Church of England apologises for part in slave trade -08/02/06
From Ekklesia
The Church of England has voted to do what British Prime Minister Tony Blair has refused to do, and apologise to the descendents of victims of the slave trade. An amendment "recognising the damage done" to those enslaved has been backed overwhelmingly by the Church's General Synod. Debating the motion, Rev Simon Bessant, from Pleckgate, Blackburn, described the Church's involvement in the trade, saying, "We were at the heart of it."
The amendment was supported by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Archbishop of York John Sentamu, who has linked slavery with ongoing discrimination and racism. Dr Williams said the apology was "necessary". He said: "The body of Christ is not just a body that exists at any one time, it exists across history and we therefore share the shame and the sinfulness of our predecessors and part of what we can do, with them and for them in the body of Christ, is prayer for acknowledgement of the failure that is part of us not just of some distant 'them'."
During an emotional meeting of the Church's 'parliament' in London, Rev Blessant explained the involvement of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts in the slave trade. The organisation owned the Codrington Plantation in Barbados, where slaves had the word "society" branded on their backs with a red-hot iron, he said. He added that when the emancipation of slaves took place in 1833, compensation was paid not to the slaves but to their owners. In one case, he said the Bishop of Exeter and three colleagues were paid nearly £13,000 in compensation for 665 slaves. He said: "We were directly responsible for what happened. In the sense of inheriting our history, we can say we owned slaves, we branded slaves, that is why I believe we must actually recognise our history and offer an apology."
The synod passed a motion acknowledging the "dehumanising and shameful" consequences of slavery. It comes ahead of commemorations of the 200th anniversary of the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which will be marked next year. The debate heard from descendants of the slave trade including the Rev Nezlin Sterling, of Ealing, west London, who represents black churches. She told the synod that commemorations of the 200th anniversary would revive "painful issues and memories" for descendants.
There is evidence that Christians in the first few centuries after Christ freed their slaves, and even bought them in order to give them their liberty. However following the move of the church to alignment with government in the forth century under the Roman emperor Constantine, the church often endorsed or ordered slavery, urging only that slaves were treated humanely. When the Bishop of Le Mans transferred a large estate to the Abbey of St. Vincent in 572, ten slaves went with it. In the early ninth century, the Abbey of St. Germain des Prés listed 25 of their 278 householders as slaves. Pope Gregory XI excommunicated the Florentines in the Fourteenth Century, and ordered them enslaved wherever taken. In 1488, King Ferdinand sent 100 Moorish slaves to Pope Innocent VIII who presented them as gifts to his cardinals and other court notables.
Renewed opposition to slavery was however evident within the church several centuries before the abolition of the transatlantic trade. Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation urged the recognition of human equality, and an end to slavery, as did Christians at the time of the English civil war. Their actions, along with the intellectual movement of the Enlightenment, is often credited with laying the foundations for the eventual abolition of the slave trade. Evangelical Anglican William Wilberforce led the campaign for abolition although other Evangelicals and Anglicans in the wider church opposed the ending of the transatlantic trade. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has consistently refused to apologise for Britain's part in the transatlantic slave trade despite calls for Britain to do so from such figures as Rev Jesse Jackson in the US.
9 comments:
wth... only 200 yeas belated!
Even the Church gets there - eventually........
It might be a little late, but it shows a humane face. Some day in the future someone will apologize for the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Dr Marco said: It might be a little late, but it shows a humane face. Some day in the future someone will apologize for the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Indeed. Various Churches are saying (and even doing) good things these days. It's a bit surprising but you can't fault them.
uberchap said: It's worth bearing in mind that The Church in the UK was very much a part of the campaign to abolish slavery.
That's very true - as mentioned in the article. Some members of the Church were instrumental in the abolition of slavery.
uberchap also said: The bombs shortened the war.
Probably yes. But that wasn't the only reason they were dropped.
uberchap also said: How many lives would have been taken by a land invasion and how long would the war have been prolonged.
I doubt very much if an opposed land invasion would ever have taken place. The Americans had total air superiority and controlled the seas. Japan could have been blockaded and systematically bombed back into the stone age. No need to invade with the estimated causualty rates.
uberchap also said: Hitler was close to getting an atomic bomb working, and he had plans to drop dirty bombs on US cities.
Nazi Germany was years away from building an A bomb. There's no way they could've built one and used it against anyone before they were over-run by the Russians and the Western Allies. Also - didn't the European campaign finish before Japan was defeated? So a longer Asian campaign would've had no impact on Germanies ability to build the Bomb.
It is interesting to see how wiping out hundreds of thousands of civilians can become "morally acceptable" to some people. I see the picture of the chimpanzee holding a gun and I understand it a little bit more.
"uberchap also said: How many lives would have been taken by a land invasion and how long would the war have been prolonged."
Well, the US stockpiled 500,000 purple hearts (a medal automatically issued to any casualty as a result of battle) for the invasion of Japan. This is probably the most reliable of all the casualty estimates flying about during the last few months of the war as it would have been calculated by people with no stake in the political battles going on. It should also be borne in mind that at that stage of the war you could usually rely on something like 20 Japanese casualties to every American (thanks to superior US firepower).
CK Said "I doubt very much if an opposed land invasion would ever have taken place."
Seriously, if you believe that you'll believe anything. I strongly suggest you go and read a good book on the subject of Operation Downfall (the planned American invasion of Japan - Wikipedia is a good place to start) and especially Ketsu Go, the Japanese defence plans.
To take an example, by late summer the US planners were so appalled by the scale and obvious seriousness of the Japanese defenders that they were formulating plans to use nuclear weapons to clear beach defences and send the landing craft in as soon as the blast wave dispersed. This was a time before the phenomenon of fall out was understood - the effect on the soldiers and marines who would hit the beaches can only be imagined.
Do you honestly believe that the US would have just accepted 500,000 casualties to invade Japan? I don't think so. No sane military or political leader would have sanctioned such an operation.
Japan was totally dependent on imports for just about everything. Their airforce was totally shattered and B-29 bombers where virtually unopposed on their bombing runs. Japan would have collapsed in weeks if not months without the use of the two A-bombs.
But as they were dropped.. I guess we'll never know - not unless we develop the technology to travel between alternate realities...
"Still, you are not responsible for the limits of my understanding and I am not responsible for yours, thankfully."
So, reading your message again I feel that you understand the issue a little less than you claim.
So do you set the limits of my understanding or not?
I still do not see how you find more acceptable the deaths of civilians than the death of soldiers. Or is it because the civilians were Japanese? It is just a question, so there is no need to get offended. You can answer "no" and avoid dramatic replies.
Human beings and chimps share 98% of the DNA, so we are close relatives in the evolutionary tree. I do not get offended by that fact. Our aggressive nature is in our genes, that is what I meant
Post a Comment