|
|
A MEMORABLE BICENTENARY - WITH ONE QUESTIONABLE ACT
The hymns of John Newton, the reviewed works of Wilberforce, the narrative literature of Olaudah Equiano and the broadcast which ran from the dungeons of Ghana's Elmina Castle (by courtesy of poet Dr Abena Busia & BBC's Moira Stuart) to the Jamaican ports and museums, were concrete enough to revisit the past centuries of slavery - during the 200th anniversary of its closure.
The various activities marked the trans-Atlantic slave trade abolition event to people's shock, pain, awareness and, most significantly, to everyone's joy over the 1807 Act of Parliament that ordered its eventual stoppage.
Yet one man stole the show; driving the media's attention towards his fierce coup at the Westminster Abbey's church service. A very defiant anticlimax, I thought.
As was the scene of events at the Abbey - within the sermon of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury - Toyin Agbetu's demonstration has remained the prime subject in almost all post bicentennial discussions.
The subject matter shifts between: ''was Agbetu right?'', ''should Blair apologise?'', and as to whether Queen Elizabeth II ''should feel ashamed'' for the role Britain played in the trade. For so long I haven't been bothered to listen to any of these debates with keen interest, let alone writing a script about their intricate rationale. None struck a chord until I betrayed my innate will to stay passive on such a typical sensitive issue.
It was an April Fools Day, and Tottenham Hotspur had beaten Reading in a home match into the 6th place on the Premiership table. So a kind of euphoria had taken over me. By custom I did not switch off my radio after the game, as I would if my North London favourites had lost. I'm glad I was still tuned-in to merit the BBC 94.9 fm's Dolun Adebayor & Valley Fontaine programme. Where I heard several pros (bereft of a contra) in praise of Agbetu's protest.
Without demeaning any of that radio phone-in contributors, I beg to moderate my opinion from all others by stating that Agbetu is by no means defendable to ask for an apology in the rude manner he did. He could have done it peacefully. But he deliberately chose to be aggressive with prolonged coarse screams in the midst of an otherwise solemn gathering. Which tends to connote that the rest of his race present had no feeling, allied to his paranormal emotions. In the end his reward was a charge of disruption to public order. That instead is a shame.
Despite his rigorous display, Agbetu made a very strong remark about his targets, the Head of State and her Prime Minister. Yes, of course, they ought to have felt ashamed of the cruelties of their ancestors, just as they feel chest-out proud of the good records in British history. That sense of reproach alone suffices to prompt an apology.
In the brash denial of apology, where do we go? I suggest everyone should reflect on the prayer-part of the service that Agbetu had little or no respect for. The prayer of forgiveness is compelling enough to pardon the devoid of a required apology.
Relative to loving one another, forgiveness overcomes all errors, including the heartless state of those from whom the single protestor had demanded a simple 'sorry'. For once I'll draw a moral from my humble grandmother, by this replica: ''it's so graceful to forgive in the first place than to hold one to ransom''.
Though today's British government is categorically blameless for the evil deeds of yesteryears, it's hard withholding judgement from Blair's refusal to apologise (on behalf of an unassuming country) for the sake of some considerable goodwill and reconciliation. At least to console our Caribbean relatives who suffer post-Slavery Depression Syndrome. He wasn't bovvered. Was he?
Dear Toyin Agbetu, you have that right. So please exercise it lawfully next time.
You are welcome to contribute to this debate but please kindly refrain from insults on this platform This is Public Square. email to:
publicsq@yahoo.co.uk
|
