Should Bristol apologise for the slave trade?

Bristol should be a bit prouder of itself today after hosting a debate which has allowed for the African enslavement discourse to be better understood, and its heartfelt history and lasting legacy to be confronted.

The question seemed simple. “Should Bristol apologise for the slave trade?” But that raises many questions of its own. Who should apologise, to whom, and for what…?  

An answer to the central question may seem obvious, depending on where you stand in the pools of entrenched opinion that we seem to find ourselves in here in Bristol. But for any act of apology to be meaningful, those underlying questions are immediately thrust in our faces for consideration.   Furthermore, is Bristol ready to apologise, and does it understand or care about what it is apologising for?  And of course, what difference will it make?

Congratulations should go to the British Empire & Commonwealth Museum for staging this informative and inspiring discussion. It was the much need vent for some of the main streams of thought in Bristol around this experience of African enslavement and its effects which are with us still, in “black” and “white” mind-sets today.  

I am careful to congratulate the British Empire & Commonwealth Museum, even though it’s called “British”, “Empire” AND “Commonwealth”, because here was an example of a mainstream institution using its resources and profile to make an impact in the city and generate national debate on this thorny subject.  This was evident in the scale of the event, and the mix and quality of speakers, audience and ideas.

 
Supported by the Bristol Festival of Ideas (a Bristol Cultural Development Partnership initiative),  there was a much needed injection of informed, articulate perspectives with speakers on the panel such as, Lord Hugh Thomas,  Dr. Mike Philips, artist and author Ekow Eshun,  Africentric Toyin Agbetu, and from the floor, historian Richard Hart.

 
The over-sized Brunel-ian Passenger shed was almost at capacity with a few hundred seats of Bristolians and visitors, “black” and “white”, eager to let off, and hungry to hear about this issue, which in its different guises, has generated significant local  media attention in the past few weeks, and made their blood boil.

 
This is not only simply historical. It’s political, sociological and emotional. As a generator of post-bags to the local press and minutes of  phone-in time on radio in this city of recent weeks, the sizeable turn-out at this event reminds us again that Bristolians need to talk about this.

 
What has been clear in the Bristol psychological mindscape is that, as a city we are a long way from that place of understanding what an apology might mean. The basic acknowledgement and understanding about the trade, its circumstances and consequences have yet to be understood in the city as a whole.  The city’s main museums do currently host exhibitions which display the facts of the so-called ‘trade’.  Though these are important steps, in establishing facts, figures and a fundamental acknowledgement, the museums’ contributions do not make up a complete picture around this narrative and experience of African enslavement.

 
The question of who to apologise to, also sparks the wonder, do they actually want an apology?

 
One of the most refreshing elements of this event was the introduction to Bristol mainstream thinking of Africentricism. The key proponent of this being, Toyin Agbetu, founder of www.ligali.org. This is more than a website but a movement, committed to tackling racism founded on the institutional misrepresentation of Africans and African experience particularly in the media.

 
Agbetu brought much needed new perspectives and language into the open. Outside of the usual context of self-affirming Africentric gatherings, these ideas about the degradation of the African, and the basis of re-interrogating language would usually be met with dismissive asides about political correctness.  While many people in the room would have been a long way from getting to that place of using ‘enslaved Afrikan’ or ‘Ma’afa’, these considerations were useful placeholders for future mainstream understanding.

 
“Do we want an apology?” asks Agbetu rhetorically. “No” he replies. Because he argues this city is not emotionally mature enough to carry out it out sincerely? The streams of thought from Bristol’s mainstream media to date has shown a resounding NO but for different reasons.  This has been their response to the idea of taking the blame for something that some of their ancestors may or may not have done a very long time ago, which anyway seems to have benefited the primitive savage.

 
What was great about this gathering was that in typical Bristol fashion the floor took over. While these enlightened thinkers sat on the panel expecting to be asked questions, it was statements from the impassioned and enlightened ones in the audience, that offered much more meat to the debate.  

 
It was a fruitful exchange and very important that the audience played such a role.  Partly because it was important for the panel to know where Bristol was at in its consciousness around this, and partly because some of the panel only had pompous philosophical wind to offer the whole evening’s proceedings. While their research, and knowledge was very necessary, it was clear from discussions afterwards that some of this panel of ‘experts’ had learned a lot from the Bristol audience.  And very importantly, they also served as a kind of mediation service, since the event gave a chance for Bristolians from either sides of the spectrum to exchange views with each other.

 
It is a shame however that the some of media news machine which does not have space / interest for extended dialogue on these issues, could not capture some of the subtleties of this event. So that some of the following day’s media coverage seemed reported the evening as voting to say that Bristol should apologise, anyone in that audience would tell you that the motion was changed to say SHOULD BRISTOL INSTITUTIONS APOLOGISE, to which the answer was YES. Subtle but crucial distinction which gives an insight into people’s thinking. Otherwise it was going to be a ‘No’.

 
In terms of who should apologise, I notice that the event called for Queen Elizabeth II to do so, while Cllr. Barbara Jancke in BBC Points West today thought that the country should do so.  (Tony, any parting comments?, or Gordon any introductory ones?)

Either way, my conclusion overall was that, while it was a potential distraction, the Apology debate was useful for keeping the issues in the open, and giving a platform to exchange views. The event like all the media coverage leading up to and following it, proved beyond doubt, that what Bristol needed more than anything was  knowledge, education and understanding on this historical issue that very much lives with us today.