A former Conservative MP has asked to be removed from an award-winning academic’s research presented in a TEDx Talk that connects her to a slave-owning ancestor
I feel like that’s fair. I’m certain I have ancestors who did things I would not be proud of if I knew, and I wouldn’t want people making the connection that I must somehow be also held responsible or that I condone their actions in any way. Unfortunately, we can see the Streisand effect in action here.
I think that it is fair to name her because it is a very good example of how people that committed what we would now think of as crimes have passed that systemic advantage on to all of their descendants. The descendants may feel blameless themselves but I feel like confronting that in some way is a small price to pay for their privileged position.
There was a study done about a decade ago now that showed that all of the descendants of large landowners in the Domesday Book were still continuing to live very comfortably, thank you.
Even, to push the point further, as a recipient of various social welfare benefits at various points in my life I have to acknowledge that the ability to form the welfare state was due to the systemic advantage of the UK as a whole that was built up during the days of empire and colonialism.
It’s not about individual responsibility, it is about the structural inequities that persist. No one is suggesting that living descendants are personally responsible. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that they are personally profiting.
I’d love to see that email where she tries to draw comparisons with the treatment of Victorian housewives. There is a lot to say about that but hard to know where to start without knowing exactly what she said. But if, for example, she thinks it is a good thing that women can now inherit property, she needs to think about how redressing that sort of imbalance is possible when the structural inequity is between and not within families. Taking the (imagined) point to its logical conclusion, her wealth belongs to the descendants of the enslaved people who created it but were prevented from owning it.
I think there is a way of providing these information as neutral, just as information. There is a way of talking about people that just describes what is happening without judging ob the information. Besides, this is a compelling example of structural advantages/ disadvantages. The former slaves family would be unlikely to make it to an MP position. That’s nothing personal about the PM, but how can you illustrate systemic issues like that without using specific examples. Now the question is, what does the MP make of that legacy? Trying to squash it, that’s not a good way of dealing with her family’s legacy. If it’s factually correct, the stronger approach would be to let us her from her about it.
deleted by creator
How about no?
No one made you go into politics & that doesn’t allow you to censor people for discussing your slave owning ancestors.
…and now it’s in the News.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A former Conservative MP has asked to be removed from an award-winning academic’s research presented in a TEDx Talk that connects her to a slave-owning ancestor, the BBC can reveal.
In 2021, Mr Al Nasir presented a TEDx Talk in which he explained how he discovered his family tree, which can be traced back to the sugar plantations in Demerara, in what was then British Guiana and is now Guyana.
In emails to the University of Cambridge earlier this year, the former Conservative MP for Eddisbury in Cheshire makes clear she is not sympathetic to her ancestor, and describes slavery as appalling.
Mr Al Nasir’s research reveals the scale of the business empire which incorporated shipping, banking, insurance, railways, distilleries, and plantation slavery.
Asked by the BBC if any of this information was incorrect, Ms Sandbach said over half the estate was sold in the 30s and also pointed out that land owned by the family today had been added to and developed since the 1960s.
In one email, Ms Sandbach appears to threaten legal action, accusing the university of failing to protect her right to privacy.
The original article contains 1,085 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
