Running scared of history brings no favour to any society. Not today and not in posterity. The dialogue that has begun this year around the commemoration of the transatlantic slave trade has brought new knowledge to a nation about a vital and horrific period from its past.
The story of African resistance, unknown to most until acknowledged this year by exhibitions and broadcasted documentaries, has been a small breakthrough.
But this is barely beginning to address the huge void that has been allowed through an orchestrated silence and - worse - by solidifying myths through repetition.
I am tired of the references to the fact that slavery existed in Africa before the Europeans arrived. Yes, Africans enslaved Africans, just as Europeans enslaved Europeans. But chattel slavery was a particular form introduced by the Europeans enslaving Africans. Here the enslaved were wholly owned as property, able to be bought and sold. They were forced from their homes, sent huge distances and stripped of their identity.
So who gained from the trade? Not Africa, which lost 27 million of its strongest people. It was Europe and America that gained - and resplendently. So I understand the suggestion Stateside for the renaming of the transatlantic slave trade to the European Slave Trade. After all, as the argument goes, the ocean did nothing to Africans.
The British government's heel-dragging in addressing the legacy of this trade has been noted. They may have promised study of this period in schools, but where is the annual African Remembrance Day, the drive to tackle racism, and the apology?
Talking has helped; doing is entirely another matter. If the government and its agencies show unwilling, then it is up to the people to set the agenda.
Felicity Heywood
The story of African resistance, unknown to most until acknowledged this year by exhibitions and broadcasted documentaries, has been a small breakthrough.
But this is barely beginning to address the huge void that has been allowed through an orchestrated silence and - worse - by solidifying myths through repetition.
I am tired of the references to the fact that slavery existed in Africa before the Europeans arrived. Yes, Africans enslaved Africans, just as Europeans enslaved Europeans. But chattel slavery was a particular form introduced by the Europeans enslaving Africans. Here the enslaved were wholly owned as property, able to be bought and sold. They were forced from their homes, sent huge distances and stripped of their identity.
So who gained from the trade? Not Africa, which lost 27 million of its strongest people. It was Europe and America that gained - and resplendently. So I understand the suggestion Stateside for the renaming of the transatlantic slave trade to the European Slave Trade. After all, as the argument goes, the ocean did nothing to Africans.
The British government's heel-dragging in addressing the legacy of this trade has been noted. They may have promised study of this period in schools, but where is the annual African Remembrance Day, the drive to tackle racism, and the apology?
Talking has helped; doing is entirely another matter. If the government and its agencies show unwilling, then it is up to the people to set the agenda.
Felicity Heywood
