An apology for Britain’s role in the slave trade

ARGUMENTS FOR:

We engaged in this evil trade for more than 200 years and should apologise to descendants of its victims, just as Germany has apologised for the Holocaust.

Cities such as Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow profited from the trade. So did many other institutions which are still living on its legacy. They should not only apologise but make restitution.

Moral leaders such as the Archbishops of Canterbury and York believe that a formal apology and restitution are in order.

An apology would improve race relations in this country by removing the legitimate grievances of descendants of the slave trade's victims.

Accepting responsibility for this historical crime would set a good example to other nations which have been guilty of crimes for which they refuse to offer an apology.

The First Post guide to the issue of the day

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Apologising for crimes committed in the long distant past is sentimental self-indulgence. No one alive today bears any personal responsibility. It's a cheap and dishonest way of making people feel good about themselves.

Offering such an apology - and talk of restitution - encourages a victim culture among those who are not themselves in any true way victims.

It's an exercise in hypocrisy. Nobody is demanding an apology from the descendants of African chiefs and Arab slavers who also profited from the trade. Nor, of course, should they apologise either.

The apology was given when it mattered, and took the practical form of outlawing the trade and employing the Royal Navy to stop it.

Should we demand an apology from Denmark for the havoc wrought by the Vikings? The suggestion is absurd.

FIRST POSTED MARCH 26, 2007