Abolishing slavery
A few weeks ago I was listening to a competition on the radio. One of the multiple-choice questions was this. When was slavery abolished? (a) 537; (b) 1833; or (c) 1949. As I listened to this I couldn’t help wondering what the person who had assembled these options was trying to do. All of these dates are both right and wrong: the emperor Justinian abolished the Roman practice of slavery in 537; the Slavery Abolition Act was passed by the British Parliament in 1833; and in 1949 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. So what would you think was ‘the’ right answer? Well, according to the presenter, it was 1833, and from his little bit of follow-up chatter it became clear that he had no idea that the other two dates represented anything relevant at all. I think the researcher was having some fun at the expense of the presenter.
Well, 1833 is not an uninteresting date in the history of slavery, and it in fact the Act was passed in that year on this date (August 29). Some years earlier, in 1807, the transatlantic slave trade had already been made illegal in the Slave Trade Act. William Wilberforce, who was a member of the House of Commons, is generally credited with the successful movement to abolish slavery. This, by the way, is a matter of great local pride in Hull, where I worked for ten years: Wilberforce was a native of the city and lived there, and his home is now a museum of the slave trade.
However, two comments should be made. As was so often the case in history, others who played a major role in this important historical event have largely been written out of public awareness, if not the official record. Chief amongst those who deserve a mention is Elizabeth Heyrick, a radical reformer and campaigner against the slave trade. She was instrumental in moving public opinion in favour of more immediate and effective methods to put an end to slavery and secure emancipation of former slaves, often criticising liberal politicians (including Wilberforce) for their timid approach.
The second point that needs to be made is, of course, that in reality none of the three options in the radio competition was correct. To our shame, slavery has still not been abolished, and human trafficking is alive and well. The organisation Anti-Slavery International on its website details both countries and industries in which humans are held in slavery-like conditions. And in case you thought this is all far away from our own part of the world, it isn’t: human trafficking in women for the purposes of prostitution is right here and right now.
Many problems, issues and disasters across the world call for our attention and help. Slavery is still one of these, and the ultimate human indignity of being possessed and controlled by others is still there and needs to be abolished, finally and effectively. It is a cause well worthy of your support.
Explore posts in the same categories: history, societyTags: Elizabeth Heyrick, slave trade, slavery, William Wilberforce
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
August 29, 2009 at 5:29 am
People who study and write a little History have a funny bone also. Granted it may not seem so, but then unlike students of the Laws it is very rare the postal service would be used to deliver the punch-line.
There are certain very real dangers attaching themselves to giving to an anti-slavery charity. Where the most grievous is the belief that giving is actually doing something beyond carrying a certain awareness to those who have political power. But where that awareness is dissipated by the very spread of the problems.
How many in their heads can join the Indian brick-worker and possibly his grandkids with the prisoner of the sex-trade locked up in south Dublin or some county town. How many look out on their Indian sandstone patio and wonder if the pretty rusty patterns of iron deposit might as well be blood. How many can connect Irish agri investment in Soya production in Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and southern Brazil with land clearances leading to slavery within the towns and cities.
In the old days when Wilberforce was around, they had exactly the same problem. And the way they solved it was to focus on one aspect alone, but then shift it once that first had been achieved.
If we could halt the traffic of persons into this State for any reason whatsoever. If we could halt the idea that that it is OK for the lads in a town to cut a dash in the Georgian town house -mock or otherwise- after the GAA, Golf or the Rugby. Or the idea is it OK for the Lady-who-lunches to make a phone call and have her choice of Chimney-cleaner ready for her when she visits.
My point is that any definition of this issue has to be narrow to be achievable, otherwise one is doing vastly more damage.
August 30, 2009 at 12:30 am
Interesting comment, Vincent. I agree that ‘slavery’ can become just too big and unfocused an issue, so that nothing gets done about any part of it. But I don’t think that’s an argument against giving to an anti-slavery charity, most of whom understand all this very well.
August 30, 2009 at 7:19 am
I qualified what the anti-slavery charity could do in reality. And I believe it would be far better to give to one of those micro-banks Jilly was on about a while ago. Or if you want to hit it at source, give to a group of your Indian legal brothers to challenge in the Supreme Court of India.
Anyway I was not arguing against, only that you know what you are expecting it to do.
One of the dangers I was on about is smugness, where one could miss that you were living beside a house full of girls with little English who have a raft of Irish middle-class boy-friends with a grasp of Slavic, while polishing the mental medal of having the standing order spitting Euro at some charity. I’m thinking about the Ryan Report here BTW.
August 30, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Just to add the date for another manumission, often ignored: 1856, the Roma in Romania finally ceased to be slaved.