6 Comments

John, thanks for taking the time to review Biggar's Colonialism, appreciated. I must provocatively ask whether we should really take this book seriously in the first place? Yes, I'm being deliberately controversial, but I wish to point out that his primary motivation is to offer a defence of the record of Empire and to highlight its positive benefits for those who were colonised. How then can he possibly achieve - as you suggest - "to provide a deeper and more balanced analysis of the whole phenomenon of British colonialism". How can he be balanced if his mind is already made up and his text is based on a desire to provide a moral defence of Empire and to counterbalance a growing critique of the historical narrative of Empire that for decades has ridden rough shod over the uncomfortable realities of its impact and legacy. Reading of history, by nature is selective, hence it is the obligation of a writer of history to be honest about what is included and excluded and to provide the reader with a rationale about the moral judgement being made. Biggar does this, but in so doing exposes the weakness of his argument. How can he be 'balanced' when his mind is already made up. Gutierrez is helpful in this respect pointing out how history written from the perspective of the winner will exclude the 'losers' voice and experience. As you know he is writing from the context of Latin America, "History, where God reveals himself and where we proclaim him, must be reread from the side of the poor. The history of humanity has been written with a ‘white hand’, from the side of the dominators. History’s losers have another outlook. History must be read from a point of departure in their struggles, their resistance, their hopes." Gustavo Gutierrez, (The Power of the Poor in History, SCM, London 1983, pages 201).

I find it extremely difficult not to conclude that Biggar, by seeking to defend the legacy of Empire is writing from the side of the "dominators" and therefore struggling in his moral argument to defend the suffering British colonialism inflicted on its subjects across its Empire. He appears to show scant interest in engaging with the losers' outlook, a point made by Greg in his comment. You may be interested to read this courteous exchange with Alan Lester on the Reclaiming History website to which Biggar contributes. thanks for reading my reply Colin

https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/debating-the-british-empire/#_edn3

Expand full comment

thanks Ian for republishing John's blog, as usual insightful and important. I will try to get round to reading Biggar's book, which deserves engagement and debate. I can see how the Empire had some mitigating aspects, usually where individual people, often Christians showed kindness and often worked as though they meant to do good or at least minimise harm. Yet often in a top down and patronising way. That said I remain convinced that the British Empire and most others were systematically evil and institutionally racist.

From the review I get the impression that Biggar does not really understand the feelings and ongoing trauma of colonial subjects and their present day descendants, and why the current revaluation of history, and postcolonial studies,and theology is so important. I wonder how much Biggar has engaged with the witness, voices and historical research of those who were on the underside of Imperial racism and oppression, or whether he has taken Black and other liberation theologies seriously. If not then I think he could be stuck in a "whiteness" paradigm and not fully appreciate his own positionality.

But as I said I need to read the book.

Expand full comment