Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

I agree with her

Antoinette Sandbach: Ex-MP asks to be removed from slavery research https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66648763

This is in effect a witch hunt. How would you like it if they came after you?

I don't - particularly as she clearly has huge inherited wealth and privilege as a result of it 

The correct response is an apology, charity donation and learning more about what your ancestors did 

Burying your head in the sand is not the answer 

I don’t think she has anything to apologise for and that is an important point. She obviously wasn’t involved in what happened. I also think she probably should have a right to privacy here. 

I do also think there is a moral question around whether it is appropriate to keep cash made out of the slave trade though. 

At the very least, there's a saddened to learn and an expression of profound regret demanded. 

This is the response of the supremely entitled and "gosh, well it's done now, it doesn't help anyone [ME] to bring it to the public attention" is extremely poor judgement. 

But absolutely love how her selfish toryness has turned this into a much bigger story. ​​​​

There is absolutely no indication he is wrong that she is a descendent (a very landed one at that who currently sits in parliament) 

He is under no obligation to name every single descendent he discovers

She has handled this very badly. But she's a Tory so she doesn't understand the world, her privilege and crisis management 

Fair enough Marshall 

I will educate myself, stop buying such goods and I generally apologize for not understanding the full extent of where my clothes came from 

She's handled it so badly it's become a far bigger story. I'd never heard of her or the origins of her privilege before today. That suggests she's not too bright but nonetheless successful, on the coat-tails of her slaver ancestors. Glad she brought this to everyone's attention.

She’s plainly been pursued by this ‘academic’ who has persistently failed to respect her right to privacy. This sort of shit is going to cripple Britain. Enough. 

she should say she is sympathetic 2 the disgust at slavery and disappointed 2 discover her family’s links

and she acknowledges the perceived link between the compensation received at law by her family and her present day wealth is something many would frown upon

and so if ne1 is able 2 establish a loss as a result of her actions or against her family est7 she would be most willing 2 discuss with them, but that in ne event she has don7d 2 a relevant charity and is looking 2 educ7 herself further - so thanks 4 bringing it 2 her attention

Read the article and you'll find her first para is what she said.

St Catharine's is absolutely committed to upholding freedom of speech and ensuring all of our students, including Malik Al Nasir, are able to freely pursue their scholarly interests.

He's clearly able to do this without going on a stage and naming specific individuals.

presumably she's planning to have another crack at Eddisbury in 2024.

 

she's obviously handled this very badly......but what would you expect from a lib dem?  :)

It's less 'family' and more 'ancestors' tbh. It's not like she is really connected to them or has anything in common with them.

Same point applies to those who try to claim glory by association with people who died generations ago.

Like I always say, a % of all people (about 15% in my experience), of whatever type or persuasion, are going to be varying degrees of evil.  There will definitely be descendants of slaves and academic researchers into slaves that use that status and the knowledge for personal gain, ideological reasons or to do harm dishonestly or vindictively.  Most others will be doing so in good faith for arguably good reasons.  If Ms Sandbach is dealing with one of the evil ones the answer is not to shut down all research and the legitimacy of following slave derived wealth to the present, but finding an appropriate response for people in her position while pointing out the flaws in the wrongdoers position or actions.

She is right that he is in the wrong.  He has linked another individuals wrongdoing to her, and expected her to accept guilt, simply by a blood connection.  People do similar stuff with all sorts of groups, for instance black people are often judged for the actions of other black people, and ironically I'm sure he would consider that wrong.  He has picked a prominent person for publicity reasons.  She of course has nothing to apologise for personally, but he would clearly like people to decide that she should.  Good that she's calling him out on his behaviour, but the family legacy still has to be embraced, aknowledged, and to the extent possible reasonably and proportionately redressed.  

 

i was reading about mitchondrial eve the other day (yes yes i kno scientists don’t like that term) and appaz some scientists estim7 our last common ancestor (i.e. not mitochondrial eve, more recent) may have lived as recently as 4k-6k years ago

which got me thinking how cool it would b if the world’s common ancestor was a slave who helped build the great pyramid?

There’s a very simple point about causation/remoteness of loss, which the moral outrage line in this and other similar stories simply ignores, and or appears ignorant of. It is a curse of populism that every issue is seen from a purely emotional point of view. Would this chappie be happy for all of us whose ancestors the state failed to protect from pandemic diseases simply because they were poor, now be compensated? I doubt it. Whatever happened to public policy and floodgate considerations? This sort of rubbish will ruin the country when it can ill afford the expense. The Russians and Chinese are laughing at us, likewise of course the Americans, who’ve dealt with this or not entirely differently. Because Real Economik

The evidence seems quite clear that she's benefitting from the proceeds of slavery through inherited wealth derived from the slave trade and slave plantations.

It's perfectly fine for someone to say that. Given that she's been an MP and a public figure I have zero sympathy with her re privacy. If she was a random Joe Bloggs I might have sympathy but do not think she should have a legal remedy.

I don't think that she needs to give away her inherited wealth or apologise for how it was derived or for living off it. But people are perfectly entitled to discuss it.

There's a real whiff of entitlement off her: "Ms Sandbach argues there is no public interest in identifying her as his descendant."  Our speech rights are not delimited by what is "in the public interest" (which itself is a concept used by a narrow section of society to impose their views on others). I don't think anyone's privacy rights extend to limiting discussion of what someone's 18th and 19th century ancestors did. All of the information involved is fully in the public domain. 

 

Plainly she’s been pursued by this man even having made her wholly reasonable position entirely clear. 

How has she been "pursued" by anyone?  There's nothing to suggest this university researcher even attempted to contact her.

Davos202131 Aug 23 07:56

Reply | 

Report

Fair enough Marshall 

I will educate myself, stop buying such goods and I generally apologize for not understanding the full extent of where my clothes came from 

Will you really though Davos?  No more football jerseys from your favourite team for you or your kids? Pretty much all this stuff is made in China or by companies who are happy to make stuff in china. No more mainstream brand trainers?  Really?

I know I probably won't, at least not to the extent of refusing to buy my son a football jersey or boots from Nike or Addidas.  I know I should and it should be a route into explaining to him why buying Nike etc is a bad thing (and I do try to avoid it myself). But I won't when it comes to it. Because I don't want him to be 'that kid' whose parents are weird about football kit.   

 

Rob - our speech rights are limited by conflicting rights to privacy though. That is well established in most jurisdictions and the ECHR. Article 10 vs Article 8 innit. 

There is definitely a balance to be struck there. This lady is no longer an MP/a public figure as I understand it. 

 

 

The point is I think we are all aligned here that she personally has actually done nothing wrong in being descended from slave owners? Let's imagine the reverse scenario where an ex MP who was no longer really a public figure was descended from slaves but preferred not to publicise that fact due to circumstances that not everyone would completely sympathise with. Let's say their elderly mother was very old fashioned and felt a sense of shame at the family heritage. An entirely misplaced sense of shame of course but still that is how she felt and out of respect for that this ex MP would prefer that their heritage wasn't repeatedly discussed in public. Would you still be saying the researcher should be free to crack on?

I'll say one thing: hundreds of thousands of people know who she is today and what her family did all those years ago who would not have known even her name last week. Congratulations! Another demonstration of the Streisand effect.

Oh for sure she is an idiot who has badly fvcked up how she has dealt with this. I strongly suspect she is a bit of an entitled pillock more generally as well. That doesn't change her being in principle correct though. 

We're all descended from slave owners ffs.

THAT IS BRILLIANT!!

DOES THAT MEAN I WILL INHERIT SOME SLAVER WEALTH?!?

HOW DO I CLAIM???

I FEEL LIKE I'VE JUST WON THE LOTTERY!!

Again no doubt it is a reflection of their privileged existence but pretty much every kid who is even a little bit into football amongst my son's peer group is walking around in replica kit. 

Lets bring the discussion upto date. I see big corp like Amazon, Apple et al all trying to get away with treating their workforces as badly as they can get away with in the interest of profit.

History is done and gone, but would be good if some proper lessons could be learnt.

and yes I am typing this on an Apple Lap top and use Amazon.

Well if he hasn't then he should have done, alternatively risk legal action. 

That's a quite bizarre point of view. What would be the basis of the legal action? If I want to write a book about the Duke of Wellington and I mention that Lady Charlotte Wellesley is his descendant, I'm risking "legal action"? Why?

That’s an oversimplification of what’s happened. He hasn’t just researched her family history, he’s repeatedly asserted that she personally should take responsibility for its worse aspects. I would imagine she’s already instructed solicitors tbh. I would if I were her.

Surely all the Tories have to do to move on from this is enact their "equality of opportunity" schtick with a 100% inheritance tax funding world class child welfare, education and health for all children for 21 years? 

Join the discussion

Login Register