In 1838, as former slaves were celebrating the abolition of slavery the British colonial empire, Jesuit priests of Georgetown University in Washington DC, in the US, were selling 272 slaves to Southern estates to raise funds for the University. This trade in human degradation lasted until 1865 when the institution of slavery, one of the worst crimes against humanity, was formally abolished in the US.

After much public pressure Georgetown University announced during last week, as recommended by a report it had commissioned, that it would offer a public apology, would rename two halls as Isaac Hall for Isaac Hawkins, one of the slaves sold, and as Anne Marie Becraft Hall, in honour of a 19th-century educator who founded a school for black girls in Washington. It would also give priority in admission to descendants of the 272 slaves whose names were recorded and some of whose descendants have been or are being traced.

The vast impact and consequences of slavery constitute an important part of the continuing discourse of the African condition, reparations and compensation in countries where slavery existed. In the Caribbean these discussions take place in the absence of the beneficiaries of slavery, who are to be found in the UK. In the United States, however, they are identifiable, as in the case of the 272 slaves sold by Georgetown University.

In the Caribbean the argument for reparations as compensation for slavery, which is supported by Governments and people of the Region, has been making progress in that it is gaining wider recognition. But it has yet to make any impact on British public opinion. This is necessary in order to obtain movement from Britain towards recognition of the right to reparation. Little or no work is being done in this regard and thus the British political class sees no negative consequences in its continued refusal to recognize the rights of the descendants of slaves.

In Guyana one aspect of the discourse that has been around for decades is the issue of African land rights. Many have confused this debate by introducing the concept of African entitlement to ancestral lands, when they are in fact referring to land for which they already have communal titles or have occupied under licence as “Crown lands.” Some may be exploiting the opportunity to claim additional lands but that is another issue. There is hardly likely to be any objection to giving title to land to Guyanese of any ethnic persuasion who have been occupying and utilizing land for generations.

But generally, African Guyanese are not claiming land belonging to others and, except for a claim made by Eric Phillips recently, have not claimed land from the State as compensation for slavery. Of the hundred or so estates that were purchased, which formed the core of the village movement, much of the title was given communally.  The expectation is that occupants of the communal lands would be granted individual titles subject to the laws of succession and prescription. As demonstrated below, Guyana already has the legal infrastructure to resolve these problems.

The claim made by Mr. Eric Phillips of ACDA, who is also Chair of the Reparations Committee, is that Africans were here since the 17th century, before some Amerindian groups such as the 300 WaiWais who arrived in the 19th century from Brazil and have one million acres and the 10,000 Wapishanas who arrived in the 18th century and are now claiming more than they already have. Phillips pointed to the contribution of African slaves to the building of Guyana’s infrastructure, the suffering they endured and the inequitable distribution of mining and other lands. This is a more controversial proposition and would require far more debate than the resolution of existing land issues.

The PPP and the PPP/C Government lost a golden opportunity of earning the goodwill of the African community by failing to support the establishment of an African Lands Commission. In a debate in the National Assembly during July, 2007, on a motion in the name of the late Debbie Backer of the PNCR, marking the bicentenary of the abolition of the African Slave Trade and proposing the establishment of an African Lands Commission, the Government recognized the issues to be resolved but amended the motion to remove the establishment of the Commission. No sensible or rational explanation was given for this posture. In fact, the overall contribution of Government members pointed to the need for the Commission.

The Ramotar Government in August 2013 resolved similar, but more recent, problems of residents of Bath Village, Berbice. He described the problems thus: “….historic problems which has (sic) been in the making for a long time whereby lands were given out to people and some of them sold out but no title was passed to them while some died out and some migrated and in the meantime, over the years, it was festering and beginning to cause some problems in the community itself.” The President found $46 million for the process of declaring a registration area, surveying and granting titles. A similar solution is available for African lands.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. Just proves my point that “land reformation”
    in Guyana should be a priority.
    Titles to land the question.
    No land should be “exchanged” in the future.
    Trading in land encourages if not condones
    Subtle differences explained.
    In UK most public lands belongs to the
    head of state HRH QE2.
    Local authorities lease these lands from
    the Queen then sublease or sell as “freehold”
    to individuals or developers. Which entitles
    them to certain “purpose of specific use age”
    farming,industrial,commercial,residential etc etc..

    However if the local government decides
    that the land is required for alternative usage
    the land returns to state (HRH) on a
    “compulsory purchase order” if privately
    owned or leased.

    It means no land is ever the property of the
    “Freeholder” or “leaseholder” and can only
    be “exchanged” through the “courts”….
    Taxes paid on registration/transfer.

    As a British EU citizen I bought 10.000m2
    farmland in south Spain as “freehold”
    which gives me title and usage of land.
    It is farmland therefore can only be used
    for that purpose. I grow olive orange and
    almond on my land. I have a “Cortigo”(farm
    house/barn) in which I store my farming
    equipment. I sometime stay in my Cortigo
    but it is not a “registered” residential address.
    so not a permanent home.

    If the local authorities wishes to “compulsory
    purchase my land” they must do so at its
    “market value”…what I paid +- present day
    valuation depending on purpose of compulsory
    purchase order. “New usage” !

    What is amusing in hindsight is that my
    freehold could have been leased from
    local government for a fraction in yearly
    fee with “title”.
    10.000m2 @ 1€ per 1000m2 per annum. =
    €10 per annum.
    Hindsight teaches fools.

    Guyanese are no fools so will hopefully
    learn from their mistakes by not repeating.

    All lands are property of state and should
    be only leased by state as “tax”
    which is
    used to benefit all Guyanese local and
    national development.

    Freehold “history” in hindsight.

    Lord Kamtan citizen of UK resident of planet

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.