Sir Hilary McD. Beckles, Vice-Chancellor of The University of the West Indies (UWI) and a prominent economic historian, is a leading voice in the discourse on Caribbean history, slavery, and reparatory justice. As the chairman of the CARICOM Reparations Commission, Beckles has extensively researched and written about the transatlantic slave trade, emphasizing its devastating impact on African and Caribbean societies. One of the claims associated with Beckles is the assertion that Africans did not sell their people into slavery, a perspective that challenges common historical narratives about African complicity in the slave trade. This article explores the context of this claim, Beckles’ scholarly contributions, and the broader implications of his work.
Born on August 11, 1955, in Barbados, Sir Hilary Beckles is a distinguished academic and global advocate for social justice. Educated at the University of Hull in England, where he earned a B.A. in Economic and Social History (1976) and a Ph.D. (1980), Beckles has spent his career examining the economic and social legacies of colonialism and slavery in the Caribbean. He joined UWI in 1979, becoming the youngest professor in the university’s history at age 37. As Vice-Chancellor since 2015, he has spearheaded initiatives to enhance UWI’s global reputation and has been a vocal proponent of reparations for the crimes of slavery and native genocide. His notable works include Britain’s Black Debt: Reparations for Caribbean Slavery and Native Genocide (2013) and The First Black Slave Society: Britain’s “Barbarity Time” in Barbados, 1636–1876 (2016).
The Claim: Africans Did Not Sell Their Own into Slavery
The claim that Africans did not sell their people into slavery, as attributed to Beckles, addresses a contentious aspect of transatlantic slavery history. Traditional narratives often suggest that African rulers and merchants actively participated in the slave trade by selling captives to European traders. Beckles’ perspective challenges this by emphasizing the broader context of European demand and coercion, which drove the trade. While no direct quote from Beckles explicitly stating “Africans did not sell their own into slavery” appears in the provided references, his work reframes African involvement by highlighting the systemic pressures imposed by European powers.
Beckles argues that the transatlantic slave trade was primarily a European enterprise, with powers like Britain, the Netherlands, and Portugal creating the demand for enslaved labor to fuel their colonial economies, particularly in the Caribbean. In Britain’s Black Debt, he details how the British economy amassed immense wealth from the exploitation of enslaved Africans, with institutions like the royal family, the Church of England, and Parliament deeply implicated. He notes that the Dutch, for instance, monopolized the trade in the 17th century, providing the finance and technology that enabled other European nations to establish their slave-based empires.
In this context, Beckles suggests that African participation was not a voluntary or equal partnership but a response to European coercion, including military threats, economic incentives, and the destabilization of African societies through the introduction of firearms and goods. The narrative that Africans “sold their own” oversimplifies complex socio-political dynamics, ignoring how European demand reshaped African economies and fueled inter-group conflicts, where captives from rival communities were often sold as a byproduct of wars exacerbated by European influence.
Historical Context and Scholarly Debate
Beckles’ perspective aligns with a broader scholarly effort to reframe African agency in the slave trade. While it is documented that some African elites traded captives, these captives were often from rival ethnic groups or prisoners of war, not necessarily seen as “their own” in a unified racial or national sense. The concept of “Africanness” as a cohesive identity was largely constructed post-slavery. During the trade, African societies operated as distinct polities with their own political and economic interests. Beckles’ work emphasizes that the moral and legal responsibility for the trade lies primarily with European powers, who legislated chattel slavery and dehumanized Africans through racial ideologies.
Critics of this view argue that acknowledging African participation is necessary for a complete historical picture. They point to evidence of African kingdoms, such as the Dahomey or Ashanti, engaging in trade for economic gain, supplying captives to European traders. However, Beckles counters that this participation was not the root cause but a consequence of a European-driven system that incentivized and perpetuated the trade. His focus remains on the structural violence and economic exploitation orchestrated by colonial powers, particularly Britain, which he argues profited immensely while leaving Caribbean societies economically and socially disadvantaged.
Beckles’ claim is closely tied to his advocacy for reparatory justice, as outlined in his leadership of the CARICOM Reparations Commission. He argues that the wealth accumulated by Britain and other European nations through slavery constitutes a “black debt” that must be addressed through reparations. In Britain’s Black Debt, he documents how British plantations in the Caribbean, particularly in Barbados and Jamaica, generated vast fortunes, with the British West Indian plantations valued at £50 million (£71.7 billion in 2010) by 1775. He highlights the injustice of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which compensated slave owners with £20 million while leaving formerly enslaved people uncompensated and landless.
By reframing African involvement, Beckles strengthens the moral and legal case for reparations, asserting that the primary culpability lies with European nations. His work calls for a global dialogue on reparatory justice, as seen in his response to the Netherlands’ 2022 apology for slavery, where he emphasized the need for continued engagement with affected communities.
Beckles’ scholarship has reshaped the understanding of Caribbean slavery and its legacies, emphasizing the systemic nature of European exploitation and the enduring socio-economic impacts on the region. His claim about African involvement challenges narratives that deflect responsibility from colonial powers, urging a focus on the structural forces that drove the trade. Through his role at UWI and the CARICOM Reparations Commission, Beckles continues to advocate for educational and economic initiatives to address these historical injustices, including projects like “Quaw’s Quest” at UWI’s Cave Hill campus, which honors Afro-Caribbean resistance.
His work also intersects with global discussions on race and justice, as seen in his lectures at institutions like Harvard, Oxford, and Northwestern, where he connects the history of slavery to contemporary issues like the Black Lives Matter movement. Beckles’ emphasis on ethical accountability challenges universities and nations to confront their historical ties to slavery, arguing that true excellence requires addressing past wrongs.
Sir Hilary Beckles’ claim that Africans did not sell their own into slavery reflects a nuanced perspective that shifts focus from African complicity to European responsibility in the transatlantic slave trade. While acknowledging the complexity of African participation, his work underscores the coercive and systemic nature of the trade, driven by European demand and colonial ambition. As a historian and advocate, Beckles continues to influence global conversations on reparations, urging societies to confront the legacies of slavery and work toward justice and equity. His contributions remain vital in redefining historical narratives and fostering a more just future for the Caribbean and beyond.