REPARATIONS INTERNATIONAL DIALOGUE HIGHLIGHTS ‘STOP THE MAANGAMIZI!’

AN ISMAR UK DIALOGUE IN LONDON WITH CARICOM – NATIONAL COUNCIL ON REPARATION IN JAMAICA (JNCR): AN INITIAL REPORT

DIALOGUE DATE : 14 NOVEMBER 2017

 

 

*ISMAR stands for International Social Movement for Afrikan Reparations

 

Including:

1. Professor Verene Shepherd, Scholar-Activist; Co-Chair of the Jamaica National Council on Reparation (JNCR); Director of the UWI – Centre for Reparation Research; Independent Expert at the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;

2. Bert Samuels, Pan-Afrikanist Attorney-at-Law, Head of JNCR Legal Working Group;

3. Lord Anthony Gifford QC, Attorney-At-Law; Member of Queen’s Commission; Member of JNCR; Citizen of Jamaica since 1990’s; Involved with Reparations since days of mentor Bernie Grant, MP.

Dialogue is a form of struggle. It is not a chit chat. Create a dialogue that focuses not just on the vulnerability of all groups, but on those larger issues of justice, democracy and the crisis within our own communities then try to hammer out some everyday problems that relate to the everyday lives of those groups

Professor Cornel West

 

Purpose of the Meeting

The meeting started with introductions and a reminder of the purpose of the deliberations:

1: The status of the reparatory justice movement in the UK and Jamaica (Update on both sides);

2: What strategies have worked and why? What strategies have not worked and why?;

3. The way forward.

There was a reiteration of the fact that this meeting is a dialogue and, notwithstanding the limits of time, participants should adhere to and help reinforce the principles of dialogue. A communication agreement was highlighted; and it was emphasized that people should speak from their own reality, speak in their name, from their own point of view and also realise that we are here to share as well as listen to others; and that in doing, so we do not all have to agree with each other.

 

From the JNCR

Professor Shepherd made some preliminary comments. She recognised that there were some misgivings and acknowledged that some of the participants had previously sent in their issues of concern in advance of the meeting. She stated that they could not address all the issues that had been sent but this is not the only trip they will make. She informed the gathering that she is head of the JNCR Diaspora and International Engagement Working Group. There is another JNCR working group which is the Internal Reparations and Internal Engagement Working Group for Postcolonial Wrongs committed by post-colonial regimes like Coral Gardens. So, the JNCR is working externally and internally.

Professor Shepherd acknowledged that there were lots of questions about the CARICOM Reparations Commission (CRC). The Chair of the CRC, Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, wanted to join on this trip and was not able to but has committed to a separate trip here next year on behalf of the CRC. She reiterated that this engagement is part of the JNCR terms of reference point 6, which is “to engage the international community in Afrika, the Americas and Europe in discussion on reparations and build a global coalition of reparations activists”. It was pointed out that the experience in the UK can guide in what they are doing in Jamaica. After all many in the United Kingdom are part of Jamaica and have been calling for closer collaboration. She acknowledged that Reparations conversations in Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean cannot continue to exclude us in UK.

Professor Shepherd explained that the JNCR was first established in 2009, but this version of the JNCR is the 3rd version of it. She explained that the JNCR is preparing a report on its activities of the last few years, in order to advise on the way forward, what forms reparations should take. It is currently consulting on this with a view to better comprehending what Reparations would be like internally and externally.

First reason being the need to ally itself with civil society, including Rastafari organisations, as governments should not stand aside from the movement. Secondly, was their own conviction that the Maangamizi (Afrikan holocaust/hellacaust) is a Crime against humanity and that Western European nations have failed to repair damage done by the Afrikan holocaust.

Professor Shepherd commented on the visit to Jamaica by Lord Tariq Ahmad, the current UK Government Minister responsible for the Caribbean, Commonwealth and the United Nations Affairs. During his visit to Jamaica, Lord Ahmad stated insensitively that it was better for Jamaica to look ahead and maximise its potential rather than to peer into history at a time when everyone was peering into history at Remembrance Day. She pointed out that similar comments were made by Lord Ahmad’s predecessor, Mark Simmonds, as well as former UK PMs David Cameron and Tony Blair. She mentioned the letter of Barbados PM Fruendel Stuart Q.C to Lord Tariq Ahmad proposing a meeting to discuss the evidential basis of Caribbean Reparations Initiative to which there was a response that the British Government “does not believe that reparations are the answer”.

Professor Shepherd referenced the reparations context from a state perspective, within which the movement is growing and why the Jamaican government felt it should establish the JNCR. It was highlighted that Gordon K Lewis reminded us in ‘The Growth of the Modern West Indies’ that Britain “sought withdrawal from the Caribbean area without providing the sort of economic aid to which, on any showing, the colonies were entitled.” In addition, Sir Ellis Clarke, who was the Trinidadian Government’s United Nations representative to a sub-committee of the Committee on Colonialism in 1964, had made this point in his statement: “An administering power… is not entitled to extract for centuries all that can be got out of a colony and when that has been done to relieve itself of its obligations…. Justice requires that reparation be made to the country that has suffered the ravages of colonialism before that country is expected to face up to the problems and difficulties that will inevitably beset it upon independence.”

Professor Shepherd spoke about challenges that the JNCR has had in implementing its workplan in relation to receiving submissions, undertaking public consultations, conducting hearings and receiving testimonies to guide a national response on reparations and consulting various constituencies. Nevertheless, they have tried to reach people by media blitz, utilising the ‘Running African’ show of Ka’bu Ma’at Kheru on IRIE FM and big public events where reparations are promoted and discussed such as:

• Establishment of memorial to the ‘Zong Massacre’ in Black River to commemorate the lives of the 133 enslaved Afrikans who were thrown overboard by the crew of the ‘slave ship’ Zong in 1781 for insurance purposes);

• Play on the ‘Trial of Governor Eyre’ written by Bert Samuels, directed by Michael Holgate; the play addresses what would happen if Edward John Eyre, governor of Jamaica during the Morant Bay Rebellion of 1865, was tried for murder, including the deaths of National Heroes Paul Bogle and George William Gordon;

•  It was acknowledged that the Jamaican Government must follow through on obligations to pay compensation to Coral Gardens victims and deal with responsibilities to family members where victims have died;

• Committing to youth engagement as youth are not engaged;

• Highlighted the regional ‘run for reparations’ baton relay, which is going around the country, to end on 27th December in Saint James, where war of 1831-2 started. So, the focus is on the youth using media and events;

•Professor Shepherd informed the gathering that she had helped to revise history on the syllabus in schools; over much objection, reparations is now on the syllabus; having to take applied history perspectives i.e. using history to address a modern concern.

Professor Shepherd concluded her comments by sharing other challenges that they are working with in the JNCR including:

• 49% in a 2011 poll by the Jamaica Gleaner suggested most Jamaicans believe the country would be better off today if it had remained a British colony;

•”Reparations are another begging bowl”;

• “Governments cannot be trusted and only a grassroots movement will succeed”;

• People don’t trust academics, elite Rastas and lawyers and worse CARICOM;

• People do not agree on forms of reparations and only individual reparations with a personal benefit will appeal to them;

• Not too happy how £350 million distributed in the region, not part of reparations.

Professor Shepherd concluded by asking “So how do we overcome the challenges, how do we go forward, what has worked for you and what lessons can be learned?”

 

Lord Anthony Gifford QC

Lord Gifford commenced by stating that he sees themselves and their colleagues in the JNCR as being “independent thinkers” with connections and skills who have been asked to advise the government. In this regard, firstly, it must be continually emphasized that reparations is a legally sound just cause for crimes against humanity, and reparations have never been addressed. This case was made in Abuja in 1993 and in Durban at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism (WCAR). He highlighted that there has been at least a verbal acceptance by CARICOM governments that this case is made out. He pointed out that lots of strides have thus far been made in the Caribbean by mobilising people.

Secondly, it is important to work out what reparations mean and if possible agree upon what forms reparations will take. He pointed out that this point of unity among pro-reparations forces has not as yet been arrived at; a point of unity on this question yet to be attained. Hence why it is important to consult people and friends in other countries as well as consult with the wider Diaspora.

One of most important things on which to give honest and correct advice is to consult the people. Gifford explained that we cannot just have a scheme that just looks good on paper; you can’t even just have a scheme that is good on paper because government can be destabilised by all kinds of forces; and there are many working against reparations in a vicious way; no coincidence that Lord Ahmad was visiting the Caribbean at the same time while their JNCR delegation is in the UK. He surmised that part of Chief Abiola’s downfall in Nigeria was because he spoke out on Reparations on behalf of Afrika and her Diaspora.

He concluded by pointing out that it seems that in the UK we are in a potentially life changing situation, with a possibility of a Corbyn led- government; and he was, interested to know how the gathering thought a change in UK government will assist the cause of reparatory justice.

 

Bert Samuels

Bert Samuels raised the case of Somerset v Stewart highlighting contradictions within the British legal system, contradictions between Britain and Jamaica, concerning the whole idea of slavery being a crime against humanity. He sees internal reparations as very important, and is proud to be lead adviser to the Coral Gardens group, helping to win $10 million Jamaica Dollars for the Rastafari community. He believes we must tidy our own houses before we can approach others to say they should help tidy ours. He also spoke of what happened at the 1865 Morant Bay Rebellion, where 400+ persons were killed by militia and that historical-legal research was being done to include various dimensions to the Jamaican reparations case. Samuels also expressed the role of legal actions in demystifying the law and also creating avenues for public education and mass mobilisation which are part of the power-building to institute alternative legal and extra-legal measures.

 

UK ISMAR Report Back

It was stressed that we need to recognise the fact that the International Social Movement for Afrikan Reparations (ISMAR) is the way it is here in the UK because of the radical ground-up anti-imperialist approach led from the grassroots by non-state actors that we have inherited in terms of the global legacies of the Pan-Afrikan Congresses, the Garveyite Movement, the Black Power and Rastafari Movements. We endeavour to maintain fidelity to such legacies that have been shaped by the roles of Afrikans from both the continent and diaspora of Afrika such as Attobah Kwodjo Enu (aka Ottobah Cuguano), Olaudah Equiano, Henry Sylvester-Williams, Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. DuBois, John Archer, Paul Robeson, C.L.R. James, Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah, Peter Abrahams, George Padmore, Amy Ashwood Garvey, Ras Makonnen and Jomo Kenyatta in advancing together from Britain the Pan-Afrikan movement to enhance the global harmonisation within the Pan-Afrikan Congresses of the Reparatory Justice demands that Afrikan people have been making for centuries from their own homeland and extending throughout the World.

It was further emphasized that it is with their precious blood, sweat and tears from exertions not only of brawn but also of brain power, wherever our Afrikan people were compelled to endure the dispossessions, degradations and dehumanization of various forms of Enslavement, that they have bequeathed to us a most treasurable arsenal of intellectual and organisational weapons that we continue to utilise in updating our ISMAR building and its strategy and tactics here in the United Kingdom, with input from all those contingents of the International Social Movement for Afrikan Reparations (ISMAR) and its interconnected Peoples’ Reparations International Movement (PRIM) throughout the World, particularly Afrikan Communities of Reparations Interest and their allies, with which we keep networking. Therefore, most of the leading Afrikan Heritage Community activists who identify with the ISMAR and are conscious of its history and true legacies see ourselves as custodians of a reparations movement which is informed by a global, rather than country national, or even regional perspectives. Most of such leading activists see reparations as inextricably connected to global Afrikan Liberation, recognising that it is through such total Liberation in Pan-Afrikan revolutionary perspective that we can glocally effect truly meaningful Reparatory Justice by our own Black People’s Power.

However, it was also recognised that there was a need for this history to be more accessible and widely known by ordinary members of the public who are largely miseducated about this history due to state schooling; more so since ordinary members of the public are recipients of a state-miseducation system which continues to perpetuate the disconnection of generations of Afrikan heritage communities from their history and the neglected social history that Afrikan people have made in the UK, particularly since the so-called World War I and II. In addition to the failure of the education system to equip Afrikan people to see the connections between their current reality, in relation to deaths in custody, school exclusions and colonialism and neocolonialism, i.e. the failure to see the domestic colonised/neocolonised status of people of Afrikan heritage in the UK. In this regard, it was recommended and strongly advocated that we cannot approach Afrikan reparatory justice from the perspective of sentimentality but that there was a need for serious scholarly work to be done which was put in service of building a people-centred mass movement for reparatory justice.

At the same time there was also a need for scholars/intellectuals whether they are establishment scholars or grassroots scholars to become or stay community engaged and accountable. In this regard, the International Network of Scholars and Activists for Afrikan Reparations (INOSAAR) was highlighted as an approach to non-extractivist research and scholarship which is accountable to the ISMAR. Just as is being done by some constituencies of the Peoples’ Reparations International Movement (PRIM) in various countries of Abya Yala (the so-called Americas), including Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, the USA and Canada, the INOSAAR is supporting the ISMAR-promoted development of endeavours towards building a more egalitarian, equitable and pluriversal Global Academy Commons by giving recognition to scholars not only in Establishment Academia but also those of Grassroots Academia, including those engaged in scholarship utilising Afrikan Indigenous Knowledge Systems that indigenous communities of Afrika are revitalising on the continent as well as other systems of knowledge production developed by Afrikan Heritage Communities of the Diaspora.

It was further recommended that the JNCR as well as the UWI-based Centre for Reparations Research (CRR) should link into the work and replicate some of the approaches of the INOSAAR.

ISMAR activists in the meeting articulated their defence of advocating for activists in the UK to work from the non-negotiable standpoint of critical support for some reparations state actors, while maintaining that it is non-state actors of civil society that remain the foremost driving force of the ISMAR. Hence taking the uncompromising standpoint that it is the grassroots of Afrikan Civil Society that leads the ISMAR, with its own independent programme of action arising from its anti-establishment strategy and tactics of total Pan-Afrikan liberation as the process through which we can best take, effect and secure holistic reparatory justice, by our own people’s power, in pursuit of this strategy and tactics.

• It was pointed out that the 1993 Abuja first Pan-Afrikan conference on Reparations for chattel enslavement, colonialism and neocolonialism was appealing to many of us who identify as being part of the ISMAR in the UK, because of its interconnection of the past with present systemic injustices of the Maangamizi, unlike the CARICOM position which emphasizes reparations for the past of chattel enslavement and native genocide only. Accordingly, very good note must be taken of the popularisation of the 1993 Abuja Declaration, and its related documents such as the very enlightening paper of Professor Chinweizu, by the likes of the late Bernie Grant MP in his parliamentary and extra-parliamentary work. Noteworthily, Bernie Grant drew together both state and non-state actors within and beyond the United Kingdom, to buttress the African Reparations Movement (ARM) with the active involvement and support of some of the participants in the 14th November 2017 meeting in London. The remarks about this made in the meeting by Lord Anthony Gifford are therefore of very important significance. These legacies from before and beyond the Abuja Declaration are what have left deep imprints upon the landscape of reparations movement-building in the UK, which most of us committed to advancing the ISMAR to its definitive victory continue to energetically promote.

It was explained that, notwithstanding this fact, there are some in the movement here in Britain that still do not appear to be taking seriously reparations for neocolonialism and it was pointed out that some of the pro-reparations forces were reluctant to countenance any critical appraisal of the CARICOM Reparatory Justice Initiative including its 10-Point Plan for this reason. Some groups and individuals appear therefore to be taking neocolonialism off their reparations agenda. It follows that some of the standpoints of uncritical support for the CARICOM position on Reparations were devoid of objectively critical people-centred appraisal of CARICOM because they do not see reparations for neocolonialism and the role of CARICOM states in the still ongoing perpetuation of neocolonialism. Therefore it was reasoned that such elements do not want to interrogate neocolonialism because of what others see as complicity in aiding and abetting it in the desire to be what is perceived to be ‘economically successful’ within the Global Apartheid status quo of the ongoing Maangamizi against Afrikan and all other oppressed “Wretched of the Earth”.

The neo-colonialism of today represents imperialism in its final and perhaps its most dangerous stage. In the past it was possible to convert a country upon which a neo-colonial regime had been imposed — Egypt in the nineteenth century is an example — into a colonial territory. Today this process is no longer feasible. Old-fashioned colonialism is by no means entirely abolished. It still constitutes an African problem, but it is everywhere on the retreat. Once a territory has become nominally independent it is no longer possible, as it was in the last century, to reverse the process. Existing colonies may linger on, but no new colonies will be created. In place of colonialism as the main instrument of imperialism we have today neo-colonialism. The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.

Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah, ‘Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism’

 

• Disapproval of ‘Caribbean citizenship by investment programmes’ was expressed. The creation of such Citizenship by Investment (CBI) programmes have mainly driven by the Caribbean governments desire to find new ways to raise revenue and are currently operating in St Kitts and Nevis, Grenada, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, and St Lucia. In particular, concern was raised by what is currently happening in Barbuda where politicians and investors are taking advantage of the island’s devastation after Hurricanes Irma and Maria to grab land from people displaced by the recent series of hurricanes. It is feared that the government will overturn Barbuda’s communal land system by introducing land privatisation. Prime Minister Gaston Browne recently proposed changing the law to privatise the land by selling it for a dollar a plot to leaseholders. But, local people, activist groups and even some politicians are saying that it is really commercial leaseholders of large plots such as those for hotels, who will benefit from the move. This is even more worrying given that no land has been bought or sold on Barbuda since the abolition of slavery more than 180 years ago, so in this era it was stated that Antigua & Barbuda were going back to the Codrington days! It was asserted that this and other failures to interrogate the operation of neocolonialism leaves doubts about where heads of government are finding the ‘collective consciousness’ through which to authentically champion true reparatory justice on behalf of Caribbean citizenries.

• Concerns were raised about the impact of neocolonialism on Afrikan heritage communities in Europe which has the purpose of seeking to assimilate and co-opt Afrikan and other Black peoples into the system of white supremacy within and outside the imperialist metropolis. It was pointed out that this is occurring through the whitening of Black spaces through the spatial racism and Afriphobia of gentrification such as is occurring in Brixton. Initiatives such as those of Brixtonics@Brixton, which are seeking to counter the erasure of Brixton’s association with the legacies of CLR James, Olive Morris and their associated militant traditions of Revolutionary Pan-Afrikanism and Black Power resistance, were highlighted, including the work now happening to bring together Black traders and their allies who are seeking to develop a glocal economic base. It was pointed out that the success building of such a glocal economic base in the Diaspora to impact effectively on reparatory justice transformations on the continent of Afrika will require the development of a Pan-Afrikan Government in waiting abroad.

• Challenging questions were asked about the outcomes of existing CARICOM legal and diplomatic strategies and a discussion ensued about conventional legal strategies and their effectiveness in securing reparatory justice gains to our people. It was highlighted that a key feature of the ISMAR in the UK is that there is not a prioritization of conventional Eurocentric legal strategies, hence the strong critique of Leigh Day & Co which came from many activists in the UK. There was a recognition that the settlement in Mutua & Others V FCO (Mau Mau case) was a not a precedent that could or should be replicated in the global Afrikan reparations case. In this regard, there was a discussion about Lord Gifford’s legal opinion on the Leigh Day advice and some of the ‘legal insurmountables’ that his advice indicated. There was an exploration of the limitations as well some benefits of the uses of conventional legal strategies in terms of public conscientisation and mobilisation. There was a highlighting of the approach of ‘Law as Resistance’, from the standpoint of which grassroots legal and extra-legal initiatives in Britain such as the 2003 Black Quest for Justice Campaign case for the Queen of the United Kingdom to answer was advocated. From this precedent was identified the need to enhance the international popularisation of ‘Law as Resistance’ and also to support the proposal for partnership with the INOSAAR in training younger legal practitioners and activists to utilise community-engaging forms of lawyering as well as alternative mechanisms to the International Court of Justice such as the Ubuntukgotla Peoples’ International Tribunal for Global Justice (U-PITGJ), as advocated by the ‘Stop the Maangamizi: We Charge Genocide/Ecocide!’ Campaign (SMWeCGEC).

• The question of London-centrism was raised and the need for outreach and participation of activists, communities and other stakeholders outside of London. It was agreed that greater attention should be paid to broadening engagement within the ISMAR by doing outreach and community education etc. It was also highlighted that due recognition of the reparations movement-building work that is being spearheaded from London, which is also informed by activists from outside London; and also to recognise the rich intellectual sophistication and greater audacity of perspectives and praxis emanating from activists who have taken advantage of the global positioning of London and its Black demographics in order to shape London-based and glocally rippling Pan-Afrikan liberatory activism, rooted in militant intellectual and organisational traditions cultivated from the Global Apartheid Anti-Racism of anti-imperialist dimensions. It was pointed out that such historically conscious advancements were possible because of the presence and central role in contemporary ISMAR-building of London-based and London influencing activists with specially privileged elevation from gains of ‘Struggle’ made by those from previous generations that provide considerably advantageous ramparts more than is currently possible to have in other places within Britain and even throughout Europe.

Suggestions were made of having regular report-back sessions which included the various regions where people were organising for reparations and jointly collaborating and publicising each other’s initiatives and programmes for reparations. It was highlighted that there needed to be greater information sharing and planning among and between reparations organisations and stakeholder groups in the UK especially when it came to matters such as initiatives being taken at the United Nations, the African Union, and especially in relation to meetings regarding the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent (IDPAD) and the Committee for the Convention of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). GACuk highlighted some of the work they have been doing in relation to the CERD.

• There was a reiteration of the importance of voluntary Repatriation, which some of us prefer to call Rematriation, given the fact that conceptually, we refer to Afrika as our Motherland rather than Fatherland. Rematriation/Repatriation should be central to all we do, in addition to recognition of the need to include renewal of Afrikan material cultural as well as integration and restoration of independent Afrikan community and nationhood. This must be pursued, being sensitive to and cognisant of the perspectives of the developing network of Chiefs and other traditional leaders and Activists in Ghana/West Afrika who are demanding, in accord with the legitimate Reparatory Justice interests of indigenous Afrikan Communities on the continent of Afrika, particularly those arising from their still ongoing Freedom-fighting against Neocolonialism and its related vestiges of Colonialism and the devastating impact of Chattel Enslavement, as manifestations of the continuing Maangamizi, such as land rights and the divisive borders of the 1884-1885 Berlin Conference, among all other concerns of their inalienable human, peoples’ and Mother Earth rights.

• The question of the inadequacy of existing internal reparations initiatives, including compensation for the Tivoli Gardens Massacre was reiterated. In addition, concerns were expressed about the role of lawyers in what was stated to be the “cover up” process of the ensuing Commission of Enquiry was expressed as a cause of concern.
• There needed to be greater recognition of the importance and role of sites of community organising and activity where masses of our people are engaged to focus on in seeking to advance the cause and build the movement for reparations. Such sites of organising including, trade unions, faith groupings, youth and student groupings as well as women-focused and other sites of social justice activism.

• A point was made about the representativeness of the meeting and other groups that ought to have been represented in the deliberations. Explanations offered highlighted the request of Professor Verene Shepherd and others who had asked for the meeting to be convened to restrict this initial meeting to a selected group of about 10-12 activists capable of engaging in mutual respect in discussions on the agenda proposed by the National Council on Reparations in Jamaica (JNRC) initially; in accordance with which request the Convenor diligently acted as best as she could with the necessary serious consideration in the careful choice of the participants in this meeting of those who were considered, with appropriate consultations, as not only representative of our Afrikan Heritage Communities and groups of Reparations interest in and around London, in addition to having an organisational/ track-record on reparations organising as groups and associated individuals; but also who are most capable at this initial stage of engaging meaningfully with due respect for the required best practice and rules of meaningful Dialogue!

This was added to by emphasizing the bigger terrain of representation and the need for Afrikan heritage community representation outside of narrow activist circles which were not representative of wider Afrikan, Afrikan Caribbean and other Afrikan Diaspora communities, including Afrikan and Caribbean country Diaspora representative groups. It was emphasised that we all had to do more to broaden our outreach work to much wider embrace our Afrikan Heritage Communities (AHCs) in their rich diversity from all over the World that make up the Diaspora and our mother-continent of Afrika. In doing so, we must always remember that it was on our mother-continent of Afrika that the ISMAR began when the first captured Afrikans immediately started raising their Reparatory Justice demands, with insistence upon recovering their inalienable freedom and other human, peoples’ and Mother Earth rights according to their own values and worldviewpoints; with such perspectives including their Cognitive Justice right to their own self-determination of whom they regarded themselves and their own communities and systems of being, knowledge and societal organisation and progress to be, what they regarded their own civilizational systems of morality, Law and Justice to be, for which reason they, there and then, started their Freedomfighting against the Maangamizi crimes of denial of their humanity, enslavement and colonisation in various forms

• It was advocated that there needed to be a ‘truth’ process among various representatives and groupings of the ISMAR in the UK; because, in spite of our lofty declarations and the grandstanding of some amongst us, there were not only commendable strengths but also some despicable weaknesses among us, including negative tendencies such as unscrupulous pandering to Establishment power no matter how unjust it is, sycophancy, sectarian competitiveness, male-chauvinistic and other egoistic posturings that are at variance with the ethics of the very Reparatory Justice we claim to be standing up for and demanding of others to honour! It was also pointed out that recognition should be given to initiators of initiatives like what has now developed to become the Afrikan Emancipation Day Reparations March, which now has specific aims and objectives and is organised in such a way as to promote and strengthen ISMAR-building; but it was also necessary and truthful to recognise when there are developments and improvements in such initiatives especially when they are abandoned by initiating groups. It was pointed out that history was relevant here as often the consequences of actions taken historically often have unforeseen consequences which must also be acknowledged and reflected upon when surveying and assessing the current state of the ISMAR in the UK. It was stressed that in all our endeavours, we must listen to the wishes of our communities to guide our organising actions and that there should be transparency and accountability to the constituencies we represent.

 

Way forward

• We as the Civil Society grassroots from diverse Afrikan Heritage Communities of Reparations interest in the United Kingdom, shall work with all non-state actors in and beyond Britain on our terms; as such, we shall also work in critical engagement with those state actors that are prepared to engage in honest dialogue with us. We will proactively engage such state actors, with whom, we will identify in such dialogue; and maintain our right to be critical of those positions taken and/or advocated which we find detrimental to the interests of the majority of Afrikan people all over the World and therefore not conducive to the kind of victory for holistic reparatory justice that we are pursuing.

• We ask those who represent or are accountable to CARICOM states (e.g. national commissions and councils for Reparations) to make it clear that, as state actors, they do not control or speak for civil society in and beyond their countries. It should be recognised that civil society is freely pursuing and should be encouraged and where possible facilitated to carry out its own programmes, strategies and tactics in doing what it has to do independently locally, nationally and internationally, with due respect for human, peoples’ and Mother Earth rights. Further that they, as state actors, should seek to increase overstanding for, and in certain circumstances, even critical support for, what the non-state actors of Civil Society can do, mindful of the strengths and weaknesses on both sides, and with particular attention in all honesty to the realities of neocolonialism and therefore the limitations it imposes upon all those located within the state machinery, even with the best of their intentions for Reparatory Justice.

• We will recognise points of convergences and differences between state and non-state actors. We will accordingly be mindful of each other’s strengths, weaknesses and resources, as state and non-state actors and within and between various groups of non-state actors.

• Our independence is non-negotiable as non-state actors of the ISMAR, located at the grassroots of Afrikan Civil Society in the UK, and therefore, in thinking globally and acting locally in fidelity to the legacies bequeathed to us by some of the very best of the sons and daughters of Mother Afrika, committed in firm principledness to working glocally for holistic Reparatory Justice from the fundamental global Pan-Afrikan liberatory perspective of our “Wretched of the Earth”.

• There is a need to recognise the importance of such dialogue that we entered into and institutionalise such dialogue between state and non-state actors, as for example with the establishment of the kind of forum mentioned below.

• It is important to promote diligent reparations study and application of knowledge through praxis by way of action-learning conducive to Cognitive Justice for Afrikan people at home and abroad as integral to true Reparatory Justice.

• It is necessary to pay greater attention to how we harmonise strategy and tactics; and therefore, recognize that such a process of harmonisation should be in the form of knowing what state actors can do most effectively and equally what state-actors can do most effectively. For example, non-state actors are best able to build people’s power from the ground upwards through initiatives like SMWeCGEC in association with mass mobilisation and community unifying processes like the street column of the ISMAR which is being strengthened through organisation and mobilisations towards the annual Afrikan Emancipation Day Reparation March as spearheaded by the Afrikan Emancipation Day Reparations March Committee (AEDRMC). It was therefore important to recognise, support and implement the SMWeCGEC campaigning operations such as advocating and defending human, peoples’ and Mother Earth rights to the point of working towards shutting down Maangamizi crime scenes on the continent and Diaspora of Afrika. It was proposed that this should be done also being cognisant that state actors will feel unable to openly advocate such operations.

It was advocated that this issue of shutting down Maangamizi crime scenes is key in relation to stopping the ongoing pillage of Afrikan resources and despoliation of lands and destabilisation of Afrikan communities as can be seen to be the manifestations of the ongoing Genocide/Ecocide of the present-day phase of escalating neocolonial enslavement against Afrikan people throughout the World. This point was further elaborated on in the ‘Britain’s New Colonialism’ report by War on Want. If we can stop the Maangamizi, resources can be used for Afrikan people’s self-empowerment, self-emancipation and self-development in Afrika and throughout the Diaspora all over the World. The importance of abandoning dehumanising enslaver-mentality terminology like ‘slave’ and ‘slave’ trade was emphasized. It was proposed that there should be a greater usage of terminology such as Maangamizi and the awareness-raising popularisation of its contemporary manifestations as well as the imperative to stop this phase of the Maangamizi in order to effect genuine Reparatory Justice, hence the clarion call to ‘Stop the Maangamizi!’

• It was further asserted that unless we have an ‘or else’ dimension to our advocacy and relations when dealing with European powers, they will not respond seriously; there is ample global historical evidence that the forces of White Supremacy never seriously respond to merely gentlemanly and diplomatic approaches because there is no threat factor in that and powerless groups do not subject themselves to less powerful groups. This would also impact on our ability to capture the imaginations of and attract the youth, who often see our people as powerless in relation to other peoples who are able to flex their power on the international stage. ‘Separation’ was advocated in terms of carrying this reparatory justice struggle to its logical conclusion, which entailed separating our Black/Afrikan selves from the stranglehold of white supremacy racism instead of appealing to the absent morality of the European establishment and pursuing a course of reparations which is palatable to and on the terms of our historical and contemporary oppressors. The self-repair process of reclaiming, recreating and reinforcing our Afrikan Personality and ‘Black selves’, was key to realising the intergenerational goals of the reestablishment of the sovereignty of Afrikan people, given that the question of Afrikan reparatory justice, even for people of Afrikan origin in the Caribbean, is premised upon a global Afrikan solution to the Afrikan national question at home and abroad.

• Common areas of possible joint work between state and non-state actors identified include education, mass Mobilisation and international community diplomacy. In this regard it was proposed that a joint memorandum of understanding should be developed to include joint working protocols in furtherance of principled operational unity, including adherence to principles of reparations ethics.

• Whilst our approach to International Community Diplomacy as non-state actors is “Grassroots People-to-Peoples’ Internationalist Solidarity and Ground-up Diplomacy Action Learning” through the Peoples’ Reparations International Movement (PRIM); that of state and state-aligned actors is working through governmental organisations and other state institutions at local, national and international levels. A relevant action point in this connection is targeting, with our soft as well as hard power, the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to be held in the UK in February 2018.

• A Forum of State and Non-State Actors for Reparatory Justice (FOSANSARJ) will be established as a UK-wide formation, with local branches as deemed necessary, to keep the dialogue going towards concrete aims and objectives flowing from the above matters as well as other relevant issues to be determined in a ‘summit of solutions’. In the light of concerns about what diplomatic missions of the CARICOM member-countries in London are failing to do with regard to desirable public engagement with its Reparatory Justice Framework, it is envisaged that such a forum (the FOSANSARJ) shall include duly mandated representatives of high commissions and other embassy officials from member-countries of the CARICOM as well as the African Union (AU) and other such bodies in the UK representing countries with significant Afrikan Heritage Communities.

• Practical steps can be taken to counter anti-reparations propaganda by reading Caribbean/UK/European newspapers to get a sense of the extent of such anti-reparations propaganda and that activists and other stakeholders should also counter such negative propaganda by writing rebuttals and giving alternative perspectives by way of a corrective to counter media disinformation. One such example that was highlighted was Professor Shepherd’s response to statements made by the UK Minister of state with responsibility for the Caribbean, the Commonwealth and the United Nations, Lord Tariq Ahmad, on his recent trip to the Caribbean, where he denounced the call for reparations.

• In guiding our reparations activism as activists, scholar-activists, civil society groups/organisations and communities of reparatory justice interest, we must be mindful of the need to ‘ground’ with the masses as advocated by the late Dr Walter Rodney, and adhere to the admonition best articulated by Amilcar Cabral that “we should always bear in mind that the people are not fighting for ideas [about reparatory justice], for the things in anyone’s head. They are fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children.” In this regard, what should unite us is our focus and prioritisation of efforts to create a better world; and, in doing so, to be conscious of the varying and various strengths that we have; strengths to which we should work, whilst at the same time struggling together, individually, collectively and organisationally, against our own weaknesses.

We must begin by asking ourselves: What weaknesses on our side made the holocaust possible? Weaknesses of organization? Weakness of solidarity? Weaknesses of identity? Weaknesses of mentality? Weaknesses of behaviour? If we do not correct such weaknesses, even if we got billions of billions of dollars in reparations money, even if we got back all our expropriated land, we would fritter it all away yet again, and recycle it all back into alien hands. We must therefore find out what deficiencies in our sense of identity what quirks in our mentality, what faults in our feelings solidarity made it possible for some of us to sell some of us into bondage; still make it possible for us to succumb to the divide and conquer tactics of our exploiters; make it possible for all too many of us to be afflicted with Negro necrophobia- our counterpart of the self-hating disease of the anti-Semitic Semite. Twenty years ago, when I was writing The West and the Rest of Us , I gave it a subtitle: ‘White Predators, Black Slavers and the African Elite.’ That was to serve notice that we cannot overlook our complicity, as Black Slavers and as the African Elite, in what happened, and is still happening to us. We must, therefore, change ourselves in order to end our criminal complicity in perpetuating our lamentable condition.”

Reparations and A New Global Order: A Comparative Overview by Professor Chinweizu 

 

 

Sis Esther Stanford-Xosei
Convenor of the Dialogue

23 November 2017

 

Meeting Venue: May Day Rooms @ Fleet Street

 

Attendees

1. Abu Akil
Global Afrikan Congress uk

2. Judy Richards
GACuk

3. Sorena Francis
GACuk

4. Jendayi Serwah
Afrikan Emancipation Day Reparations March Committee (AEDRMC)

5. Dulani Masibuwa Dumisai
(AEDRMC)

6. Chief Gege
Stop the Maangamizi’: We Charge Genocide/Ecocide Campaign (SMWeCGEC)

7. Kwame Adofo Sampong
Pan-Afrikan Fora International Support Coordinating Council (PAFISCC)

8. Leo Muhammad
Nation of Islam (NOI)

9. Althea Gordon Davidson
Pan-Afrikan Community Educational Service (PACES)

10. Daniel Solomon
Brixtonics@Brixton

11. Simeon Stanford
Global Afrikan People’s Parliament (GAPP)

12. Ras Shango Baku (Contributed in absentia)
Nyabinghi National Council (NNC), IDPAD UK

13. Sugar Dredd
Rastafari Movement UK (RMUK)

14. Prophet Kweme Abubaka
Ethiopian Afrika Black International Congress (EABIC)

15. Cecil Gutzmore
Pan-Afrikan Society Community Forum, (PASCF)

16. Professor Gus John
Gus John Associates, Member of the African Union Technical Union Technical Committee of Experts on the 6th Region

17. Esther Stanford-Xosei                                                                                                                     Pan-Afrikan Reparations Coalition in Europe (PARCOE)

18. Kofi Mawuli Klu
(PARCOE)

19. Rosemarie Davidson-Gotobed
Founding Member of Sam Sharpe Project, Jamaica Baptist Union, Founder and Direct of Sam Sharpe Lectures

 

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

 

INOSAAR: A FORMIDABLE NEW BLOC IN BUILDING THE ACADEMIC COLUMN OF THE ISMAR!

The International Steering Committee of the Stop the Maangamizi: We Charge Genocide/Ecocide Campaign (ISC-SMWeCGEC) sees this laudable contribution of the emergent INOSAAR as a major new development of the intellectual arsenals necessary for tackling Afriphobia and other manifestations of the genocide/ecocide particularly its mentacide within and beyond educational institutions which are some of the most mentally devastating crimes scenes of the still ongoing Maangamizi for which holistic reparatory justice is urgent.

 

PRINCIPLES OF PARTICIPATION

International Network of Scholars and Activists for Afrikan Reparations (INOSAAR)

Preliminary draft: September 2017

Overview

The International Network of Scholars and Activists for Afrikan Reparations (INOSAAR) is a collaborative project that is being coordinated by the University of Edinburgh (UK) and Wheelock College (Boston, US). This work is being funded through the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s (AHRC) Research Networking Grant and falls under their highlight notice relating to the UN International Decade for People of African Descent (2015–24). Its purpose is to create an international network dedicated to reparations and other forms of transitional justice for the enslavement and genocide of peoples of African descent, including the subsequent oppression and deformation of African identity. The network will seek to explore this subject through the rich variety of research specialisms within both the arts and humanities and the social sciences, and will do so in collaboration and consultation with grassroots activist groups engaged in the struggle for reparations and government-linked groups capable of influencing social change.

 

Background and Rationale

On 5–7 November 2015, Professor Joyce Hope Scott (Wheelock College) and Dr Nicola Frith (University of Edinburgh) coordinated a major international conference entitled ‘Repairing the Past, Imagining the Future: Reparations and Beyond…’. The conference marked two important dates in the abolitionist calendar: the two-hundred-year anniversary of the first international agreement to abolish slavery during the Congress of Vienna of 1815; and the 150th anniversary of the Thirteenth Amendment through which slavery was formally abolished in the US. These two anniversaries provided an important socio-political context in which to discuss the subject of reparations from a range of disciplinary backgrounds, while exploring the different national contexts in which social movements linked to reparations are operating. Importantly, the conference also included a number of UK-based activist groups who voiced concerns about the asymmetrical power relations at work when academics, operating within elite institutions, engage with reparations. They called upon academics to acknowledge these power imbalances and pay attention to what Choudry explains as the tendency of ‘professionalized “experts” or university-based intellectuals’ to ignore, render invisible or overwrite ‘the voices, ideas, and indeed theories produced by those engaged in social struggles’ (Choudry, 2015). As such, they called for the promotion of a more egalitarian space for knowledge exchange and collaboration that would set out ‘to recognize how power and inequality shape context’ and understand how ‘academics situated within powerful institutions are inevitably implicated in the social inequalities that result’ (Croteau, Hoynes and Ryan, 2005).

These calls lie at the root of our current project to unite the efforts of scholars and activists in a combined quest to contribute positively to advancing the question of reparations for African enslavement. We are committed to a non-extractive process of ethical scholarship that recognizes the existence of a grassroots International Social Movement for Afrikan Reparations (ISMAR) to which we are accountable. This document outlines our shared principles of participation and a working framework of ethical scholarship that will seek to address some of the failings and oversights of Euro-centric academic endeavours and ensure the longevity of our partnership going forward.

Building the INOSAAR: Aims and Objectives

The central purpose of the INOSAAR is to assist in the consolidation of a growing African global reparations movements by uniting activists and scholars. We do so in full cognisance of the history of these movements, most notably with reference to the Abuja Proclamation of 1993 which calls ‘upon the international community to recognize that there is a unique and unprecedented moral debt owed to the Afrikan peoples which has yet to be paid’.

Our stated aims and objectives are as follows:

1. To develop a more coherent research agenda for understanding reparations across disciplinary boundaries and address the lack of scholarship outside of African-American and nation-centred contexts;
2. To improve the recognition of knowledge production partnerships between scholars and activists working on Afrikan reparations and to establish a partnership that is enduring and international;
3. To provide opportunities for researchers and activists to engage in a process of bilateral knowledge exchange, with longer-term view to contributing positively to the work of grassroots and activist organisations and the building of the ISMAR
4. To build the International Network of Scholars and Activists for Afrikan Reparations (INOSAAR) in order to support the work of activists and scholars by providing global legitimacy and visibility to the reparation debate;
5. To establish a recognisable network consisting of registered participants with a commitment to adhering to its rules, principles and obligations
6. To impact positively upon public and political (mis)conceptions about reparations by providing academically rigorous outputs of use to academic and non-academic audiences;
7. To ensure that each of the four inaugural events organized through INOSAAR and its partners, starting in London, then Birmingham and Paris, and finally Porto Novo in Benin, form one continuum in our collective efforts to advance the question of reparations.

To assist with the process of building this network, we are working with different academic and activist partners based in Europe, Africa, India, the Caribbean, Latin America and the US (see below). Network members and other participants will engage in a series of four workshops and conferences to stimulate discussion, with emphasis being placed on bilateral knowledge exchange between activists and scholars operating within different national contexts. Events will be organized in collaboration with our partners in London (21 October 2017) with the Pan-Afrikan Reparations Coalition in Europe (PARCOE), in Birmingham (17 March 2018) with Birmingham City University, in Paris (16–17 May 2018) with the Centre International de Recherche sur les Esclavages (CIRESC), and in Porto Novo in Benin (September 2018) with the Association pour une réparation globale de l’esclavage (APRGE) and the Musée da Silva. These events are designed to impact positively on academic–activist working relations and to lay the groundwork for future collective action. They aim to work through, and acknowledge areas of tension, while working towards shared and more expansive definitions of reparations that are inclusive of cultural and transnational approaches. Calls for papers and other forms of participation will be circulated through the network prior to each event. Funds have been put aside to assist with the transportation and accommodation costs for a limited number of those without institutional support.

 

Principles of participation

Principles relating to participants

1. The events being organized are specifically designed for people who are already part of a social movement or researchers invested in related fields. As such, participants should have a track record in reparations-related activism and/or research, for example, by engaging in attempts to stop contemporary manifestations of the Maangamizi and other forms of external reparations or internal self-repair.
2. Participants must be committed to taking part in any necessary follow-up work.
3. Participants must be prepared to engage in cross-community and cross-disciplinary dialogue with other reparations knowledge-producers.
4. Participants need to be prepared to submit their work to intellectual scrutiny in recognition of the fact that we all have partial knowledge.
5. The network and its participants need to show their commitment to accountability and transparency.

Principles relating to shared values

• Mutual respect and reciprocity: participants will be open to, and interested in learning from, each other. They will recognize the value of each other’s knowledge and experience in order to meet the aims of the project. This will include offering people a range of incentives to engage, which will enable us to work in reciprocal relationships with professionals and with each other, where there are mutual responsibilities and expectations.
• Equality: everyone has assets. Co-production starts from the idea that no one group or person is more important than any other group or person. Everyone is equal and everyone has assets to bring to the process, such as skills, abilities, time and other qualities.
• Equity in collaboration: the INOSAAR will develop a culture of equal value and respect for all disciplines. For shared learning to truly be effective, all those contributing knowledge must feel valued and respected as equals at the table.
• Cognitive justice: the INOSAAR will uphold justice of equity in all knowledges, with no one form of knowledge privileged over another.
• Politics of resourcefulness: the INOSAAR will adhere to the ethical principle of resourcefulness, meaning that we will purposefully channel resources available to different members (such as time, research funds, technology, expertise, networks etc.) with a shared aim of designing and answering questions of importance and direct benefit to academic and activist participants.
• No racism or xenophobia, including Afriphobia, will be tolerated.

Principles relating to recognition

• Recognize that there is a social movement/s for reparations and this requires certain ethics that are expected when working and researching this movement/s. Referred to here as the ISMAR, this movement is viewed as a generator of concepts, analyses, theories and inquiries. Researchers must acknowledge and take seriously the ethical responsibility to respect the ontological and epistemological frameworks of knowledge production that emerge from the ISMAR.
• Recognize the existence of historical (and contemporary) reparations work, research and other initiatives at regional, national and transnational levels and that reparations scholarship and action is informed by intergenerational knowledge.
• Recognize that research and theorizing are fundamental components of many social struggles and movements for change, and that these movements are significant sites of knowledge production. Link to this, there is a need to recognize the intellectual labour that underpins reparations organizing and activism. We also need to recognize the importance of learning not just about the experiences and actions of activists, but also about their ideas, knowledge and theoretical outlooks.
• Recognize that knowledge production is being advanced by diverse sections of grassroots academia and others from the global academic commons, and has its own institutional formations, such as the ARTCoP, grassroots reparations education and outreach teams of the Stop the Maangamizi Campaign in partnership with the Afrikan Emancipation Day Reparations March Committee, etc.
• Recognize and respect the role of grassroots researchers and scholar-activists, and avoid the imposition of researcher-led categories by seeking to understand the ISMAR and other reparations movements according to their own analytic or descriptive terms. As such, respect the capacity for people to speak for themselves, to posit their own vocabularies, cartographies and concepts of the world, and to articulate their own categories of analysis.
• Recognize the existence of multiple forms of knowledge, the benefits of co-producing knowledge as an interactive rather than extractive process, and the value of different methods of knowledge dissemination, presentation and use.
• Recognize the interconnectedness of all we do as part of this network, including the various workshops, while understanding that the goals of activists and academics are often different.
• Recognise and minimise power dynamics among and between network participants.

By adhering to these principles, we aim to reflect on the following questions:

1. How should we define the following terms: knowledge-production; co-production; reparations; scholar; activist; scholar-activist; social movement-building?
2. How best do activists and academics work together?
3. What are the potential benefits that result from successful collaborative efforts?
4. What are the barriers to meaningful collaboration between academics and activists?
5. How do we overcome the obstacles that make collaborative work difficult?
6. How do we as theorists and practitioners establish mutually beneficial collaborative relationships?
7. What does ‘good practice’ in a co-production project look like?
8. What does co-production in relationship building look like?
9. How do we value knowledge across disciplines and across domains of practice?
10. How do we harmonise our distinct understandings of what it means to make a contribution?
11. How do we minimise the possible harmful impacts of resource and status differentials, among prospective network members?
12. What lessons can we learn from existing efforts to bridge the academic-activist divide?

Roles, Responsibilities and Decision-Making

Principal Investigator and Co-Investigator

Dr Nicola Frith (University of Edinburgh) is the principal investigator (PI) and Professor Joyce Hope Scott (Wheelock College) is the co-investigator (Co-I). The PI and Co-I will be responsible for the general running of the network. The PI is specifically responsible for the overall management of the project and its budget, while both will assist in the following tasks: organizing the workshops and conferences; liaising with network members, project partners, activist groups, and other interested persons and institutions; assisting with website design and content; collating information to update the website, including the online curatorial project; preparing summary documents and the public report; writing a book proposal for a co-edited volume; and co-writing any academic publications.

Activist, Research Institutions and Other Partners

The first workshop in London is being coordinated in collaboration the Pan-Afrikan Reparations Coalition in Europe (PARCOE) through which engagement is being developed with the Afrikan Reparations Transnational Community of Practice (ARTCoP) as a special grassroots academic interest network of the International Social Movement for Afrikan Reparations (ISMAR). In this initiative PARCOE is represented by its co-vice chairs Kofi Mawuli Klu and Esther Stanford-Xosei.

Workshops 1 and 2 in Birmingham and Paris are being coordinated with our two European institutional partners: Birmingham City University (BCU) (Kehinde Andrews, Lisa Palmer) and the Centre international de recherches sur les esclavages (CIRESC) (Myriam Cottias, Nathalie Collain). BCU has just launched the first undergraduate degree programme in Black Studies in the UK and CIRESC is the main centre for slavery studies within the French Republic and has recently launched a new cross-institutional project on reparations, entitled REPAIRS. Both institutions are providing meeting venues free of charge and are contributing by devoting their time to assisting with the organization of the respective workshops.

The final conference is being held in Porto-Novo in Benin and being organized in collaboration with the Association PanAfricaine pour une Réparation Globale de l’Esclavage (APRGE), and with the support of the Musée da Silva and King Kpoto-Zounme Hakpon III of Porto-Novo, who in 2013 made a public apology for the role his ancestors played in the slave trade. The Bight of Benin was a primary site for the transatlantic slave trade and is home to an important UNESCO world heritage site, the ‘Porte de Non-Retour’ (‘The Door of No Return’) at Ouidah. Significantly, the government of Benin has a division in the Ministry of Culture for the ‘Return and Reconciliation of the Diaspora’, which has facilitated the repatriation of peoples from Brazil, Haiti, Guadeloupe and Martinique, many of whom will be participating in our conference alongside dignitaries, notably the Kings of Oyo, Bè and Accra. On 3 June 2017, the APRGE and the Musée da Silva hosted a pre-colloquium in Porto-Novo, generously funded by Karim da Silva, which resulted in the collation of demands linked to reparations.

Network Members

The INOSAAR is intended to be a growing network and we are seeking to expand our membership with active participants who adhere to our mutually agreed ‘Principles of Participation’. During the initial grant-writing phase, the PI and Co-I approached activists and academics based in the UK, France, West Africa, the Caribbean, US, Latin America and India who were known to be engaged in the struggle for reparations. After winning the AHRC Research Networking Grant, additional members and interested parties were added to distribution list. The construction of the website map (see below) will lead to the addition for further contributors to the INOSAAR.

Research assistant and webteam

We currently employ one research assistant, Lucie Madranges, who is funded through the University of Edinburgh Knowledge Exchange and Impact scheme. Lucie is collating important information for the website and is assisting with the translation (English to French; French to English) of key documents. The website is being constructed by a team based at the University of Edinburgh under the leadership of our website designer, David Oulton. Both Lucie and David both have prior experience of working on this subject having been involved in the construction of a website dedicated to memories of enslavement and activist groups based in the French Republic.

Decision-Making Processes and Consultation

As noted above, each of the workshops are collaborative efforts between different partners. At each stage of the organization, decisions are made either through face-to-face or interactive meetings (minutes are available). Smaller decisions in terms of the daily running of the network are managed through regular telephone meetings between the PI, Co-I, research assistant and webteam. Wider consultations with the INOSAAR are conducted through a dedicated email address (inosaar@ed.ac.uk) to which the PI, Co-I and research assistant have access. Key items for consultation with partners and/or the INOSAAR include: principles of participation; website content and construction; workshop content and creative ideas for presentation; written outputs, notably the reports that will follow each of the four events and the final report summarizing our collective findings. Centrally, we are concerned with building relationships and a community that is based on cooperation, empowerment and the alleviation of power differences among parties, that engages in creative and innovative ways to solve problems, and that give equal weight to the voices of all participants. To that end, decision-making is a shared responsibility among the INOSAAR. The global expansion of the network will require the development of other supporting organs for effective steering and decision-making at various levels, conducive to the achievement of the aims and objectives of the INOSAAR.

Communicating and Disseminating Our Collective Work

In order to produce work that is of use to activist and grassroots organizations, and also contribute to changing public perceptions about reparations, we are creating a website and will be compiling a downloadable public report.

The website will provide an important virtual space in which communities and members can actively participate in discussions and upload presentations prior to, during and after the events. More broadly, it will serve as an educational tool to combat public and political misconceptions about reparations, and an archival space to showcase past and present reparation movements across the world. It will also include a fully searchable map with information about researchers and centres, and activist organizations in operation today.

A public report will be written up towards the end of the project and will present a historical overview of the diversity of reparation movements and outline practical strategies for moving beyond theory and towards the implementation of reparative strategies and solidarity building. Based on rigorous academic research, it will broaden the case for reparations, and will be developed in collaboration with activists and government-linked groups to support their social and educational work and political campaigning at national and transnational levels.

Data Co-Ownership

Importantly, data produced through the collaborative efforts of the INOSAAR is co-owned by its members. Through the website, we will be developing an archival repository documenting our efforts, which will include materials that have been developed in consultation with, and are for use by, the INOSAAR and its members. The website and its related documents will clearly state the co-produced and co-owned nature of this work.

Useful Contacts

INOSAAR: inosaar@ed.ac.uk

Dr Nicola Frith: Nicola.Frith@ed.ac.uk

Professor Joyce Hope Scott: jscott@wheelock.edu

#INOSAAR