Colonialism – A Moral Reckoning
Nigel Biggar
William Collins, 480 pages, including 131 pages of notes
Given the present climate of intolerance, particularly at institutions of censorship and indoctrination universities, few people would be willing to pen a more or less objective review of a politically explosive subject such as colonialism. Yet this is exactly what Nigel Biggar, previously Regius professor of moral and pastoral philosophy at Oxford, has gone and done.
Readers’ responses will vary, but whatever one’s stance, it is fascinating material.
The publisher who originally contracted Biggar to write this book got cold feet, but fortunately William Collins stepped into the breach, and kudos to them for that courage.
Drawing on an impressive bibliography, Biggar discusses the major accusations against colonialism, stating that it is not a history of the British Empire but a moral assessment of it – although, when I reached the last page, I realized that it is indeed a history, one dealing with the Empire’s moral trajectory, and an admirable one at that.
The essential motives for the establishment and development of the British Empire differed between trader, migrant, soldier, missionary, entrepreneur, farmer and so on, the dominant reason(s) varying from region to region.
There was no “colonial project” as many anti-colonialists would have it. Britain’s motives had little or nothing to do with white supremacy, racism, theft or unconstrained violence visited upon innocent, noble indigenous populations. Such a Manichean viewpoint does historiography a major disservice.
Indeed, British rule was in at least some cases welcomed because, by and large, the nuts and bolts of British administration was undertaken in an impartial manner. The Indian historian Tirthankar Roy tells us that many Indians, “… because they did nor trust other Indians, wanted the British to secure power.”
Britain’s involvement in slavery and the slave trade is frequently mentioned as another example of its manifold sins, however, while it is by no means the only country with such a stain on its past, no other country is censured for this misdeed.
Slavery was ancient and universal, and what is frequently left unsaid is that this practice was, globally, alive and well long before European slave traders arrived. In fact, African kings happily sold their own subjects to these traders and even first nations in North America had slaves.
Allegations that the profits from slavery were mostly responsible for kickstarting the industrial revolution in England are considerably wide of the mark, and Britain’s long and costly campaign to eradicate slavery is also often overlooked.
After an interesting discussion of the phenomenon of slavery itself (including white slavery which, although not as common as black slavery, did exist) Biggar delves into this subject’s history and in the process shines much-needed light into hitherto unvisited corners.
Was the Empire racist in the sense that it regarded itself as superior to other societies? Given this context, it was – coming into contact with cultures which, for example, did not have writing may have made such a viewpoint irresistible – but for the most part it did not see those peoples as inferior human beings.
Turning to the question of land, settlers and conquest, Biggar writes about two different societies meeting for the first time: “…there is no international law to govern their interaction… therefore, the freedom to use things such as land is highly insecure, neither party having a legal right to property.”
I think that he is on thin ice here and knows it, because his next sentence reads: “Nevertheless, an injustice may have been done.” His thoughts on this matter may leave some readers unconvinced.
It is interesting to note, though, that conflict for land between the various groups of first settlers (worldwide, including in Canada) is usually downplayed or denied, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary.
Towards the end of this chapter, Biggar writes: “There is no doubt that the native peoples with whom British colonists came into contact were invariably disturbed by the encounter, and sometimes they suffered grievously from it… while imperial pacification was beneficial in ending constant intertribal warfare, it also had the demoralizing and socially destabilizing effect of making native warrior classes redundant.”
Imperial policy wasn’t genocide but assimilation, which, quite naturally, was not always well received by the groups expected to do so.
Biggar discusses residential schools in some detail. His observations are not generally found in many or most main-stream media, are backed up by copious references and make interesting reading.
Theft of land, exploitation of resources and people, destruction of native industry, retardation of economic development and so on are frequent claims against the British Empire. As Biggar demonstrates, many of these claims are not well founded. “On the whole, colonial governments did not act in the interests of British business. By and large… those who were responsible for controlling the colonies… tended to act as defenders of colonial interests as they saw them, if necessary, against those of greedy compatriots.”
Britain has been held responsible for famines in Ireland, Bengal and Canada. Biggar’s presentation shows that all is not as we have been told. An example: “Finally, whatever the failures in relief, whether culpable or not we need to put them in perspective. If Patrice Dutil’s reading of Daschuk’s data is correct, the number of native deaths attributable to starvation on the Canadian plains from 1879 to 1889 was somewhere in the region of forty-five.
No, that is not a typographical error.”
This is hardly the genocide claimed by Daschuk.
The last chapter, “Justified Force and ‘Pervasive Violence’ “ is the longest in the book, dealing as it does with the responses to colonialism and the by now well-known accusations that the empire was “pervasively violent, and that its violence was essentially racist and terroristic.”
All states are violent at times, but the accusation that the Empire’s violence is racist and, in some way, inescapably embedded in its fabric bears closer examination. Biggar addresses six instances of imperial violence: the First Opium War of 1839-42; the Indian Mutiny of 1857; the Amritsar massacre of 1919; the Second Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902; and the response to the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya.
His detailed analyses, giving the Empire passing or failing grades, seem to me fairly objective, although I do get the impression of some degree of whataboutism here and there. Even a superficial examination of his descriptions is unfortunately out of the question, because this will add to an already lengthy review and I don’t want both my readers to fall asleep. Those who desire more in-depth information should buy the book.
This is one of the most interesting books I have read this year, the notes by themselves are almost as absorbing as the book itself. Some readers may disagree with aspects of the author’s viewpoints, but whatever one’s stance, it is refreshing to read such a well-researched history which brings so much new information, and interpretation thereof, to light.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.
