Reparation Debate at University of London

UCL Debating Society

Should Britain pay Reparations to its Former Colonies?

30th September 2019

The invitation to speak at University of London’s debating society came out of the blue just like the Durham invitation. I accepted without hesitation as it was chance to apply the things, I had learnt from losing the same debate in Durham.

Lecture theatre 4.04 LT2 in the Cruciform Building was packed, not sure if that was because that this was the first debate of the academic year or whether it was the subject but the room was rammed with people sitting on the stairs and on the floor in front of the stage. 

The day before I had prepared a 15 minute speech, only to receive an email over the weekend reminding me I had 7 minutes (Note to self -  remind yourself of the rules of debate !) I had a job cutting it back to 7mins so I left it a 10 minutes. On the night I negotiated with the Chairman and the other speakers the additional 3 minutes.

There were points of order aka statements challenging what the speaker was saying while the speaker was at the lectern, the speaker could take the point of order or ignore it. I took mine while others declined, adding to tension as speakers spoke on ignoring attempts at intervention.

At the end of the four speeches members of the audience came up to the lectern to a make 3-minute statement FOR or AGAINST the motion and in one case both (as they could see both sides and wanted to make a case for each!).

Proposition (FOR):

Michael Ohajuru Cultural Historian, and Senior Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies 

Callum Nimmo President of the UCL Debating  Society (stood in at the last minute as scheduled speaker did not show up)

Opposition (AGAINST):

Dr Kim Wagner Senior Lecturer in British Imperial History at QMUL

Spencer Shia President of the UCL Conservative Society and fellow debater

FOR

I developed the Malcom X argument in which he compares slavery to a knife in the back, you don’t absolve yourself by simply pulling the knife out – abolishing slavery – you need to heal the would left by slavery – pay Reparations. Then went onto consider Hillary Beckles idea of Reparation as a conversation between equals to resolve the neglect and underdevelopment. Emphasised aid is not the answer as this is tied to the West as for every 1$ the West gives in aid it receives 24$ back. Callum spoke of the need to correct a wrong. The owners were given compensation for their loss of property – the enslaved - while the enslaved received nothing. Art had been stolen and needed to be returned as part of the Reparation 

AGAINST

There is no need for Reparation as slavery happened some time ago. Paying it would only be political ritual – a show on moral grounds - in fact it would be tokenism. There is no need for Reparation its only blood money to make Britain feel better- a gesture to show British exceptionalism and its greatness – you cannot repair the past. Further most of the colonies have corrupt governments so the money would be wasted. We are not responsible today for what has gone before.

And why give back the art as it reaches a wider audience here in Britain? If Britain did give it back the art would be mis used by the Governments to reinforce origin and nation creation myths which might favour one group over another causing division. Further the people who live in the land today do not own art that was created by those who previously lived on that land.

Conclusion 

From Durham I was ready for all these arguments apart from the art which did not occur in Durham.

Moral argument – the owners were compensated why not the slaves 

Not my problem/responsibility – many of the institutions you benefit from today were founded with profits for slavery eg National Gallery, Lloyds Insurance 

Corrupt Governments – the conversation cannot just be at Government level look at Glasgow and Cambridge Universities Reparation activity.

Art better here – these are cultural, religious artefacts not art,  it was looted, stolen and should given back to where it came from.

I was the last to speak, closed quoting Obama – vote for your hopes not your fears  - attempting to counter the negativity and concerns in Opposition’s arguments 

Outcome 

We won, we moved the room in favour of the motion.

Before the debate just under half the room at 48% was FOR the motion after the debate it went up 8 points to 56%,  a clear majority of the room was now FOR the motion.

Thanks

I want to thank the President and Vice-President of UCL debating society for inviting me (the President did a brilliant job stepping in at such short notice FOR the motion). The UCL students were great - very welcoming, respectful and listened attentively. I very much enjoyed the debate. I was particularly heartened by the many who came up to me afterwards shook my hand, congratulated and thanked me and special thanks to the two sistas who supported me throughout the debate with fist pumps and big smiles as I made my points!