Unpacking the Absurdities of Slavery Reparation Claims: A £18 Trillion Fantasy? By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
Now I am tackling a topic that's stirred up quite the storm in the UK: calls for £18 trillion in slavery reparations, not just to Caribbean nations but to all Black British citizens, courtesy of Sir Lenny Henry's new book, The Big Payback. Co-written with Marcus Ryder, it argues that the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade justifies massive payouts to address ongoing racism and disparities. On the surface, it's a plea for justice, but dig a little, and the proposal crumbles under its own weight. Let's unpack the key absurdities, starting with the eye-watering sum that dwarfs the entire UK economy, then the disconnect between today's recipients and historical slavery (abolished nearly two centuries ago). I'll lean on facts, history, and a dash of logic to see why this isn't just impractical, it's a recipe for economic ruin and social division.
First off, £18 trillion. Let's put that in perspective, it's not just big; it's economy-shattering. The UK's gross domestic product (GDP) for 2025 is forecasted at around £2.96 trillion. That's the total value of all goods and services produced in a year. So, £18 trillion is over six times the annual GDP. To fund it, you'd need to siphon off every penny of economic output for more than half a decade, leaving nothing for salaries, healthcare, schools, or defence. Imagine telling NHS workers or teachers: "Sorry, no paycheques until 2031 — it's all going to Black reparations."
But it gets worse. The UK's national debt is already hovering at about £2.8 trillion (roughly 95.8% of GDP as of 2024/25). Annual government borrowing? Around £145 billion in the last full financial year. Slapping on £18 trillion would balloon debt to cartoonish levels, triggering skyrocketing interest rates, inflation, and likely a sovereign default. We're talking Greece-on-steroids economic meltdown, with pension funds wiped out, businesses fleeing, and a recession that makes 2008 look like a hiccup.
Where does this £18 trillion figure even come from? Turns out, it's been criticised for misquoting a UN report, former UN judge Patrick Robinson, who authored a study estimating global reparations at $14 trillion to $19 trillion (about £11-15 trillion), says Henry's book twists his words to inflate the UK's share. Robinson's figure was for the entire transatlantic trade's legacy, spread across multiple nations, not a UK-specific bill. Yet Henry's proposal demands Britain foot this alone, ignoring shared historical roles by Portugal, Spain, France, the Netherlands, and others. Absurd? Absolutely. It's like billing one neighbour for a block-wide flood they didn't cause single-handedly.
Funding it? Tax hikes to 100% wouldn't cut it; you'd need asset seizures, printing money (hello, hyperinflation), or selling off national treasures. Distribution? Who decides who gets what? DNA tests? Self-identification? The logistics alone scream absurdity, and the end result? A bankrupt nation where everyone's poorer, Black Brits included.
Now, onto the recipients: all 2.4 million Black British people, per the book, "deserve money for the effects of slavery." But slavery in the British Empire was abolished in 1833, nearly 200 years ago. No one alive today was enslaved under it, and no one perpetrated it. The last direct victims and enslavers died generations ago. So, why pay now? The argument pivots to "ongoing effects" like racism, higher unemployment, and over-representation in prisons, all traced back to the slave trade.
Here's the rub: correlation isn't causation. Yes, disparities exist, but pinning them solely on a 19th-century atrocity ignores centuries of intervening history, colonialism, immigration policies, economic shifts, and yes, modern systemic issues that need addressing through targeted policies, not blanket payouts. Moreover, most Black Brits are of direct African descent, not from Caribbean slave colonies. Many arrived post-WWII via Windrush or later migrations from Africa. Their ancestors weren't transatlantic slaves; if anything, some African lineages were involved in the trade itself (more on that below). Henry's book sidesteps this, claiming all Black people suffer racism born from slavery, so all qualify. But racism predates the transatlantic trade, think ancient prejudices or even intra-African biases. And if slavery's legacy is the root, why stop at Black Brits? What about Irish indentured servants, or descendants of child labourers in Victorian mills?
This "all Black people as perpetual victims" narrative flattens complex histories. It assumes a monolithic experience, ignoring class, education, or individual agency. Payouts wouldn't erase racism; they might inflame it, breeding resentment in a cash-strapped society. And practically? Defining "Black" for eligibility opens a Pandora's box of division — who's "Black enough"? Recent immigrants? Mixed-race folks? It's a well-intentioned idea that devolves into absurdity.
The proposal's biggest blind spot? History wasn't a simple white-vs-black tale. As Olaudah Equiano's 1789 autobiography details, slavery was rife in West Africa long before Europeans arrived. Chiefs and elders owned slaves, raided neighbours, and sold captives to "mahogany-coloured" traders for goods like guns and gunpowder. Equiano himself was kidnapped by African slavers and passed through multiple households before hitting the coast.
Modern scholarship backs this: The transatlantic trade relied heavily on African intermediaries. European traders rarely ventured inland; instead, powerful African kingdoms like Dahomey, Ashanti, and Kanem-Bornu captured and sold millions via wars, raids, and judicial punishments. Historians estimate 90% of those enslaved were captured by fellow Africans and sold to Europeans. This doesn't excuse European brutality, the Middle Passage's horrors, plantation atrocities, but it complicates the "exclusively white-run" narrative. If reparations are due, do we bill modern African nations too? Or deduct from payouts to descendants of African slavers?
And why stop at transatlantic slavery? Britain's been invaded and exploited by Romans (hello, Emperor Septimius Severus from Libya), Vikings, Normans, the list goes on. Should Italy pay for Hadrian's Wall? Denmark for Viking raids? Opening this door invites endless claims, turning history into a global lawsuit.
£18 trillion reparations? It's absurd on scale (economy-busting), scope (no direct victims), and substance (ignores historical complexities). Bankrupting Britain won't heal racism; it'll exacerbate divides, pitting groups against each other in a zero-sum fight. Instead, let's focus on forward momentum: Invest in education, job training, anti-discrimination laws, and community programs that lift everyone. Acknowledge history? Absolutely, through museums, curricula, and honest dialogue. But payouts this massive? They'd create more problems than they solve.
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/10/08/sir-lenny-henry-wants-18-trillion-of-slavery-reparations/
Comments