The Archbishop of Canterbury is wrong. Dr Gavin Ashenden, the late Queen’s former chaplain, has labelled Dr Welby’s apology and push for reparations as “part of a progressive, white guilt liberal agenda”. He can give what he wants.
200 years ago this happened.
This is a complex issue.
The Anti-Slavery Act of 1833 did, eventually, free slaves. However it specifically defined slaves as property and provided payment to slave owners in compensation for the loss of their property. It did not provide compensation to the slaves. In fact, as the compensation provided fell short of the estimated value of the slaves, the people who were slaves had to work unpaid for four years to pay off the difference. Hardly immediate freedom and sharing of the bounty of the islands.
On the back of slavery, some British (yes, not just British but for certain Caribbean islands most often British) families became very, very wealthy. As did Britain. The revenues from businesses that depended on slavery fueled massive investment in the UK - buildings, institutions, navy, etc.
What did the now independent countries get out of all this wealth?
But, to be clear, I am undecided on this matter. It was 200 years ago. A lot has happened since. There is not so much to show for the previous wealth in the UK after all this time. So there is not exactly a big fat pot to share around.
Are we to assume that the many black slave masters will also have to stump up reparations?
We are all basically slaves today, so why should the burden fall on our heads?
If the archbishop wants to pay reparations out of his own pocket, I have no problem with that.
Backchecking is an Auditors nightmare.
I hope the RAAF get reparations for flying King Charlie about.
My ancesters were dock workers and would undoubtedly have worked on ships owned by slave traders (very few slaves were actually brought into UK). They had no choice or say on the ships they unloaded, being paid very little for very hard work, they did not get rich due to the slave trade, so why should I as one of their descendents have to pay for something they or I are not responsible for
No-one denies that this was a despicable trade but those affected cannot be helped now. If money is paid over, how will it be used - will it disappear into the pockets of the politicians (as happens to a lot of the aid UK sends abroad)
David Lammy a problem. Could China be trying to break up the Commonwealth.
Something like 80% of people brought across to the Caribbean plantations died - either in the ships or through the over-working and ill-treatment. So I don’t think its reasonable to compare their experience to British labourers, even if poorly paid. But nonetheless, this fact that the vast majority of British people did not share the wealth from the plantations would make it unfair if now all British tax payers are to fork out for reparations. This would mean those who made fortunes from owning slaves, then got millions in compensation - would now be subsidised by people who did not make fortunes.
Apparently for both British and French slave emancipation and compensation schemes, the top 10% of slave owners actually owned around 70% of all slaves. And they in turn for 70% of the compensation. So the wealth really was concentrated to a very few.
Could the accepted history of the past two hundred years of English history really been ‘a set of lies agreed upon’ by the politicians of the day? 
Actually many British labourers did die, mainly due to sickness caused by working conditions and later, when unable to work any more, of starvation - the “lucky” ones made it into the workhouse where they were put to work until they died.
Many of the people who were enslaved were sold by their fellow countrymen, will the descendants of those people be asked to pay reparations?
Here we see unregulated & uncontrolled capitalism in full flow. For those with capital to invest, a good way to make that investment grow is to pay those doing the work the very minimum. In very poor working conditions, as you highlight. And definitely not to contribute to any state welfare to support those unable to work. That’s how to make more money.
But even better is to get that labour for free - once you’ve paid a bit for the slaves and their transport. Actually, as the ships did a circuit from picking up the slaves, to changing slaves for sugar and cotton, to sending the ships back down to get more slaves - then the transport costs were optimised (as they would now say). All told, a way to make lots more money.
Thankfully, since 1833, there has been a transformation of workers rights. Ok, a slight erosion in recent years but largely even those without capital are not abused today.
What this surely says is that those who were used and abused (to whatever degree) should not be now have their descendants cough up to anyone. I think we are agreeing that poor British workers were in a situation that was only somewhat better than poorly treated slaves. But some did get wildly rich from this unbridled capitalism.
In summary, to not have the government pay reparations is to support workers everywhere.
