Addressing Some Historical Silences In Some of Our Emancipation Discourse

As I read through the myriad of ‘Emancipation Day’ Messages and Conversations, in Saint Lucia and the wider Anglophone Caribbean, there were some messages that pierced through the noise, not as brilliance, but as blunder. They were noticeable not because of their recognition, reverence and solidarity for the contributions of the formerly enslaved to their Emancipation, or their reflections on the sufferings, turmoil, experiences and ultimate resilience of the formerly enslaved- both in the middle passage and on the slave plantations, or how ‘legal’ and ‘political’ Emancipation does not erase the ‘mental’ effects of colonialism, but because of the inadvertent historical silencing inherent in some of the conversations. 

It is perhaps why Emancipation, must stir reflections- and not just rum, and provide a plethora of opportunities for mass public edification, consciousness, education and engagement with our peoples from all walks of life, to ‘emancipate the mind from mental slavery’ and provide comprehensive accounts of the plantation story, as opposed to the constant perpetuation of historical myths which delegitimises the role of the formerly enslaved, while advancing an apologetic agenda for the former colonials. 

It is perhaps time for a return to the programmatic agenda of the ‘Saint Lucia Forum’, of 1972 or the ‘Black Power Movement’, which was focused on according to Harmsen et al, in the History of Saint Lucia, the “instilling a sense of pride and dignity in black Saint Lucians and the cultural heritage of their race” among other important areas, through massive public education and curriculum reform. 

George Odlum, one of Saint Lucia’s most radical intellectual- politician, was apt when he spoke of the need for black people in Saint Lucia to be “independent, bustling, self-conscious people who need not be haunted by the stigma of ghettoes, dish-water and cap-in-hand subservience, and there is a need for restoration to the underprivileged and dispossessed their dignity and self-respect.”  

Chief among some of the historical silencing and myths of colonialism in the conversations though, is the perpetuation of the narrative, without sufficient evidence on the supporters that “Africans sold Africans and as such were contributory to enslavement, and thus in the writing of the emancipation story, there must be greater culpability on the enslaved Africans.” It is framed in a manner though to reduce the culpability of the British for enslavement, or in some respects to totally overlook and sidestep the horrors of British enslavement through the proverbial, “but”, as opposed to engaging in a nuanced, and degreed historical account. 

Truly, the writing of history is done by the oppressor i.e., the one with the power to write their own story. 

Our job therefore is to rewrite the narrative through the lens of the oppressed. 

It is therefore a myth perpetuated, when archival material and academic literature by Professor Sir Hilary Beckles in Britain’s Black Debt, among others provides us with the evidence, that Africans indeed seized others for enslavement, but such seizures were orchestrated and systematically encouraged by the British and more often than not, it was a case of seized or be seized. The British, through their military strength and extensive weaponry, subverted chiefs within Africa who baulked and cowered in the face of the criminal enterprise of the traffic of African human bodies. The British and other colonial powers stormed into West Africa with extensive weaponry, brute force and violence and ruptured and destabilised families and communities. 

As a matter of fact, the British traders actively organised and orchestrated raids and seizures in West Africa. Further, the British built forts to hold enslaved Africans, owned and operated ships and to the extent that there was some support by the Africans it was marginal and incidental.

As such, this line of argument seeks to absolve the British of their native genocide and crimes against humanity and share the burden when the culpability is not equal or comparable. It is attempting to, albeit incorrectly as a starter, to attribute blame on the ‘aider’ and ‘abetter’, without placing equivalent and greater blame on the perpetrator, and ignoring the role that violence, intimidation and trickery played through the British seizure of individuals and families in West Africa. It is attempting to hold the ‘conned’ responsible for their lack of wisdom, instead of holding the ‘con artist’- with superior resources and skills, responsible for his trickery, and acknowledging and factoring in the asymmetrical power relationship inherent in the ‘con’ and the ‘conned.’

Arguments like these balkanize, what should be a unified Reparatory Justice fight among Caribbean peoples, and silences the obvious historical facts of pillage by the British, and our truncates our ability to ‘name’ ‘shame’ and demand ‘repair’ from the colonials for their leading role in enslavement. It is akin to, ‘well you all did it too, so let us all forget about it and move on’ when, this is historically inaccurate and misleading. 

It is also always worth interrogating where such apologists (I) receive that information from, (II) why they remain so quick to believe it and repeat it, (III) why they believe that any civilisation will en masse engage in the selling of their own to become property of another, and (III) why isn’t there such energies pursued for a vigorous attack on the institution of slavery, as there is a minute and ‘singular’ focus on this ‘silenced’ piece of the historical puzzle? 

Dr. The Hon. Ralph Gonsalves provides a sober reflection and is instructive when he suggested that “in any society, there will always be those itinerant hustlers and individuals who, without full knowledge of the repercussions or circumstances prey on the misfortunes of others, but they do not and should not define their societies.” 

I add that they should also not be used as ‘scapegoats’, to divert away from the burning need for reparatory justice and discourses on emancipation- which should always focus on the experiences of the enslaved, and the manner in which their resilience can invoke greater freedoms for independent peoples. 

Little Respect and Reverence for White Abolitionists? 

In some quarters, though, some also contend, that the Emancipation conversations showed a “patent disregard for the significant contributions that many white abolitionists like Wilberforce and others played in Emancipating of the formerly enslaved, particularly those who never owned slaves, who spoke out against the brutality of enslavement, and who faced repercussions due to challenging enslavement.” 

Not only is this a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of the rationale, nature, and realities of the Emancipation history, but it also, inadvertently silences the underlying raison d’etre of Emancipation, i.e., for a telling of ‘our’ story as black peoples of resilience, pain, terror, anguish, and victory over the plantation system, the planters and a reflection on how we can emancipate ourselves from mental slavery. 

And while we are at it, as noted by Marlon Bute in a recent op-ed, entitled “Emancipation is not a Cricket Match” “we must confront another uncomfortable truth. Emancipation cannot be made universally relevant to every ethnic group in a multicultural society. That is not its purpose. Any attempt to flatten its meaning, to make it palatable or inclusive for everyone, only serves to erase the very people it was meant to liberate.” 

This is best captured by Earl Lovelace, when he noted, “How come everything we do we have to be appealing to some body else? Always somebody to tell us if this right or wrong, if it good or bad. You ever notice that?’ I mean, we have a self but the self we have is for somebody else. Is like even when we acting we ain’t the actor… We is people. I, you, you, for we own self. For you and for you and for your own self. We is people with the responsibility for we own self. And as long as we appeal to others, to the authorities, they will do what they want. We have to act for we.’” 

What these perspectives actually cause is historical silencing and neglecting of the significant role actually played by the formerly enslaved in fighting and winning their freedoms, as opposed to the perpetuation of the narrative that ‘Emancipation was handed to the formerly enslaved by White Abolitionists.’ 

I agree with Te-Hesi Coates when he notes that, “If there is a power that has ever surrendered itself purely out of some altruistic sense of justice, I have yet to come across it.” 

These perspectives seek to draw a linear timeline for the attainment of Emancipation, such that, because there were abolitionists making presentations in Westminster during that period, means that it had to be that it is solely because of them we were free, ignoring the shifting tides on the plantations across the Caribbean. 

It really seeks to praise the arsonists because they engage in the firefighting process. It would be historically incorrect for me to say that they were the firefighters- because they were not. It is this type of apologists’ support that provided Britain with the audacity to believe that they could commemorate the abolition of the slave trade a few years ago- without the accompanying adoption of the 10-point Reparations Plan of CARICOM. 

Again, the arsonists as firefighters, only that the tools to put out the fire has not been utilised by the British i.e., an unequivocal apology, indigenous people development programme, funding Repatriation to Africa, Return of Cultural Heritage, Funding the Public Health Crisis, Debt Cancellation, among others. 

But it also avers arguments that Emancipation and Reparations advocates have never put forward, i.e., “all of the British empire were supportive of enslavement” as if a state has unanimity of opinions. But there must still be a benchmark though of sufficient endorsement and benefiting by the state and members of the public, to attribute liability and blameworthiness. 

But it also silences the wider British culpability and responsibility, by zoning in on a few select personalities, but ignoring the more significant numerical significance of support in the Parliaments, Churches, Universities and Private Sector, wherein, Draper informs us that “in the 1830’s, over one hundred Parliamentarians owned enslaved persons or were trustees and executors for such owners. There were 50 and 42 members in 1831 and 1833 respectively with a direct interest in slavery, and it does not include those who without an ownership stake, defended slavery because it was in their economic and political interests to do so, nor did it focus on parliamentarians who were members of large slave owning families who did not personally owned slaves. In the private sector, of the 60 banking firms listed in 1835, thirty have been identified by Draper as owners and agents, with some still active today illustrating the continuity between slave capital and the current British financial sector. Barclay for example, the forerunner of Barclays PLC, collected $28.7 million BP in today’s money in compensation for slavery.”

Role of Rebellions, Revolts and Revolutions in Dismantling Enslavement 

But, that view ignores the role of enslaved revolts, and revolutions such as Tacky’s War in Jamaica (1760-61), the Berbice Uprising (1763),the Brigand Wars in Saint Lucia (1794-1798), Haitian Revolution (1791-1804), Fédon’s Rebellion in Grenada (1795-96), Bussa’s Rebellion in Barbados (1816), Demerara Uprising (1823),  Sam Sharpe Revolt (1831) among others, which did not, cause a direct and immediate dismantling of the plantation society, but, because of its mass destruction of the plantation and planters, caused the empire to be fearful of the potential takeover and reconstruction of the society by blacks and for blacks. 

As a matter of fact, the Haitian Revolution- which ultimately resulted in Haiti declaring itself as a ‘free state and where that any enslaved which stepped foot on Haiti would be a free man’ provided the enslaved across the Caribbean with a renewed sense of hope and adulation, that they too can create and actualise a revolution, which would result in their freedom. 

It is precisely the inspiration from the abovementioned which sparked the increase in revolts in the Caribbean from 1816 to 1848, where for example, there was enormous destruction of colonial property- through the burning of fields, wasting of land, destruction of great houses, breaking the cycle of crop seasons and affecting their operations, killing of enslaved and planters among others. 

All of these caused the planters in one instance in Barbados in 1816 to incur damage of about $175,000 BP, while Jamaica suffered damage of $1.5 million BP. In the case of Jamaica in 1831, the enslaved rose up and controlled 1/5th of the territory for two weeks. 

These damages contributed significantly towards the gradual dismantling, unprofitability and ineffectiveness of the plantation model such that the planters were more inclined to hasten abolition and save their colonial possessions, in fear of it being permanently destroyed and the society being reconstructed in the image, likeness and terms of the enslaved. 

The obvious fear was that the enslaved would do to them, that which they did to them. 

But, historian William Green has noted with compelling evidence that, “after the Jamaica rebellion, and not the vigour of the anti-slavery society in Britain, was there a decisive push to precipitating emancipation, because the House of Commons agreed to set up a committee to consider whether the damage of the rebellion and its ugly consequences would not be gravely magnified by withholding freedom any longer.” And the short answer was, yes! 

As such, it was not the benevolence of the white abolitionists which provided the death knell to enslavement and consequently ushered in Emancipation, but instead, it was the enslaved through their sustained attacks on the system, who forced the hands of the British Government, to promulgate the passage of the Abolition Bill. The enslaved people, then, were central to their own struggle for emancipation, and were not handed it through the benevolence and assistance of white abolitionists. 

One could only imagine, that without the passage, the enslaved within a couple of months or years would have dismantled the system themselves, as did Haiti. 

But, this historical silencing, which romanticizes and lionises the role of the white abolitionists at the expense of the enslaved, sidesteps local Wars, such as the Brigand Wars (1794-1804), wherein, these runaway slaves or ‘Neg Mawon’, free colourds and French Army deserters resisted enslavement, because they heard of the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, espoused by the French Revolution and consequently the Haitian Revolution.  

As such, in April 1790, a group of free colourds in Castries, presented an address clamouring for equal rights and justice, as it was contradictory and inhumane for there to be freedom in the mother country of France, but enslavement in the colony of Saint Lucia, notwithstanding the undecided nature of the French Assembly on the question of the emancipation of the enslaved. It would be interesting to assess the extent to which the apologists for abolitionists would concede that this moment presented a distinct opportunity for the morally superior French to dismantle the system of enslavement. 

Recognising the abovementioned was not forthcoming, violence erupted and the enslaved on New Years Day 1791, were convinced that they were free and fought for their liberty, aided by revolutionary French. As a matter of fact, the enslaved as per accounts, abandoned the plantation and halted trade. But the complexity of imperialism saw the French promulgate freedom for all negros on the plantations, not because of benevolence but because they were fearful of an impending English attack of Saint Lucia and other colonies. But, by the time this decree could reach Saint Lucia, the British already recaptured Saint Lucia. 

In the famous Battle of Rabot in 1795, the colonists sought to reclaim Brigand territory and caught the Brigands off guard, but still, providing resistance through staying hidden, and firing the occasional shot as noted by Harmsen et al, to keep the British occupied. Notwithstanding their military superiority, there were also scores of diseases which struck the British which contributed towards their decline. Overtime though, some Brigands were integrated into the empire, as a method of resistance to the rigours of the plantation, but quickly found themselves reverting to fighting empire. However, overtime the Brigands, notwithstanding their control of Piegon Island, suffered fleeting victories and were defeated at Morne Fortune. However, many resisted through maroonage in the upcoming years. Again, in this instance, it was not benevolence which bought freedom, but the resistance efforts by the enslaved. 

As such, narrowing the discussions of the abolition of enslavement to the role of the white abolitionists, ignores the role and experiences of the abovementioned enslaved, who fought, escaped and died, in resistance to the plantation, and who gradually dismantled the plantation system. 

Role of the Enslaved in Their Own Freedom

But, even beyond the numbers and abstract economic considerations of the effect of the rebellions on the plantation structure, elevation of the ‘white abolitionists’ role, if not balanced with a comprehensive exploration of the role of those who laboured on the plantation and lost their lives through acts of resistance- resisting capture on the coast of Africa, manipulation of sexual relationships for concessions from plantation management, abortions, theft and resale, cultural festivals, revolts and rebellions, feigning sickness, use of herbs, refuge in the family, religion, proto-peasantry,  maroonage of Pétronille Dwine, suicide, among others are acts of historical silencing. 

And though, these individual acts- did not dismantle the system per se, but it contributed to the longer term and wider weakening of the plantation. The wider weakening of the plantation, can thus be seen in cases such as Saint Lucia

As a matter of fact, homage must always be paid to the oppressed, who, pursuant to Code de la Martinique, and the Code Noir of 1685 in Saint Lucia’s case were regarded as mere chattel- who could be bought, sold, mortgaged, killed, separated from his family, and was described as ‘less than human’ with no recourse of the law. It meant that the enslaved did not have the basic right to life, could not give evidence in court, denied trials by jury and beated and killed if revolted. 

The enslaved could not participate in any retail trade, were raped, prostituted on the garrisons and ships coming in the ports of the Caribbean, worked in arduous physical conditions, such that one in every three imported Negro died within the first three years on the plantation. 

But even before one arrived on the plantation, the enslaved were packed into stifling holds of slavers for 6-8 weeks with the stench of human excrement which caused outbreaks of diseases and while the men were bound in chains, they repeatedly witnessed their families being taken by white sailors to fulfil their sexual desires. 

Should their experiences, stories and voices be silenced in recognition of white abolitionists who did nothing more than provide ink on a paper, which was already burning? 

In the case of Saint Lucia, the lack of identification, in a comprehensive manner of the struggles of the estimated 13,275 enslaved at the turn of Emancipation, whose average value was £30 per person, and child average being £8.4, and the consequent £331,805 money paid to the owners of enslaved in Saint Lucia, as per B.W. Higman, in Slave Populations of the British Caribbean, 1807- 1834, and Nicholas Draper’s “The Price of Emancipation: Slave Ownership, Compensation and British Society at the end of slavery”, while overly recognising the role of the ‘white abolitionists’  is a method of historical silencing. 

But, this historical silencing also indirectly removes culpability  on the British state, who by certain quarters are being lauded for their role in emancipation, as if they were not the same ones, who promulgated the Apprenticeship system, which was another form of enslavement, where they continued to extract unpaid labour from the formerly enslaved under the guise of teaching them industry, and how to be free, and productive as if freedom needs to be taught. Should they also be lionised for their benevolence then, and where were these voices and advocates during that time? 

Lamming is instructive, when he notes that “Cause freedom is what you is, an where you start, an where you always got to stand.” 

The Unprofitability of the Plantation as a Precursor to Dismantling of Enslavement 

But, these discourses also sidesteps and does not intellectually interrogate the 1944 Decline Thesis of Eric Williams, where he nullified the assertion that the humanitarian consideration were solely responsible for the abolition of slavery. He propounds that the economic bonds between the colonies in North America, Britain and the Caribbean were broken from the Independence of the United States in 1774. As such, there was already an uninterrupted decline of the British West Indies as a producer of staples, consumer of industrial output and as a contributor of British capital. Moreover, Britain did not recover the profitability from the American War, and as such slavery became overtime very unprofitable, bankrupt, indebted, and these colonies became a severe burden for Britain. 

Sir Eric Williams in Columbus to Castro noted that “the economy was bankrupt and between 1799 and 1807, 65 plantations had been abandoned, and 32 were sold under decrees of the court to meet claims of them and there were 115 suits pending against the others in 1807.”

Further, from 1807 Williams and other historians have noted that the price of sugar was less than the cost of production and even then, there were little profits made. Therefore, the amount of money needed to sustain the system was just not present. Over the years, colonies of Britain, France and Dutch all suffered tremendous loss and there was a great reduction in the number of exports as the demand for sugar decreased. Williams also notes that the colonial system became irrelevant to Britain when they started to focus on the production of steel and coal. The system therefore collapsed because there were no more protected markets, low levels of production and productivity. Further, the indemnity of $20 million was because of the indebtedness of the plantation economy and it needed to provide as a stimulus for British industrialization.  

Building of the British Empire Because of Slavery 

And these discussions though, which ask us to recognise the contributions of ‘white abolitionists’ only elevate personalities as opposed to reflecting on the wider and deeper benefit and complicity of the British empire, as a result of enslavement. What it does is suspend the conversation about the continuous benefitting of Britain, at the expense of the Caribbean, in an attempt to lionise the white abolitionists, and pacify the claims for reparations and revisionist history. 

It is thus no secret that enslaved Africans, and the plantation economy was utilised for the building and enrichment of English ports, parliamentarians, public treasuries, banks financial houses, insurance corporations, shipbuilders and manufacturers. James Ralwey is instructive when he noted that, “the slave trade contributed significantly to English dominion in shipping, commerce, and empire, particularly with the introduction of the Royal African Company.” Moreover, it has been historically proven that enslavement was the cash crop for British ports, towns and cities, such as Bristol, Liverpool, London and Glasgow. In particular, Liverpool as noted by Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, “found energy in the profitability of the Caribbean slave system, and gained its reputation as the commercial capital of the northwest by the end of the 18th century, after its exploits of over 70% of England’s slave trade via the port, and part of the network of slave-trading towns.” 

Put simply, a considerable amount of wealth of the English nation was generated by the colonial trades- particularly the trade in enslaved Africans, and their prized product of their labour i.e., sugar, which in turn caused the merchants of England to become rich and repatriate their monies and profits in the British empire.  This was ultimately utilised to build and fund, civic institutions, universities, churches, invest in government bonds, financing of insurance companies, and build up financial infrastructure. 

In conclusion, our Emancipation discourse must resist the temptation of historical amnesia and inertia. It must resist the seduction of diluted narratives that elevate the margins while silencing the centre. The narrative of emancipation is, first and foremost, the stories of the enslaved, their resistance, their rebellions, revolutions, and their unyielding humanity in the face of dehumanisation. To overstate the role of white abolitionists, to mischaracterise, misrepresent and not contextualise African involvement, to ignore the contributions of the resistence on the plantation as a breaking of the links of the plantation, or to underplay the economic decay of the plantation system, is to distort the record and rob the descendants of the enslaved of their rightful inheritance of truth.

If we are to honour Emancipation, we must centre those whose blood, sweat, and sacrifice cracked the foundations of slavery, while exposing the inherent hypocracies in celeberating those who ended a system they created and have continued to benefit from, while not comprehensively addressing the questions of Reparations. 

We must interrogate the myths that absolve empire by focusing on distinct personalities and ignoring the wider ecosystem of the plantation,  challenge the narratives that pacify our demands for reparatory justice, and confront the uncomfortable truths that others would prefer remain buried. For as long as we accept partial histories, we remain complicit in our own silencing. True emancipation is not merely the celebration of freedom won, but the vigilance to defend the integrity of the struggle that secured it. 

Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph is a 24 year old Saint Lucian, who has recently graduated from the UWI, pursusing both a Bsc Political Science and Law (First Class Honours) and a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) with Firstr Class Honours. He is the current Commonwealth Caribbean Rhodes Scholar. Rahym is a passionate Reparations Advocate, and has been part of the Garvey Nkrumah Legal Fellowship in 2023, aimed at providing Black Law Students with the opportunity to increase their knowledge in unique and niche areas of Law, while improving the African diaspora relations. He is a public speaker, columist, debater and youth advocate. More of Rahym’s work can be seen via:  https://linktr.ee/rahymrjoseph, and he can be reached at rahymrjoseph9@gmail.com.