Mark Steel: Wilberforce would not stand a chance these days

Some people in Britain will have a clear idea where they stand on the forthcoming 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery. There will probably be a letter in The Daily Telegraph that goes "Dear Sir: These days, the race relations industry complains if they discover an employer that refuses to employ black people. But now I hear they object to the great tradition of slavery as well, although in those days, the masters went out of their way to ensure everyone they employed was black. I conclude simply that some people are never satisfied!" Or "Dear Sir: We keep hearing about the so-called injustice of hundreds of thousands of people being kidnapped, shackled, tied together in the hull of a ship, and the survivors forced to pick sugar or face torture, rape and execution. But as my esteemed father used to say: 'Standing around moaning won't bag the grouse'. Surely it's time they stopped complaining and 'moved on'. After all, I was unjustly barred from the Reform Club for indecent exposure, but you won't catch me going on and on about it for the next 200 years!"

But most people are likely to be confused about the commemorations, partly because the person chosen to lead them is John Prescott. For God's sake. These people went through unimaginable horror, don't they deserve better than that? It would be less insulting if the next person to be awarded the George Cross had it presented to them by Jade Goody's mum. The reasoning is that Prescott is MP for Hull, as was William Wilberforce, the man credited with abolishing slavery.

But if Wilberforce had been surrounded by New Labour politicians, he'd never have stood a chance. Blair would have told him: "There is no place in New Labour for out-of-date hostility to slave traders. We have to accept that in a globalised economy, we have to work with the sugar companies. Rather than abolish slavery, which would bring untold damage to the British economy, we are to set up a 'Masters Complaints Authority', so that slave traders can regulate themselves."

There's something else confusing about the official commemoration, which is that it suggests slavery was abolished as a result of Wilberforce's tenacity and powers of persuasion. But there was a vast campaign against the slave trade, led by characters more forceful than Wilberforce. Thomas Clarkson was said to have ridden 35,000 miles on horseback with a a mass petition, which included the signatures of one-fifth the population of Manchester.

At a meeting of several hundred metal workers in Sheffield it was recorded that: "Fiery orator Henry Redhead Yorke proclaimed: 'Let the African, the Asiatic, the European, burst asunder their chains and raise a pious war against tyranny'." So we're commemorating a movement that was stirring, moral, inspiring, articulate - it's obvious why they chose Prescott.

Then there was a campaign to boycott sugar from the slave islands, which led to inns putting up signs that said: "We guarantee we use only fair trade sugar. It's the sweetest tea - and all whip-free!" And, under pressure, the slave traders probably issued a statement: "We assure our customers all our slaves are specially selected from west Africa's most debauched masochist clubs, so the more they're thrashed, the happier they are."

These movements were inspired by the French Revolution, as were the rebellions led by slaves themselves. In the French slave island of San Domingo, a slave army fought a series of battles to win independence. And in Jamaica there were 12rebellions, during which the British Navy declared all "insurgents" would be immediately shot.

Wilberforce was clearly important, but, unlike these more radical voices, he opposed the complete abolition of slavery, so he's a safer figure to parade as the face of abolition. And he makes it easier to write books for schoolkids that go: "The British role in slavery was honourable and decent. You see, when we first started it we thought the slaves would enjoy the sunshine and it would be healthy and full of outdoor exercise. Why, the slaves could be immediately executed if they ate any of the sugar they picked, that's how seriously the British were about ensuring the slaves had a healthy diet.

"I bet some of the more obese children in your class would benefit if your teacher had a rule like that! Anyway, then a report was issued by William Wilberforce of the Health and Safety Executive saying slavery could actually be harmful! But the post was very slow in those days and it took 150 years to arrive, which is why we did it for so long. But then it was abolished and the handful that survived lived happily ever after."

Now watch someone write a column in reply, saying that objecting to the slave trade is merely the politics of envy.

More from Mark Steel