a crime so heinous that it deserves the denial of visas for entry to Britain.
Typically, however, Reform’s right brain rarely knows what its left hemisphere is up to. So, Nigel Farage’s coincidental statement that “I think if we start banning people from entering the country because we don’t like what they say, I worry where that ends up” (with reference to Kanye West) ought to see Yusuf beat an ignominious retreat. But, unfortunately, this is unlikely, as Reform is as hypocritical as it is dishonest.
Paul McGilchrist
Cromer, Norfolk
I am confident that my ancestor William Wilberforce would find the Reform party’s claim that the UK made “huge sacrifices” to end the slave trade both ignorant and tone‑deaf. Should we be lamenting no longer being able to profit from the labour of men, women and children denied their freedom and often treated appallingly?
Enslavers and plantation owners had to be compensated handsomely by the British government to get the 1833 act that abolished slavery in the British empire through parliament. These did not compensate formerly enslaved people for their enslavement, or take steps to rehabilitate them. Many were forced to continue working for their former enslavers in similar working conditions.
The question of reparations is a complex one. To deny visas to members of the nations seeking them, many of whom will be descendants of enslaved people, is nasty and small-minded. Applications should be considered on their merits, and many to whom visas are granted will benefit this country in all sorts of ways.
Sebastian Wilberforce
Tai Tapu, New Zealand
European countries involved in slavery and the US should pay reparations (Commonwealth leaders vow to keep seeking reparations after Reform UK plan to halt visas, 7 April). The profits from slavery created vast wealth for white UK and US “owners” of enslaved people. None of the perpetrators of that vile crime were held to account – and none of the proceeds were confiscated.
On the contrary, the UK government compensated the perpetrators and profiteers. Forty six thousand UK owners of enslaved people were compensated for their “loss”. The government took out a massive loan (not fully repaid until 2015) and gave each owner, on average, about £400,000 in today’s values. African enslaved people were given nothing by the UK or the US – except, in the case of US freed people, the famous broken promise of 40 acres and a mule.
Chris Hughes
Leicester
