Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning by Nigel Biggar
This is a well-researched book, crammed with citations and evidence. By the time I’d finished it, however, I was even more uncertain of my views about this divisive topic than before.
Biggar’s intention is clear. He believes that recent discussion of the British Empire is one-sided, partial and omits or dismisses a range of evidence that provides a more nuanced and balanced view of what took place during our colonial hegemony. Having recently read Empireland by Sathnam Sanghera, and listened and watched several programmes about episodes from our colonial history, a damning judgement of this period of our history seems, at the moment, to dominate the national debate. I say at the moment, though, because one of Sanghera’s key points is that until recently there has been a national amnesia about the worst aspects of the British Empire and, amongst some people, a view that our empire was somehow different and uniquely better than the others. In other words, we see ourselves covered by an old friend: the cloak of British exceptionalism.
I was glad, therefore, to read this book because Biggar delivered on his promise to look forensically at the evidence. However, he comes at it with an agenda of his own. This is set out in his introduction, where he betrays his annoyance that those damning contemporary critics of the British Empire who talk in extreme terms, including accusations of multiple genocides, have deliberately manipulated the historical evidence in support of contemporary political aims.
Another reason I was pleased to read this book is because it seems that there were efforts made to suppress his arguments. Biggar has a strong academic reputation, with particular expertise in history, theology and moral philosophy, and an impressive list of published books. Yet despite this and despite initially accepting this book for publication, Bloomsbury backtracked on their decision fearing the reception it might receive. Fortunately, Harper Collins stepped in; and since its publication it has attracted a fair share of detractors and supporters. More importantly, it has also attracted a lot of attention and widened the debate - that makes it an important book in my estimate.
Biggar’s method is to take the main contemporary judgements about the iniquities of British colonialism, including some of the most infamous episodes – Amritsar, the Indian Mutiny, the Irish Potato Famine, the Mau Mau rebellion and many more – and looks at the historical and political context as well as the intentions and behaviour of the colonisers and colonised. As befits an academic, he not only provides extensive documentary evidence to support his views but also considers the way empires have behaved over the centuries.
His particular method is to set out the eight key charges against colonialism in eight chapters. These include such issues as: the British record as regards slavery; whether or not the colonies were economically exploited, with long lasting effects for their future development; and whether there was a deliberate policy of genocide based on white supremacist and Anglosphere guiding principles. He then addresses these most persistent and most damning criticisms head on with coherent counter arguments supported with a range of evidence, much written at the time by both the colonisers and colonised as well as the views of modern experts and academic. Much of this information was new to me and seemed to have been omitted in previous, less favourable books and programmes on the topic that I have consumed.
The problem for me, as a moderately informed reader, was distinguishing between the evidence Biggar supplied and those offering alternative views also with a mass of supporting evidence. Hence my opening remark about being better informed about colonialism after reading this book but still unclear as to how bad a thing it was in the hierarchy of historical crimes, or even if it can be categorised in that way.
However, on one aspect of British colonialism, I think Biggar offered a convincing counterblast to prevailing opinions, and that was around the British empire’s record as regards slavery. I believe he makes a convincing case that the decision to abandon slavery was a principled one, much further ahead of opinion in similar countries, and that it had a significant detrimental economic effect on the British economy. He points out that British government, for several years, made political efforts, supported by naval force, to disrupt the slave trade. I also think he put together a good political expediency argument in defence of the reparations made to slave owners although I know that contemporary critics consider this a feeble excuse. However, I found his most helpful arguments were those around the history of the slave trade which demolished the view that slavery was a distinctive feature of European and North American countries and, therefore, rooted in racist assumptions. There were many Islamic countries, for example, where this pernicious practice carried on into the 20th century and there were many white slaves in the early Muslim caliphates.
There are weaknesses in this book, not least his rather self-satisfied, smug tone when giving it out to contemporary critics of empire. These were outweighed for me, though, by the use of varied contemporary sources and the forensic nature of his analysis. It also provides a rigorous intellectual and moral defence of the British Empire, without excusing its worst excesses. This isn’t the cry of a no nothing Little Englander opposed to woke nonsense. It pays due respect to opposing arguments but demands precision and accuracy from them which he thinks has been missing from the emotive way these contemporary criticisms are framed. As I have said, that alone makes Biggar’s book an important contribution to this discussion about our past which is, rightfully, shaping the way we see our country’s future.