英国首相起身向座无虚席的下议院发表演讲，主题是大西洋奴隶贸易。他并非一个喜怒形于色的人，但这是一个他感触很深的话题。他说，奴隶贸易是“人类的诅咒……人类有史以来所遭受的最大实际祸害……世界历史上有记载的最深重灾难”。他承认英国在这一“诅咒”中也有一份，并宣称英国应当为这一“漫长而残忍的不公”而“赎罪”。
Britain’s Prime Minister rose to address a packed House on the subject of Atlantic slavery. He was not a man to put his emotions on display, but this was a subject on which he felt deeply. The trade, he said, was “the curse of mankind … the greatest practical evil that ever has afflicted the human race … the most extensive calamity recorded in the history of the world”. He recognised Britain’s share in this “curse”, and declared that the country should “atone” for this “long and cruel injustice”.
那些抱怨英国从未正式道歉或承认其参与奴隶贸易的活动人士，很可能从未读过威廉·皮特两百多年前的这篇演讲。然而，他们的许多言论与皮特如出一辙。“危害人类罪”一词当时尚未问世，但皮特所谈论的正是这个。
Those campaigners who complain that Britain has never officially apologised or recognised its part in the slave trade have probably never read this speech by William Pitt more than two centuries ago. Yet much of their own rhetoric echoes his. The phrase “crime against humanity” had not been coined, but that is what Pitt was talking about.
国王承认了“过去的巨大苦难”，但他几乎肯定不会像威廉·皮特那样走得那么远。这个问题已不再关乎道德责任、表达悔意，甚至也不再关乎采取行动制止当今的奴隶制——根据全球奴隶制指数，当今被奴役的人数比历史上任何时候都多。现在的焦点在于，活动人士试图迫使对方说出某种特定措辞，以此为索要真金白银提供法律借口。
The King has acknowledged “the great suffering of the past”, but he will almost certainly not go as far as William Pitt. The issue has ceased to be about moral responsibility, expressions of regret or indeed about action to stop slavery today – when, according to the Global Slavery Index there are more people enslaved than ever in history. It now centres on attempts by campaigners to extract a certain form of words to provide a legal pretext for demanding hard cash.
活动人士——包括那些打算成为受益方的英联邦政界人士——要求“对话”。好吧，这个问题可以永远讨论下去。从理论上讲，在某些情况下，赔偿或许是应当的。有一项美国学术研究认为，英格兰原住民至今仍承受着诺曼征服的影响。也许这可以解释为何人们会排着长队去看贝叶挂毯。也许马克龙总统可以把它归还，作为迟来的赔偿。
Campaigners, including Commonwealth politicians who intend to be on the receiving end, demand “discussions”. Well, one could discuss this issue forever. In theory, there are circumstances in which reparations might be due. There is an American academic study that suggests that the indigenous people of England are still suffering from the effects of the Norman Conquest. Perhaps that is one explanation for the crowds queuing to see the Bayeux Tapestry. Perhaps President Macron could give it back as a belated reparation.
当加害者与受害者，或其直系后代仍在世时，赔偿问题相对简单。诺曼人建造的众多教堂，包括一座建在哈罗德国王阵亡之地的祭坛，或许表明征服者意识到自己犯了罪。但放在今天？也许我的祖先像街角那个流浪汉的祖先一样，曾被诺曼底的威廉变成农奴。我们俩是否都同样有资格从法国国库领钱？还是同样都不配？
Reparations are simple when the perpetrators and the victims, or their immediate descendants, are still around. The many churches built by the Normans, including an altar on the very spot where King Harold was killed, may show that the conquerors realised they had sinned. But today? Perhaps my ancestors were enserfed by William of Normandy as were those of the homeless man on the street corner. Would we both be equally deserving of cash from the French treasury? Or equally undeserving?
赔偿问题的难点不在于理论，而在于实践。究竟谁该领钱，谁该出钱？一些良心发现的蓄奴家族后裔已向加勒比海慈善机构捐赠巨款。但这并非当前的诉求。数国政府正无条件向英国纳税人索要数万亿英镑，无论这些政府多么不民主、无能或腐败。
The problem of reparations is less one of theory than of practice. Who exactly should receive them, and who exactly should pay them? Some conscience-stricken descendants of slave-owning families have made substantial donations to Caribbean charities. But this is not what is being demanded. Governments of several states are demanding trillions of pounds unconditionally from the British taxpayer for themselves, however undemocratic, incompetent and corrupt they may be.
领头推动这场国际运动——实质上仅针对英国——的是加纳。这本身就暴露了整个行动的虚伪。加纳曾是最大的贩奴国之一，其大量国民参与了贩奴贸易。它现在竟要求为自己的反人类罪行获得赔偿。是西非国家奴役并贩卖人口、大赚特赚。这是将人变为财产的原始暴行。
Leading the international campaign – which is, in effect, being directed only against Britain – is Ghana. This in itself shows the cynicism of the whole operation. Ghana was one of the biggest slave-trading countries, and many of its people took part in the traffic. It is now demanding, in fact, to be compensated for its own crimes against humanity. It was West African countries that enslaved and sold people, and made big profits. This was the original act of violence, which made human beings into property.
至于剥削这些被奴役者的人，穆斯林世界很可能是规模最大、且可以说是最残酷的：他们把妇女变成性奴，阉割男子充当仆役（许多男童因阉割之痛惨死）。在大西洋世界，最大的买家是巴西、法国（在其圣多明各殖民地，即后来的海地）和美国。如果真该赔偿，所有这些方都应付款。
As for those who exploited the people thus enslaved, the Muslim world was probably the biggest and arguably the cruellest: it made women into sex slaves and castrated men to be servants (many young boys died in agony from the effects). In the Atlantic world the biggest buyers were Brazil, France (in its colony of Saint-Domingue, later Haiti) and the United States. If reparations are due, all these should pay them.
英国将现有的奴隶从卖方运送给买方——这是一桩肮脏、残酷的生意。但英国远非主要的奴隶主。最近的一个估算显示，英国人拥有全球被奴役人口的 1.7%。据最近一项研究称，在英国被认定为直接参与拥有或贩卖奴隶的人数约为 1.3 万（包括婴儿）。而在贩奴时期生活并死在英国的总人数为 2000 万至 3000 万。简而言之，英国并非卷入奴隶制罪责最重的国家。然而它似乎成了被追索赔偿最多的目标。
Britain transported existing slaves from sellers to buyers – a nasty, cruel business. But Britain was far from being the leading slave owner. A recent estimate is that British people owned 1.7 per cent of the global enslaved population. The number of people in Britain identified as directly involved in the ownership or trafficking of slaves was – so a recent study claims – around 13,000 (including babies). This was out of a total number who lived and died in Britain during the slaving period of 20-30 million. In short, Britain was not the most guilty of involvement in slavery. Yet it seems to be the most targeted for reparations.
威廉·皮特认为，英国必须“为这长期而残酷的不公正行为……赎罪”。我认为它已竭尽所能地这样做了。这场原本令人沮丧的争论有一个好处，就是让我们更好了解自己的历史。由于尚不完全清楚的原因，皮特那一代英国人突然集体转而反对奴隶贸易和奴隶制。世界上没有其他民族这样做过。甚至前奴隶也接受奴隶制——至少他们愿意自己拥有奴隶。
William Pitt believed that Britain had to “atone … for this long and cruel injustice”. I believe it did, to the best of its ability. One benefit of this otherwise depressing controversy is that we are getting to know our own history better. For reasons not fully understood, the British of Pitt’s generation suddenly turned en masse against the slave trade and slavery. No other people in the world did so. Even former slaves accepted slavery – at least, they were willing to own slaves themselves.
但英国禁止了奴隶贸易——不仅仅像美国人那样停留在口头上，而是付诸行动。它迫使其他国家在原则上（非常不情愿地）同意逐步淘汰这项贸易。皇家海军让这变得有意义。随后，英国解放了其帝国境内的所有奴隶，帝国也逐渐将其根除。（赔偿运动者谴责奴隶制和帝国——他们不能两全其美！）我们被无休止地告知，英国纳税人只向奴隶主支付了赔偿，而没有向奴隶支付。
But Britain banned the slave trade – not just in words, like the Americans, but in deeds. It forced other states to agree in principle (very reluctantly) to phase out the trade. The Royal Navy made this mean something. Britain then emancipated all slaves in its empire, and the empire gradually stamped it out. (Reparations campaigners condemn both slavery and empire – they can’t have it both ways!) British taxpayers, we are endlessly told, only paid compensation to slave owners, not to slaves.
但他们也向其他欧洲和非洲奴隶贩子支付了赔偿。贿赂是结束贸易的最快方式。当这行不通时——因为奴隶贸易和奴隶制仍然极其有利可图——英国政府偶尔会动用武力。例如，在拉各斯和里约热内卢。反对奴隶制的外交运动持续了数十年，一直延续到20世纪，而英国今天拥有针对现代奴隶制的一些最严厉的法律。
But they also paid compensation to other European and African slave-traders. Bribery was the quickest way to end the trade. When that did not work – for slave trading and slavery remained hugely profitable – British governments occasionally used force. In Lagos, for example, and in Rio de Janeiro. The diplomatic campaign against slavery continued for decades, well into the 20th century, and Britain today has some of the toughest laws against modern slavery.
这项独特的历史努力能“赎罪”吗？赔偿运动者当然会说不行：他们现在想要钱。但当国王表达我们国家的遗憾时，我希望他也能找个时机公开缅怀那些不懈努力结束“人类之祸”的人。罗伯特·汤姆斯是剑桥大学历史学荣誉教授。
Does this unique historic effort “atone”? Reparations campaigners will of course say no: they want money now. But when the King expresses our national regret, I hope he might also find a moment to recall publicly those who fought tirelessly to end “the curse of mankind”. Robert Tombs is emeritus professor of history at the University of Cambridge