Role of the British empire under spotlight

The British Empire was the most extensive dominion in history. Inevitably, it contained human beings of every type. Some of its rulers were savage, some saintly, some mediocre.

Their record — again, inevitably — was patchy. British administrators extracted resources from their colonies, denied full rights to their subjects and crushed dissent. At the same time, they built roads, schools and clinics and ran an impartial criminal justice system from which individuals could expect redress.

What I’ve just said might sound so bland, so trite, as to be barely worth writing. Yet it will push many into a purple, choking fury. It’s a curious thing: historians who think of themselves as dispassionate become downright evangelical when it comes to anti-imperialism.

A controversy has been bubbling away in Oxford since Nigel Biggar, the Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, wrote a newspaper article arguing for a balanced approach to Britain’s colonial past. He was branded a bigot and a racist by Left-wing students, while 58 Oxford historians signed a letter denouncing him, followed by 170 of their colleagues from other universities.

What abomination had Prof Biggar committed? Had he donned a pith helmet and harrumphed about the unfitness of the African for self-rule? Of course not. He simply stated the obvious truth that “the history of the British Empire was morally mixed, just like that of any nation state”.

The academics who took issue with him averred airily that moral judgments had no place in history. But they went on to adopt a markedly moral — or, rather, moralistic — tone themselves, claiming that Prof Biggar’s even-handedness would “reinforce a pervasive sense that contemporary inequalities in access to and experience at our university are underpinned by a complacent, even celebratory, attitude towards its imperial past.”

A chunk of the Left have a blinding obsession with race. Anti-racism is the highest card in their deck, trumping women’s rights, free speech and everything else. Once you press the story of Britain’s imperial episode into their racial paradigm, everything the Empire did must, by definition, be wrong. Modern anti-colonialists allow no nuance, though. Where they once provided a useful corrective to the unquestioning patriotism that the Empire inspired in previous generations, they have now become every bit as bigoted as the Jingoes they condemn. Just as apologists used to see only the positives — the rule of law, the spread of modern medicine, the defeat of Hitler — today’s Leftists see only the atrocities.

Oppressors and victims

Is it so hard to accept the concept of a “morally mixed” history? Perhaps it is. Daniel Wegner and Kurt Gray, behavioural psychologists, have shown that we mentally divide the world into those who do and those who are done to, agents and patients, oppressors and victims. We struggle to see that most people, and most nations, can be both.

Bertrand Russell, himself an anti-imperialist, pointed out long ago that victimhood does not confer virtue. The opposite is also true: being a powerful and advanced country doesn’t make you wrong. The Empire was morally mixed in every sense. Parts of it, notably India, were seized in acts of shocking rapaciousness that were in no sense mitigated by Westminster’s vague disapproval. Other parts were acquired largely thanks to anti-slavery campaigners. Some countries, such as Malta, asked to join. Others asked and were refused: Ethiopia, Mexico, Uruguay, Sarawak, Katanga and Morocco.

There were territories, including Kenya and Cyprus, that broke away following monstrous acts of violence and repression. There were others that were brought to independence without a shot being fired in anger. Yes, there was slavery, as there had been in every age and nation. Forced servitude had been part of the human condition for at least 10,000 years. What made the British Empire unusual was its relentless campaign to end the disgusting trade, a mission it took so seriously that, even when it was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with Napoleon, it was diverting ships to hunt down slavers.

We assess the British Empire according to modern criteria rather than by the standards of its epoch. It’s worth remembering that the practical alternative for most British possessions was colonisation by someone else. Who would have been preferable? The Germans? The Belgians? Where was liberty more pronounced in the 18th and 19th centuries? Where was the standard of living for ordinary people so high? Where were protections such as habeas corpus and jury trials so secure? Where were freedom of speech, thought, assembly and contract so respected? Against whom is Britain being so harshly judged?

—The Telegraph Group Limited, London 2018

Daniel Hannan is a noted British columnist, journalist and author.