Paul Buckingham - Blog Philosophy and life in general

An investment fund called ‘Queen Anne’s Bounty’ was set up in the reign of, well, Queen Anne. Prior to the reformation, one tenth of the income of the clergy was ‘tithed’ to Rome. After Henry 8th decided to break with Rome, those tithes were paid to the Crown. In 1704 Queen Anne decided that they should instead be paid into an investment fund to be used to supplement the livings of clergy on low incomes. Not all were the third sons of wealthy families.

The fund attracted other donations and went from strength to strength. Of course it had to find assets to invest in order to produce the income needed.

Unfortunately one of its better investments was in the slave trade. In 2022 the Church Commissioners published a report which said that Queen Anne's Bounty had invested significant sums in the South Sea Company, which transported 34,000 slaves to the Spanish Americas in the 18th century, and had received donations from people with links to slavery, including that major benefactor of Bristol, Edward Colston, the one whose statue became so famous for all the wrong reasons.

It was reckoned that the fund benefited from the slave trade to the tune of about £200,000 – the equivalent now of about £450 million. The Church Commissioners have therefore decided to put aside £100 million into a ‘Fund for Healing, Repair and Justice’. They have also asked wealthy people, particularly any who are unfortunate enough to have benefited from their ancestors’ misdeeds, to add to it to bring the total fund to £1 billion.

All this in order to help the descendants of those slaves and, in doing so, clear the consciences of the present day members of the Anglican church and of those wealthy benefactors.

Although not called reparations, the Anglican scheme is just that and has all the problems which come with the concept. If Russia is defeated in its war against Ukraine, then there is already talk of the immense amount of money which will be demanded of Russia, likely then to be in an economic mess, to rebuild the parts of Ukraine destroyed by their missiles.

After the first world war, Germany was called on to provide ‘reparations’ for the destruction it had brought about. Most historians would say that that was a significant factor in the rise of fascism in the form of Mr Hitler. He was able to feed on the unfairness perceived by the people at their reduced standard of living – or, if not unfairness, then the misery which it engendered.

Now I’m not suggesting that the Anglican Church is likely to promote a fascistic response from its members, but I am very aware that, at parish level, the Church Commissioners are seen as being excessively parsimonious. Demands on a diminishing number of parishioners are increasing at a time when the cost of keeping churches in repair is increasing and the number of paid vicars is diminishing. So then, giving away a substantial sum of money to ‘outsiders’ is proving not to be popular with the members.

Clearly this is quite a small ripple in a big pond, but at the same time it tells us the rather obvious truth that giving away money to others in a time of financial pressure is not likely to go down well, whoever is doing it and even if it is an attempt at ethical cleansing for the souls of those handing out the money.

In the case of war reparations, the justification can easily be seen – an act of aggression brings about damage and so the aggressor ought to bear the burden of putting things right, albeit subject to the caveat mentioned above. It is current and identifiable.

In the case of slavery however, it is a bit more murky. Indeed, it seems to boil down to the idea of 'tainted money'. The most obvious example is when the chief priests paid Judas Iscariot thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus. But the sum in question was not invested for centuries for the benefit of his sons who finally recognised the 'tainted' source of the money. Instead, Judas repented a few days later and threw the money back at the chief priests - and hanged himself.

But slavery has been endemic in the world for thousands of years. And, although the British took part in the slave trade until the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807, from then onwards, at great cost, we actually became the world’s anti-slave trade police, sending our ships out to bring the trade to an end. In the meantime, so many other nations, including the USA, continued to engage in the trade. I’m not trying to say that that wipes away the guilt of those benefiting from slavery before we had our change of heart. What it meant was that the money that had swelled the state coffers thanks to the slave trade had continued to be received until that change in policy - and thus could be used to fight what was still a real curse for many people at that time. It was current.

It is true that in some parts of America there remains a clearer connection between those who were the slaves and those who were the masters. Slavery was not officially abolished until after the civil war when, in 1865, the 13th amendment to the constitution was adopted. Progress to implement the proclaimed equality was very slow and probably really only made significant progress in the 1960s.

So then in some states there is a wish to recognise the relative proximity of slavery, or at least the massive disadvantage of a big group of its citizens, until the present day and try to set matters ‘right’.

In California various legislative proposals have been made in order to “pursue lineage-based reparations, encompassing direct monetary payments/compensation, state recognition of descendants as a protected class”. Those pressing for this say that “any Reparations package must be targeted explicitly and exclusively to California’s 2 million Black American descendants of persons enslaved in the U.S.”

But would this include anyone able to trace any degree of ancestry back to a black slave or would the claimant have to be ‘of the full blood’? Where do you draw the line? What principle can be invoked to justify its position? Difficult.

There is then a second question: in the absence of the fabled magic money tree, to what extent should their presumed disadvantage in life be addressed in preference to major health, education and social problems affecting other people?

There are of course many other groups of people in all countries who are the present day representatives of disadvantaged ancestors. William the Conqueror’s favoured people were given massive tracts of land and had control over the serfs required to work it.

Assuming that, despite my name, I’m not a descendant of the conquering group, can I demand compensation from the aristocracy for the disadvantage I have suffered as the descendant of serfs? Can the children born generations later to the children who were sent up chimneys in the days of Dickens claim reparations from someone (possibly by way of a tax on chimneys) for their relatively poor start in life? It all gets a bit nonsensical.

We are all a big mixture in terms of our genetic origins, so then proving that I’m entitled to receive and someone-else is required to pay is all but impossible. And disadvantage and advantage arise in so many ways, in response to so many factors.

Surely, therefore, it makes far more sense to design policies to relieve, not groups of people defined by their ancestors, but those who actually need assistance to live productive and fulfilling lives.

I don’t think that deciding policy by guilt trip over things which our ancestors may have done is a brilliant way of proceeding. It’s not really the best way of allocating scarce resources.

Paul Buckingham

22 March 2024

	Reparations

	An investment fund called ‘Queen Anne’s Bounty’ was set up in the reign of, well, Queen Anne. Prior to the reformation, one tenth of the income of the clergy was ‘tithed’ to Rome. After Henry 8th decided to break with Rome, those tithes were paid to the Crown. In 1704 Queen Anne decided that they should instead be paid into an investment fund to be used to supplement the livings of clergy on low incomes. Not all were the third sons of wealthy families. The fund attracted other donations and went from strength to strength. Of course it had to find assets to invest in order to produce the income needed. Unfortunately one of its better investments was in the slave trade. In 2022 the Church Commissioners published a report which said that Queen Anne's Bounty had invested significant sums in the South Sea Company, which transported 34,000 slaves to the Spanish Americas in the 18th century, and had received donations from people with links to slavery, including that major benefactor of Bristol, Edward Colston, the one whose statue became so famous for all the wrong reasons. It was reckoned that the fund benefited from the slave trade to the tune of about £200,000 – the equivalent now of about £450 million. The Church Commissioners have therefore decided to put aside £100 million into a ‘Fund for Healing, Repair and Justice’. They have also asked wealthy people, particularly any who are unfortunate enough to have benefited from their ancestors’ misdeeds, to add to it to bring the total fund to £1 billion. All this in order to help the descendants of those slaves and, in doing so, clear the consciences of the present day members of the Anglican church and of those wealthy benefactors. Although not called reparations, the Anglican scheme is just that and has all the problems which come with the concept. If Russia is defeated in its war against Ukraine, then there is already talk of the immense amount of money which will be demanded of Russia, likely then to be in an economic mess, to rebuild the parts of Ukraine destroyed by their missiles. After the first world war, Germany was called on to provide ‘reparations’ for the destruction it had brought about. Most historians would say that that was a significant factor in the rise of fascism in the form of Mr Hitler. He was able to feed on the unfairness perceived by the people at their reduced standard of living – or, if not unfairness, then the misery which it engendered. Now I’m not suggesting that the Anglican Church is likely to promote a fascistic response from its members, but I am very aware that, at parish level, the Church Commissioners are seen as being excessively parsimonious. Demands on a diminishing number of parishioners are increasing at a time when the cost of keeping churches in repair is increasing and the number of paid vicars is diminishing. So then, giving away a substantial sum of money to ‘outsiders’ is proving not to be popular with the members. Clearly this is quite a small ripple in a big pond, but at the same time it tells us the rather obvious truth that giving away money to others in a time of financial pressure is not likely to go down well, whoever is doing it and even if it is an attempt at ethical cleansing for the souls of those handing out the money. In the case of war reparations, the justification can easily be seen – an act of aggression brings about damage and so the aggressor ought to bear the burden of putting things right, albeit subject to the caveat mentioned above. It is current and identifiable. In the case of slavery however, it is a bit more murky. Indeed, it seems to boil down to the idea of 'tainted money'. The most obvious example is when the chief priests paid Judas Iscariot thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus. But the sum in question was not invested for centuries for the benefit of his sons who finally recognised the 'tainted' source of the money. Instead, Judas repented a few days later and threw the money back at the chief priests - and hanged himself. But slavery has been endemic in the world for thousands of years. And, although the British took part in the slave trade until the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807, from then onwards, at great cost, we actually became the world’s anti-slave trade police, sending our ships out to bring the trade to an end. In the meantime, so many other nations, including the USA, continued to engage in the trade. I’m not trying to say that that wipes away the guilt of those benefiting from slavery before we had our change of heart. What it meant was that the money that had swelled the state coffers thanks to the slave trade had continued to be received until that change in policy - and thus could be used to fight what was still a real curse for many people at that time. It was current. It is true that in some parts of America there remains a clearer connection between those who were the slaves and those who were the masters. Slavery was not officially abolished until after the civil war when, in 1865, the 13th amendment to the constitution was adopted. Progress to implement the proclaimed equality was very slow and probably really only made significant progress in the 1960s. So then in some states there is a wish to recognise the relative proximity of slavery, or at least the massive disadvantage of a big group of its citizens, until the present day and try to set matters ‘right’. In California various legislative proposals have been made in order to “pursue lineage-based reparations, encompassing direct monetary payments/compensation, state recognition of descendants as a protected class”. Those pressing for this say that “any Reparations package must be targeted explicitly and exclusively to California’s 2 million Black American descendants of persons enslaved in the U.S.” But would this include anyone able to trace any degree of ancestry back to a black slave or would the claimant have to be ‘of the full blood’? Where do you draw the line? What principle can be invoked to justify its position? Difficult. There is then a second question: in the absence of the fabled magic money tree, to what extent should their presumed disadvantage in life be addressed in preference to major health, education and social problems affecting other people? There are of course many other groups of people in all countries who are the present day representatives of disadvantaged ancestors. William the Conqueror’s favoured people were given massive tracts of land and had control over the serfs required to work it. Assuming that, despite my name, I’m not a descendant of the conquering group, can I demand compensation from the aristocracy for the disadvantage I have suffered as the descendant of serfs? Can the children born generations later to the children who were sent up chimneys in the days of Dickens claim reparations from someone (possibly by way of a tax on chimneys) for their relatively poor start in life? It all gets a bit nonsensical. We are all a big mixture in terms of our genetic origins, so then proving that I’m entitled to receive and someone-else is required to pay is all but impossible. And disadvantage and advantage arise in so many ways, in response to so many factors. Surely, therefore, it makes far more sense to design policies to relieve, not groups of people defined by their ancestors, but those who actually need assistance to live productive and fulfilling lives. I don’t think that deciding policy by guilt trip over things which our ancestors may have done is a brilliant way of proceeding. It’s not really the best way of allocating scarce resources. Paul Buckingham 22 March 2024
	Home A Point of View Philosophy Who am I? Links Photos of Annecy