A self-righteous mob is ignoring the complexity of history
Until recent times, the institution of slavery was almost universal, as was its handmaiden, the slave trade. Nearly all societies outside Western Europe practised it in one form or other and some still do. The Europeans themselves, of course, notoriously made large fortunes both out of the Triangular Trade and slave-manned plantations in the New World. When slavery was abolished in British possessions overseas in 1833, the owners that Parliament compensated included the very rich, but also maiden ladies of modest means, so deeply ingrained was the “peculiar institution “ in the British economy.
Today, in 21st century Mali there are an estimated 200,000 slaves and we ourselves are shamed by the number of people who are still trafficked to the United Kingdom into what is in effect slavery. It was not until 1962 that Saudi Arabia legislated against slavery, to be followed in 1970 by Oman, both countries responding to pressure from the British government. I remember being flown up to Lamu in the 1970s by the then Kenyan Minister of Agriculture, shortly before he was assassinated by Idi Amin. He was responding to the abduction of two young Kenyan boys by Saudi slave traders who hoped to sell them in the by then unofficial slave markets of Arabia.
In less recent times, the mid-19th century Emir of Zanzibar made a rich living from the long established Arab trade in African slaves, although his successor was decorated by the British for his role in helping to suppress it. In the 16th century, Barbary pirates raided the shores of Europe seeking slaves to man their galleys. In the 19th century, Northern Iran was devastated by Alemans: Turkmen raiding parties of several thousand horsemen taking women and young boys for the slave markets of Bokhara and Khiva. The Tsarist advance in Central Asia, which occurred at roughly the same time as the Tsar abolished serfdom in Russia, brought this scourge to an end, but slavery remained perfectly acceptable in most Islamic societies.
It is true that some Islamic societies saw slaves become the rulers of powerful states, because it avoided the difficulties presented by dynastic systems. The medieval Sultanate of Delhi, for instance, was ruled by slave Sultans, but in the end family feeling overcame raison d’etat and slaves reverted to their usual subordinate roles.
It is a testament to how deeply ingrained slavery was in human societies that, in spite of the moral obloquy it so rightly attracts, it persists. It is a commonplace to observe that those founding philosophers of Western thought, Plato and Aristotle, lived in ancient Athens, a society dependent on slavery. Both of these great men justified the institution. Plato, you will remember, thought some people, the Greeks, were worthy of freedom and some, the barbarians or non-Greeks, were not. Aristotle argued that slavery is a natural thing and that human beings come in two types, slaves and non-slaves.
The great medieval theologian and philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, who melded Christianity with Platonism and Aristotelianism, contended that the universe has a natural structure which gave men authority over others. Even those founders of modern thought, Locke and Hobbes, were at best equivocal about slavery. Locke himself was involved in slavery, trading with the Royal Africa Company and helping to draft the Carolina constitution, despite condemning slavery unequivocally in his writings.
The habits of millennia and the immense financial rewards of the slave trade combined to make slave owning and slave trading an integral part of human life among civilisations world-wide. What is therefore remarkable is that revulsion for the institution and its trade became so powerful that it eventually overcame not only the economic interests, but also the cultural attitudes and philosophical justifications they spawned.
For that we can thank Christianity and the Enlightenment, two sets of beliefs not usually seen to be perfectly aligned.
In the 16th century, in Spain, Las Casas provided a foretaste of what was to come, although various 17th and 18th century Popes were heavily lobbied by slaving interests and moderated their views accordingly. But it was the United Kingdom, which had profited enormously from both slave labour and the slave trade, that the illogicality of espousing Liberty while profiting from being a slave-trading nation became irresistible. The majesty of the Common Law as exemplified by the Mansfield judgement helped set the tone and Wesley, Clarkson, Wilberforce and the rest eventually led the abolitionist campaign to success. The industrial revolution may have made slave labour economically less attractive, but the moral force of the abolitionists overcame millennia of practice and profits. It was a remarkable reversal which is conveniently ignored by today’s protesters.
Indeed, so remarkable was the about turn that the Royal Navy’s principal task for much of the 19th century was to wage war on the slave trade.
Where today’s protesters have a point is that attitudes over difficult questions like race take time to change. Voltaire, that embodiment of the enlightenment, condemned slavery, but thought that blacks did not share the “natural humanity” of whites. Even the great abolitionist himself, Abraham Lincoln, could only bring himself to go so far. In September 1858 in Charleston, Illinois, he made a speech saying that he did not think that blacks should either be given the vote, marry whites or sit on juries. He was reflecting widely held opinions at the time. Does this speech mean that we should tear down the statue in Parliament Square of one of America’s greatest Presidents?
Rather we should celebrate the achievements of the men and women whom we commemorate in bronze, accepting that, like us they were made of crooked timber and that even the greatest of them did and thought things we would condemn today. What they accomplished was only a step in the journey, but without them the voyage may never have started.
If we allow the smug self-righteousness of today’s mobs to override the rule of law, our descendants in centuries to come may be equally keen to condemn our current passionately expressed opinions and our methods of enforcing them. It would be wiser by far to emulate the abolitionist Montesquieu’s dictum that “government should be set up so that no man should be afraid of another.”
For that to happen the rule of law is a prerequisite. If the law is to be changed, peaceful protest has an important part to play, but mob violence, intimidation and desecrating the memorials to great men and women who lived in different times with different attitudes is dangerous. It is a good way to stimulate an equal and opposite reaction and thus further to divide a nation at a time when we need to be brought together. We have much to be proud of as a nation. Making our children believe we do not will destroy us and help ruin the lives of many of those the protesters want to help.