The case for an apology and reparations for slavery

It's a tricky one. King Charles III of Britain has been trying to thread the needle at the Commonwealth meeting in the Caribbean over the issue of historical slavery. In his usual, and I think perfectly genuine, heartfelt manner, the king acknowledged "the great suffering and injustices in the past in these islands and beyond". He was careful to qualify it with, "We cannot change the actions of those who came before us", and certainly fell short of an official apology or any talk of financial reparations.

Many of the Commonwealth Caribbean nations feel this was a missed opportunity, and see it as a slight to them. They have long called for an apology and reparations. As one member put it: "Acknowledgement is like when somebody hits your car and says, 'Oh, I'm sorry!' But the apology when they hit your car and say, 'I'm sorry and here is my insurance'. It's the difference between recognizing that something bad has happened, and holding yourself accountable for it".

Fair enough, I guess. But should today's nations be held accountable for the sins of the past? Do a few words of official apology outweigh years of acknowledgements of past transgressions? Are they really more interested in the filthy lucre of reparations than the moral imperative of an apology? Lots of open questions. 

Britain was not alone in its pursuit of the lucrative slave trade. France, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark and the United states. For what it's worth, Britain was actually the first of those countries to outlaw the slave trade, in 1807, and its early changes galvanized the other counrties into action. Thus far, the Netherlands is the only country to have apologized and no country has agreent to pay reparations.

Recently, new British Prime Minister Andy Burnham - not a man you could accuse of having a weak moral compass, I'd argue - came out publicly on the issue. He says he may be open to making an apology, but definitively ruled out reparations, arguing that they were not the right answer". In his words, "I do not think that British people today can be held liable for historical wrongs, however heinous, that happened in a different age under different laws and in which they played no personal part".

This seems to be the view across the political spectrum in Britain and abroad, and other is a compelling, almost irrefutable, argument. Making a formal apology, on the other hand, costs nothing and can be done with conviction and sensitivity. So, it should definitely be done, in my view.