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
i have started to read the book and I agree with you Colin. He starts by setting out his stall in a polemical way, which is I think why many of us would dismiss it out of hand.
I think if it was a genuine attempt to say there was some nuance and mitigation in the story of Empire and introduced as such he could be taken seriously but it is clear it is a broadside targeting postcolonialist thinking.
Nigel Biggar belongs to a larger group of academics who have established a group called history reclaimed. https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/about-history-reclaimed/ The list of academics include others whose approach to history is a defence of British engagement in colonialism and empire (Robert Tombs for example). Reading through the lines, it would appear they are seeking to bring some respectability and constructed argument to the so-called culture wars on woke that seeks to disrupt the National Trust's work on tracing links to slavery - here I refer to the campaign organisation called Restore Trust. I'd say their ambition is good and well meaning, but at the heart as we've said - defending the indefensible on moral grounds is deeply floored.
As Alan Lester has said about Biggar's Colonialism "What he ends up demonstrating is that, in order to defend the ethics of such a practice, one has to behave unethically."
'Neutrality' in history. I think the very serious attempts to suppress Biggar's 'Ethics of Empire' project & then Bloomsbury withdrawing publication suggest that the bias is now favouring 'post-colonial' historiography. Clearly Biggar is arguing a case, but it is thoroughly researched evidence; it is far more neutral in tone and less polemical than Kehinde Andrews 'The New Age of Empire' which makes no attempt at serious debate (dismissing opponents s'so-called' is not a mark of an academic).
I think labels like 'post-colonialist' and 'views from the underside' need to be checked against understanding what really happened in its context. Debates will always go to & fro and doubtless some of Biggar's defences will turn out to be over-played but I think what is important is offering close historical study, not putting labels to the fore. In this respect I think the idea of 'culture wars' needs unpacking and probably dismissing - for example what the National Trust is doing seems to me a proper contextualising of the history of their properties.
A quick response, thanks for taking the time to reply. In my opinion post colonialism and views from the underside are serious attempts to understand what really happened in context. There is a big difference between reading books written by academic historians and those who belong to a different discipline, such as Kehinde Andrews and Nigel Biggar, . This is apparent in both cases. Nigel Biggar's subject is ethics and this theme runs throughout the book. Despite his research, he is not presenting stand-alone history, it is placed in the context of his wider argument about the efficacy of colonialism. Andrews background is sociology. Their books stand in contrast with text offered by historians who have sat at the coalface of the archive and are presenting primary first hand research. I give Hilary Beckles as an example whose histories of the Caribbean are seminal.
I'm relieved you are not seeking to perpetuate the 'culture wars' argument as they appear to be politically motivated and are seeking to dismiss the thoroughly researched evidence of the English landscape links with the profits of slavery.
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.
In the book, he points to the fact that often even the natives have conflicting viewpoints on colonialism. In which case, it's not prima facie obvious who is in the right. That requires more investigation, or at least some careful reflection. And smetimes the natives have a mixed view on colonialism - which is essentially Biggar's own view too.
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
i have started to read the book and I agree with you Colin. He starts by setting out his stall in a polemical way, which is I think why many of us would dismiss it out of hand.
I think if it was a genuine attempt to say there was some nuance and mitigation in the story of Empire and introduced as such he could be taken seriously but it is clear it is a broadside targeting postcolonialist thinking.
Nigel Biggar belongs to a larger group of academics who have established a group called history reclaimed. https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/about-history-reclaimed/ The list of academics include others whose approach to history is a defence of British engagement in colonialism and empire (Robert Tombs for example). Reading through the lines, it would appear they are seeking to bring some respectability and constructed argument to the so-called culture wars on woke that seeks to disrupt the National Trust's work on tracing links to slavery - here I refer to the campaign organisation called Restore Trust. I'd say their ambition is good and well meaning, but at the heart as we've said - defending the indefensible on moral grounds is deeply floored.
As Alan Lester has said about Biggar's Colonialism "What he ends up demonstrating is that, in order to defend the ethics of such a practice, one has to behave unethically."
You may like to look a briefing prepared by Nigel Biggar for Government on the subject of slavery. https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Britain-Slavery-and-anti-slavery.pdf
John, Thanks for your work on this. I hope you find my reply helpful. Best wishes Colin
Hi Colin & Greg,
'Neutrality' in history. I think the very serious attempts to suppress Biggar's 'Ethics of Empire' project & then Bloomsbury withdrawing publication suggest that the bias is now favouring 'post-colonial' historiography. Clearly Biggar is arguing a case, but it is thoroughly researched evidence; it is far more neutral in tone and less polemical than Kehinde Andrews 'The New Age of Empire' which makes no attempt at serious debate (dismissing opponents s'so-called' is not a mark of an academic).
I think labels like 'post-colonialist' and 'views from the underside' need to be checked against understanding what really happened in its context. Debates will always go to & fro and doubtless some of Biggar's defences will turn out to be over-played but I think what is important is offering close historical study, not putting labels to the fore. In this respect I think the idea of 'culture wars' needs unpacking and probably dismissing - for example what the National Trust is doing seems to me a proper contextualising of the history of their properties.
A quick response, thanks for taking the time to reply. In my opinion post colonialism and views from the underside are serious attempts to understand what really happened in context. There is a big difference between reading books written by academic historians and those who belong to a different discipline, such as Kehinde Andrews and Nigel Biggar, . This is apparent in both cases. Nigel Biggar's subject is ethics and this theme runs throughout the book. Despite his research, he is not presenting stand-alone history, it is placed in the context of his wider argument about the efficacy of colonialism. Andrews background is sociology. Their books stand in contrast with text offered by historians who have sat at the coalface of the archive and are presenting primary first hand research. I give Hilary Beckles as an example whose histories of the Caribbean are seminal.
I'm relieved you are not seeking to perpetuate the 'culture wars' argument as they appear to be politically motivated and are seeking to dismiss the thoroughly researched evidence of the English landscape links with the profits of slavery.
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.
In the book, he points to the fact that often even the natives have conflicting viewpoints on colonialism. In which case, it's not prima facie obvious who is in the right. That requires more investigation, or at least some careful reflection. And smetimes the natives have a mixed view on colonialism - which is essentially Biggar's own view too.