For me, its a little bit of A and a little bit of B. While slaves were not brought to Liverpool, it was one leg of the transatlantic trade triangle that involved slavery.
Undoubtedly, Liverpool flourished as part of the slave trade as it was our merchants who owned the ships that transported them, while also trading from the profits.
We moved manufactured cotton and other goods (rum, weapons etc.) to Africa where they were traded for slaves - the Benin Kingdom plays a large part in this.
The slaves were taken to the Americas where they were used to harvest raw cotton and, often later, work on plantations producing other materials.
Our ships were once again used here, which were transported back to the UK; all in all, British merchants profited greatly from it, but alongside other parties.
It was from this wealth that Liverpool became such a dominant port, as even after slavery was rightfully abolished the merchants continued trading other goods.
Whatever people would like to say, Liverpool was built on slavery and then later cotton, sugar/molasses, palm oil, rum and tobacco: they all went together.
To try and hide the fact, by remaining streets, to me wreaks of trying to whitewash a section of history, while we may not be proud of it, is a fundamental part.
Like I alluded to earlier, if people want to clear the whole process from the annuals then surely we should erase all aspects, and that should include buildings.
If the process is really necessary, it should also include all parties and all their wealt and success, rather than a token gesture from one element of the process.
Should that include Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire textile mills, London, areas of Africa, the Caribbean and other areas of the America?
It was wrong, accept that, ensure that it is taught to one and all, alongside makeing sure that it never happens again; don't, simply hide it away...
