Guilt City

200 years ago slavery was abolished in this country, but despite this fact Bristol is still a breeding ground of resent and guilt due to the part it played in the slave trade. Bristol is a city in which the pride and the shame of its history are intrinsically linked.

Much of Bristol's success is due to merchants who profited through selling slaves, working in what was called the triangular trade, in which goods from Bristol were used to buy slaves in Africa which were then sold in the caribbean. Bristol's main concert hall along with a number of schools are named after one of the most successful of these merchants, Edward Colston, and there are many other places in Bristol where the slave merchants' mark can still be seen, creating a constant reminder of a history that Bristol has long been trying to forget.

The resentment and guilt has made it hard for Bristol to move forward, away from its dark past, highlighted most recently by the naming of a new development in the centre of Bristol, proposed to be called 'Merchants Quarter'. If you didn't know the full context of this name you might think it a perfectly reasonable name for the retail development; an area named after the group that brought prosperity to Bristol throughout its seafaring history, even after the abolition of slavery. It also of course is a name that describes the activities that will be taking place within it. But for many in Bristol it is an offensive reminder of Bristol's slave trade past. After much campaigning the developers eventually conceded and agreed to change the name of the development which has now lead to a campaign for Bristol to go one step further and officially apologise for its part in the slave trade. A large public meeting took place in Bristol to debate and vote on the need for an apology concluding that an apology was indeed needed. Interestingly, as it now turns out Bristol did actually apologise over twenty years ago, but this apology has been rejected by a leading figure in the campaigning Afro-Caribbean community, arguing that a wider national debate is needed.

But just what is going to suffice? The fact is that Bristol (and many parts of Britain) benefited greatly from the slave trade and many of the buildings were built on this blood money, but no-one is proud of Bristol's slave past and much has been done since to make some recompense for the part that Bristol played. However much we try and forget, we cannot change the past, changing the name of the Colston Hall (which has previously been campaigned for) will not change anything nor will eradicating every visible memory of the Merchants of Bristol's past. There comes a time when we just have to move forward, an apology 200 years after the event is an empty gesture and is concentrating on the wrong issue. Instead of looking to the mistakes of the past we should be looking at the issues around us today. An apology will settle nothing, as would seem to be evident in the fact that the existing apology has been rejected. This call for an apology it seems is just a mask for the level of resentment created by the racial splits existent in our society today, in which much of the ethnic-minorities still remain amongst the working class are often marginalised by the dominant white middle class. Why don't we tackle the real issue here and not keep Bristol in an indefinite and inescapable feeling of guilt?

'In "OTHER" News...'

This has been a big news week. Over the past seven days we've had the news of Prescott's affair, Clarke's admission that foreign prisoners have been released and lost, Hewitt's battles with NHS nurses and then there was the news of Scolari being offered and then refusing the England managerial job. While these jobs have understandably been dominating the pages of the press there is another story that is being largely overlooked despite the fact that it is far more important on a world scale.

Iran this week stated its intention to continue in its nuclear programme, refusing demands by the UN to stop. The fear is that they will use their technology to create nuclear bombs, though the Iranians have always denied this, saying that they just want to use the technology to create nuclear power stations. The IAEA have been unable to find evidence to confirm either side to the argument.

Basically the worries arise from the process of enriching uranium, which is needed for both power and weapons. However enriching uranium for use in nuclear bombs is a far more advanced and difficult procedure than that for use in power stations. Nuclear bombs require highly enriched uranium whereas power stations can run on just low-level enriched uranium. The question is how advanced is the Iranian's enriching programme? Previously the IAEA had been keeping a check on Iran's facilities in order to address this question, but because the UN has demanded that they stop their nuclear programme altogether Iran has refused for the IAEA to continue its checks. What Iran is now arguing is that they will allow for these checks to continue if the UN permits them to continue in its programme to build nuclear power stations. This is not acceptable to the UN (under the influence of the US) who will not stop until Iran has ceased any efforts to advance its nuclear technologies, regardless of its uses.

This whole disagreement has meant that Iran is increasingly being treated as an outsider to the international community, a status that means they are not worthy of advancing its technologies too far. It would seem that only the friendly western states are allowed nuclear technology ... oh, and Israel, Pakistan and India. Surely a more useful campaign against nuclear weapons should be directed at these countries who we know for a fact have the bomb and are currently involved in conflicts- Palestine and Kashmir respectively.

Why is it that only a select few are allowed to develop advanced technology? The obvious answer is the fear that nuclear weapons in the wrong hands could bring death and destruction to its enemies. But let's face it, there are many ways to cause mass destruction, without resorting to nuclear weapons, as we all saw on September 11th. A nuclear weapon by itself does not bring mass destruction, it is the initial intent that is the route cause. Instead of trying to make the world safer by 'taking out' specific people and countries, the UN (and I’m really talking about America here) should look at the real cause of terrorism: bad foreign policy. I think a more responsible and peaceful foreign policy is far more likely to make us safer than worrying about who is developing technology that means they just might create a bomb that just might be used. A hate filled person will find a way to kill regardless of technology, but a peaceful person in possession of a nuke is far less of a threat.

Instead of excommunicating Iran and refusing their right to develop as a nation, we should be bringing them further into the international community, allowing them the responsibility of nuclear technology, albeit with a close eye kept on them. If the UN allowed Iran to develop nuclear power stations and kept a check that they were not using the technology to develop weaponry, as it seems it would be quite easy to do, then this would be beneficial to the whole international community. I think the more we try to unite these 'OTHER' nations, the safer our world is. The Iran nuclear issue would be a good opportunity to show that we in the west are willing to do this and could be the first step in decreasing the reasons for many of the Middle Eastern terrorists to hate us. I think it is about time that we recognised that much of the West's aggressive foreign policy is doing more harm than good and that a near paradigm shift is needed to make our world safer and decrease the threat of terrorism.

Wimbledon: Equality just isn't fair

In the news today is the announcement by the All England Club that Wimbledon's highly controversial prize money disparity between the men and women is going to remain in place for this year's tournament. Basically the men's champion will receive £655,000 while the women's champion will get a 'meagre' £625,000. Many of the top female players are understandably angered at the seeming discrimination against the female players, with Venus Williams leading the women in threatening proactive action in protest.

Equality in all areas is seen as essential in today's society, so whenever anyone is seemed to be treated unequally people react immediatley to criticise the actions, with no regard for the reasoning behind them. The fact is that last year at Wimbledon, the top 10 women earned more overall than the top 10 men. Who's discriminated against now? The women play best of three sets as opposed to the men's best of five, they are therefore on court for just over half the time that the men are, and yet receive 95% of the prize money. Is that fair? The women's game is dominated far more by an elite groups of players at the top of the rankings table, with the men's game far more competitive, meaning the money is shared around alot more with the top players receiving less prize money relatively to the women. Are you starting to see my point? By being on the court for much less time, they, unlike the men, are able to enter doubles events, sometimes both women's and mixed, meaning they often have the opportunity to win three times as many prizes as most of the men. Is that equal? Finally you have to look at where this prize money actually comes from- fans and spectators. The men's game is more popular than the women's and receives higher gate receipts and TV viewers. Men earn the All England Club more than the women, so isn't it fair that they should receive more of it back off them? Fair but not equal.

On the whole i sincerely believe people should be treated equally and not be discriminated against, but people have got equality confused with fairness. In most situations equal treatment is the only right course of action, but in others they need to be treated in proportions to other factors. Equallity isn't always fair.

To discern what is, we need to engage our brains a bit, and not make quick judgments leading to claims that decisions are 'morally indefensible'.