Colonialism undoubtedly has a bad name. Everyone, it seems, is ashamed of colonialism and empire. Universities are falling over themselves in efforts to ‘decolonise’ their curricula. Oxford University students protest at the existence of a statue of Cecil Rhodes – citing fake quotations without any appreciation of the actual historical facts involved.

Guilt exploitation

While everyone criticises European colonialism, and empire, no one is at all interested in non-European empires or colonialism – whether past or present. So, we are ashamed of our history. But, as the author points out in the introduction to this book, our enemies want us to feel guilt – since guilt can be exploited. So how much guilt should we feel for the past? What is the historical truth of the matter?

This is the question that Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford, Nigel Biggar, sets out to answer in this book. It is meticulously detailed. There are 297 pages of main text, followed by another 130 of notes in smaller font. Some of the notes are more than one or two pages long. Biggar seeks to interact with and respond to the leading recent critics of colonialism. He seeks the truth – whether politically correct or not. He explains his motivation in the introduction:

“What is at stake is not merely the pedantic truth about yesterday, but the self-perception and self-confidence of the British today, and the way they conduct themselves in the world tomorrow. What is also at stake, therefore, is the very integrity of the UK and the security of the West. That is why I have written this book.” (p7)

Moral assessment

Biggar takes a self-consciously “Christian ethical viewpoint” (p10). This includes the belief that humans are all equal in dignity and accountable to God for their actions. It also includes the belief that not all cultures are equal. Cultures can be superior or inferior to others in technological, intellectual, or moral respects (p11). Biggar explains further that he is not a pacifist and that he does not believe that social hierarchy is immoral. He believes that there is a requirement for government of some kind.

What is also at stake, therefore, is the very integrity of the UK and the security of the West.

This book intends to be a moral assessment of British colonialism. Chapters are thematic rather than chronological and they cover issues such as: motivation for colonialism, slavery, cultural superiority and ‘racism’, ‘conquest’, ‘genocide’, ‘exploitation’, nationalism, and ‘pervasive violence’. Each chapter considers the key accusations and then examines the history and the motives – and in most cases finds the allegations to be false or wildly exaggerated.

Universal slavery

I particularly liked the chapter on slavery, in which Biggar points out that slavery, far from being unique to the British empire, was actually universal. The Islamic slave trade exceeded the trans-Atlantic slave trade in sheer numbers. Africans had been enslaving other Africans for centuries. Biggar explains the Christian motivation for abolishing slavery, and notes that “about 30 percent of the adult male population of Britain signed anti-slavery petitions” in 1791 (p55).

Biggar assesses the economics of the slave trade and its abolition and concludes:“By any more reasonable assessment of profits and direct costs, the nineteenth-century costs of suppression were certainly bigger than the eighteenth-century benefits.” (p62)

In fact, he cites a study concluding that Britian’s effort to suppress the Atlantic slave trade (alone) in 1807-67 was “the most expensive example [of costly international moral action] recorded in modern history.” (p62).

The Islamic slave trade exceeded the trans-Atlantic slave trade in sheer numbers.

Emancipators

Biggar frequently notes the influence of evangelical Christians, pointing out that Charles, the Marquess Cornwallis, appointed Governor-General and commander-in-chief in India, was known to be an evangelical Christian, and actively worked against exploitation and corruption. His six following successors were all “inspired by the same creed” and “saw themselves not as India’s conquerors but as its emancipators.” (p30).

Queen Victoria’s proclamation to the Princes, Chiefs and People of India in 1858 included these words:

“We desire no extension of Our present territorial Possessions; and . . . We shall sanction no encroachment on those of others . . . Firmly relying Ourselves on the truth of Christianity . . . We disdain alike the Right and Desire to impose Our Convictions on any of Our Subjects. We declare it to be our Royal Will and Pleasure that none be in any wise favoured, none molested or disquieted by reason of the Religious Faith or Observances; but that all alike shall enjoy equal and impartial protection of the Law.” (p225).

Sadly, today it is hard to imagine our government proclaiming that it firmly relies on the truth of Christianity!

Racism repudiated

Biggar’s measured conclusions on the subject of racism is this:

“In sum, the British Empire did contain some appalling, racial prejudice, but not only that. It also contained respect, admiration and genuine, well-informed, costly benevolence. Indeed, from the opening of the 1800s until its end, the empire’s policy towards slaves and native peoples were driven by the conviction of the basic human equality of all the members of all races. It cannot fairly be said, therefore, that the empire was centrally, essentially racist.” (p91)

Biggar examines famous incidents such as the Amritsar massacre in detail. The fact that General Dyer was summarily deprived of his command and informed that he would be offered no further employment shows that his actions were not supported by the authorities. Not only that, but the British government and the government of India also forthrightly repudiated his actions. This response is not that of an empire which celebrates wanton violence.

It cannot fairly be said, therefore, that the empire was centrally, essentially racist

In fact, in every notable case of British imperial military violence, the author finds that “the imperial and colonial governments repudiated the abuse and resolved to stop it.” (p272). This is in sharp contrast with, for example, Nazi death camps or the Soviet Gulag, or indeed much of the violence of any other empire in world history.

Reparations

Biggar’s final chapter includes a discussion of the issue of reparations. It is interesting to note that “there are no historical grounds for the claim that African chiefs generally opposed the slave trade.” In fact, some West African states have withdrawn their support for the ‘reparations movement’ when faced with claims of African complicity (p279). The issue is undoubtedly complex, but Biggar is surely right to conclude that “our focus should lie on addressing present injustices rather than trying to untangle historic injustices.” (p282).

Finally, Biggar concludes: “Anti-colonialism is not a reliable guide to Britian’s colonial past, as it encourages us to draw the wrong lessons for the future.” (p296)

... our focus should lie on addressing present injustices rather than trying to untangle historic injustices.

For a real-life example, he mocks the highly privileged Oxford students who protest the statue of a British imperialist from Cape Town who died over a century ago, whilst turning a blind eye to contemporary injustices and exploitation in South Africa where unemployment has tripled, and there are riots when its leader is convicted of refusing to answer charges of corruption (p296).

I learnt a lot from reading this book and had some of my own misconceptions corrected. Anti-colonialism is all pervasive in our culture today and this is a very helpful antidote. For anyone interested in history or colonialism it comes highly recommended.