LIES! LIES! LIES!

New African, Oct 2007 by Ankomah, Baffour

For 34 weeks since 25 March this year, Britain and its former colonies have been celebrating "Wilberforce 2007", a major commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the day the Abolition of Slavery Bill was passed by the British Parliament in 1807. The commemoration will end this month (October), which also happens to be the 20th anniversary of Black History Month UK. But did Britain really abolish slavery in 1807 or did it continue to build its economy, its infrastructure, and improve the lives of its people on the back of slavery after 1807? A new book by a British historian, Marika Sherwood, "After Abolition - Britain and the Slave Trade since 1807", shows up the Perfidious Albion at its worst and why the commemoration should have tackled these issues. Baffour Ankomah reports.

Marika Sherwood's book, "After Abolition - Britain and the Slave Trade since 1807", is bound to raise hairs in Her Majesty's Kingdom. You can tell just by looking at the caustic comments of reviewers on the jacket of the book.

One of diem, Richard Drayton, senior lecturer in Imperial History, University of Cambridge, UK, says: "This clever and angry book challenges the triumphalist narrative of British abolition. Sherwood, an ingenious and tenacious researcher, shows how British bankers, merchants and manufacturers continued to profit from the slave trade and plantation slavery long after 1807 and 1833."

Another reviewer, Stephen Small, chair of the Department of African-American Studies, University of California, Berkeley, says: "This book is absolutely outstanding - timely, compelling and insightful. Marshalling together the best evidence from the historical archives, Sherwood writes smoothly, incisively and passionately. And she pulls no punches. The reader of this book will be rewarded with rich, textured evidence, detailed concrete examples, insistent questioning, incisive analysis, impeccable reasoning and compelling arguments."

History professor, Ayodeji Olukoju, of the University of Lagos, Nigeria, comments: "A highly provocative and iconoclastic text, which poses critical and discomfiting questions. It forces us to rethink or question many long-held assumptions about the slave trade and its abolition, and presents us with incontrovertible evidence of hypocritical acts, half-hearted measures and false promises on the part of the British state, business community and civil society."

Perhaps the best comment was saved for last: "Marika Sherwood," writes Colin Prescod, chair of the Institute of Race Relations, UK, "uncovers the stench of denial in the official records which pass over the pivotal place of the Atlantic slavery episode in the story of Britain's rise in industrial and imperial greatness."

Sherwood is a founder member of the Black & Asian Studies Association (BASA) and editor of the BASA Newsletter. The author of numerous books and articles on the history of black peoples in the UK she is also honorary senior research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London.

Her book and the review comments will not be music to the ears of the organisers of "Wilberforce 2007", the 34-week commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the passing of the 1807 Abolition Act, which kicked off in Britain on 25 March this year. Ever the populist, Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, had a ringe of "triumphal ism" in his voice when he praised Britain for being the first to abolish slavery, in a pre-commemoration article published by New African in February this year.

"Slavery's impact upon Africa, die Caribbean, the Americas and Europe was profound," Blair wrote. "Thankfully, Britain was the first country to abolish the trade." Really? Marika Sherwood disagrees. "Britain was not the first European country to make it illegal to trade in slaves," she says, matter of factly, in the Introduction to her book. "That honour goes to Denmark: In 1792, the Danish government declared that importing slaves into its Caribbean colonies would be illegal from 1803. Whether Denmark was permitted to supply slaves to any other colonies after this date, I have not been able to discover."

Tony Blair may well want to go and consult his history books before re-joining the fray. To be fair to him, he did concede in his piece that: "As we approach the commemoration for the 200th anniversary of that abolition, it is only right we also recognise the active role Britain played until then in the slave trade. British industry and ports were intimately intertwined in it. Britain's rise to global pre-eminence was partially dependent on a system of colonial slave labour and, as we recall its abolition, we should also recall our place in its practice."

Sherwood's research agrees with Blair to a point. But while Blair (was it deliberate?) could not see beyond 1807, Sherwood's meticulous research shows that "Britain continued to contribute to and profit from the slave trade well after 1807, even into the 20th century".

"Yes, Britain passed the 1807 Aa," Sherwood writes with the authority of a good, solid researcher. "But, unless I am wrong, Britain made more money out of slavery and the slave trade after 1807 than before."