I would not normally quote a piece from a newspaper as long as this, but I do today. It comes from the Guardian's morning newsletter:
The story of the Manchester Guardian began in 1821, in the aftermath of the Peterloo massacre, when working people rallying for political reform were killed by the troops sent to disperse them. It was founded with the financial backing of a group of middle-class radicals who shared founding editor John Edward Taylor's commitment to enlightenment values, liberty, and justice.
That is a true story. But it is also an incomplete one. Yesterday, the Scott Trust – which owns the Guardian today – published a report which excavates a far darker aspect of the newspaper's history.
The report sets out the evidence that, even as Taylor led a newspaper which favoured the abolition of slavery, he profited from the labour of enslaved people through the cotton trade. It also reveals that at least nine of his 11 backers had similar ties – and one of them co-owned an estate in Jamaica where more than 100 people were enslaved. Now the Scott Trust has apologised “for the part the Guardian and its founders had in this crime against humanity”, and allocated more than £10m to a decade-long restorative justice programme.
Meanwhile, the Guardian has published the first part of Cotton Capital, a series that traces the story from its origins in 19th-century Manchester to its consequences today.
Thos video is well worth watching:
In it, Prof David Olusoga, who is a Scott Trustee, and therefore one of those with responsibility for publishing the Guardian, admits his own previous blindness to its history.
He suggests that the Guardian has an “unpayable debt”. In the video, he reflects on why the work of seeking redemption is an obligation nonetheless. “That reality can't be negotiated with, it can't be explained away,” he says. “This history can never be solved. It can never be remedied. But something good can come from it.”
I applaud the Guardian for addressing this issue.
It is appropriate that it acknowledge its own deep failings on this issue in its past.
The acknowledgement that abuse and exploitation has occurred does not wipe the slate clean. The harm cannot be undone. But acknowledgement begins a process. Nothing happens without that.
The Guardian will, no doubt, be accused of being ‘woke' by those on the right. Thank goodness, I say. Isn't awareness of systemic abuse and a desire to eradicate its consequences essential for our current wellbeing? If not, why not? That is the question the right will not answer.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The reality is that Britain was built on, and owes its past and current wealth to, many many decades of exploitation and human misery. We didn’t do it, but our ancestors did. And some people have ancestors who were abusers and some who were abused. Whether it not it is “woke” to acknowledge it, the facts are the facts.
The more interesting question is whether we accept that and then do something to try to address historic wrongs what still have repercussions today, or ignore it and perpetuate the ongoing impact of those wrongs.
Precisely
“The Guardian will, no doubt, be accused of being ‘woke’ by those on the right. Thank goodness, I say. Isn’t awareness of systemic abuse and a desire to eradicate its consequences essential for our current wellbeing? If not, why not? That is the question the right will not answer.”
Too true Richard. I can’t see right wing newspapers or politicians ever admitting fault for the historic abuses they or the causes they’ve espoused have been responsible for in the way The Guardian has done here.
Perhaps the Mail would like to apologise for its support for Hitler before WW2 or it’s antisemitism? Or the Scum, Mail, Telegraph and Express for their climate change denialism? Given that the repulsive Mail is trying to stop the court case currently being brought against it by victims of phone hacking from even being heard, and ‘strongly denies’ any wrongdoing, I can’t see it happening.
Good point
My response is that of someone who also had to learn about the spinning jenny and Arkwright’s water frame. We knew the cotton came from the southern states but that a separate issue. I compartmentalised -as David Ousoga says he did.
When I came to teach about the industrial revolution years later I read about the condition of the poor in Manchester. The reformers who wanted to bring in legislation such as the ten hour day, compiled a lot of data. Some of them compared the lot of a factory worker to that of slaves in the West Indies and made the point that the slaves has a slightly better life in many cases. To an extent it was true. Of course, the English-and in Lancashire, many Irish-people could not be sold or their families broken up and if they could get other jobs, they were free to move. But many were almost as trapped.
However, a few people made a difference and things were improved although not solved.
There is the point we all have benefitted form the industrial revolution and enjoy a healthier and more materially prosperous life than most people did 200 years ago. There might have been alternatives to the way the industrial revolution proceeded but they didn’t happen. We all gain from the sacrifice and suffering of the past.
One analogy is, perhaps, that of the green issue today. Some ‘green’ people are criticised by those who want to play it down, as hypocrites for flying or using a car. In some cases they are attacked from the other end as well. I think it is reasonable to use current technology while seeking to replace or improve it. We don’t know what the founders of the Manchester Guardian thought about using wealth from slavery but if it could be used to advocate for progressive change, it was better to do so than stand aside and do nothing. Life often offers us a choice of less than ideal options.
For what it is worth, my opinion is that the best reparation for the Guardian is make public the injustices of the present so when our great grandchildren look back , they will not find too much to criticise.
I think that was where my response was going
I think in fairness that is where those is going to having read much of this morning’s material from them
As I understand it, the word “Woke” arose from African descendants who use it as a term to describe an awareness of systemic (often racial) injustice in society. So while the right often use the word “woke” to mean anything they dislike, there’s an irony that here they might actually be using the word correctly for once.
It is good to see a large institution take an honest and frank approach to their history. It is a difficult thing to admit, but it’s right to do so. And the more people and institutions willing to speak publicly about this, the easier it should become in future to address these issues.
It’s no one’s fault that we are so ignorant of our history except our education system that leaves things out and living in a State that has problems recognising this.
Too much is therefore taken for granted or assumed.
I don’t like the ‘woke’ label but wholly subscribe to its qualities. It is a sign of hope for the future. The labelling seems to be too derogatory and those of us who subscribe to those qualities and label ourselves – dare I say it – need to take back control.
The Guardian is to be congratulated for acknowledging the capitalist/imperialist exploitation of plantation slavery and how the newspaper gained from this wealth. Will they also acknowledge as well as the dreadful massacre of Peterloo the exploitation and degradation of the Lancashire cotton mill workers and the system of industrial slavery as exposed by Engelels and his friend Marx and the benefits that the early Manchester Guardian gained from this?
That was what the paper was founded to expose