Imperialism: not THAT bad
Kenan Malik has a review in the Guardian of a book about colonialism – the “hey it wasn’t that bad” kind of book about colonialism.
In 1857, in the wake of the Indian mutiny, a British officer, Lt George Cracklow, described in a letter home what happened to captured rebels. “The prisoners were marched up to the guns… and lashed to the muzzles,” he wrote. “The guns exploded… I could hardly see for the smoke for about 2 seconds when down came something with a thud about 5 yards from me. This was the head and neck of one of the men… On each side of the guns, about 10 yards, lay the arms torn out at the shoulders.”
Nigel Biggar, in his new history of British colonialism, acknowledges the brutality of Britain’s response to the mutiny but argues that the use of violence is “essential” to any state, as is “the deterrence of others through fear”. He adds: “Whatever one thinks of ‘blowing from a gun’ as a method of execution, it was not indiscriminate, insofar as the victim had been judged guilty of some crime.”
Cool cool cool. Torture people to death for jaywalking as long as the people have been judged guilty of jaywalking.
The director of Oxford University’s McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics and Public Life, Biggar has caused waves in recent years with his call for a moral reappraisal of colonialism. Contemporary historians, he believes, have made us feel too guilty about Britain’s colonial past. We need to recognise not just the bad but also the good of empire. Colonialism is his attempt to create such a moral balance sheet.
If the sentence quoted is typical, he’s going about it the wrong way!
Biggar’s response to the treatment of Indian rebels exemplifies his approach. One might have thought that a professor of theology would have paused before attempting to find moral exculpation for such savage punishment. Biggar’s approach, however, is wherever possible to find good motives behind every colonial act – he portrays racial segregation, for example, as the product not of racism but of the desire “to protect native peoples from harmful encounters with settlers”. And where it proves impossible to locate a nugget of good, he seeks instead to find exonerating circumstances for the bad.
That kind of thing is a useful exercise in legal training, philosophy, and the like, but it has its problems.
Biggar claims that the empire wasn’t racist, and Kenan provides examples illustrating how absurd that is.
The Liberal politician Charles Wentworth Dilke’s claim that “nature seems to intend the English for a race of officers, to direct and guide the cheap labour of eastern peoples” was far closer to the reality of British perceptions than Biggar’s wishful account. As one-time prime minister Archibald Primrose, the 5th Earl of Rosebery, asked: “What is empire but the predominance of race?”
…
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Colonialism is that, for all the claims to be a “moral reckoning”, moral questions are rarely taken seriously. Consider the discussion of Britain’s abolition of slavery in 1834, for which slave owners received total compensation of £20m (about £16bn today).
The slaves, however, received total compensation of £0.
Biggar seems not to recognise as a moral issue the fact that while slave owners received reparations, slaves themselves did not. Ignoring all evidence to the contrary, Biggar imagines that freed slaves continued working on the old plantations not out of economic necessity, having been deprived of all resources, but because of the generosity of former masters in providing housing and food.
That’s exactly how it played out in the US after the Civil War, too.
I’ve read that the book is more balanced and not intended to whitewash colonialism but put it in a larger perspective. There’s a current tendency to demonize people and think in black-and-white terms which makes it hard to evaluate the past and learn from it. The idea that a huge factor in history like empire-building lead to no improvements is implausible.
When the British conquered India one of their most unwelcome impositions was creating a universal educational system for people of all castes — and women. The deposed ruling class was horrified. Bad enough when widows were no longer allowed to save face by throwing themselves into their husband’s funeral pyre — but girls knowing how to read and write? Barbarism.
This justification is still around. I have read that the people of color killed by the police were guilty…of something. In most cases, it was in the past, or in some, it was suspected, but not even accused, let alone convicted. And in some cases, it wasn’t a crime at all, like one case where people kept saying “he had a gun in the car!” Excuse me? So did Ammon Bundy. And he shot it. And he was acquitted. But then, he isn’t black. Second Amendment rights apply only to white people, it seems.
As for whether colonialism brought some good as Sastra suggests, yes, of course. I’m not sure that justifies the level of brutality. I had a friend from London while I was in college, and she was fond of telling me that English colonialism was much less brutal, much kinder than others. If that’s true (and I’m not sure it is), that’s saying something about colonialism that shouldn’t be seen as positive.
One of the weirdest oddities of Dinesh D’Souza’s many diatribes against Obama was one in which he denounces Obama’s father as being anti-British Colonialist in Kenya. I thought that the American Revolution was a whole War and struggle against it. How is that a bad thing for an American? I would think that Dinesh would ild celebrate that.
Mike, you see, there are different rules for white people and people of color. It’s that simple. Our revolution is good; their revolution is treason.
Perhaps, but if one were familiar with how religion has been used to justify such punishment, one might see how even a professor of theology might find such exculpation.
Biggar reminds me of an encounter I had many years ago in London, with an Anglican priest and his wife. We were chatting about traveling (as I was an American overseas) and I mentioned that I had a desire to visit India. The priest’s face contorted into a sneer and he spat out that he would never visit the country because he had “no interest in such HEATHENS”.
Let’s not bicker and argue about “who colonized who”…
That was the rationale that led to New Zealand’s Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was appeals from Maori Chiefs to Captain Hobson for protection from both the New Zealand Company and possible french incursions that led to the drawing up and signing of Ti Tiriti.
While Hobson and his aides were sincere in their dealings with Maori Chiefs, Ti Tiriti was often ignored and it wasn’t until the middle of the last century that it became a larger part of NZ life, culture, and law.
…and now they’ve decided superstitious garbage is the co-equal of science. How’s that worked out?
‘Biggar still and Biggar
Shall whitewashing get,
God that made thee, Blighty,
Now helps thee to forget…’
One notes that man is a theologian, not a historian, nor a teacher of ethics. Human life is very complex, and there are all sorts of relationships between different peoples within an empire, some indubitably respectful and friendly, others definitely not, but it is nonsense to pretend that colonial empires, British or otherwise, were in essence benevolent institutions.
Surely, one can make distinctions; one can, for example, be an admirer of Kipling as a writer in many ways (as I am) without accepting his political views and his near hysterical belief in ‘order’.
It is not as if Empire has ended yet. A fairly recent book, ‘Return to Uluru’ by Mark McKenna, shows how the effects of Empire still ramify in Australia. The ill-treatment of the original inhabitants of Australia, New Zealand, and North & South America, not to mention the Chagos islands, persists, though New Zealand in particular seems more enlightened than most.
Perhaps I should add, since a certain pedant may be snooping about, that the Chagossians were not ‘native’ to the islands, but were originally brought there as slaves and indentured workers by colonial powers. That doesn’t make their continuing ill-treatment any better than it is.
I don’t think I’m being bold in saying that the Duke of Wellington was the moral superior of anyone that thought burning widows alive was the proper thing to do (India was a good deal more complicated than the Americas and Africa)…
That said, empire building despite its positives wasn’t a good practice and our species shouldn’t be in the practice of doing it.
Blood Knight: moral superior on this particular issue, perhaps. Hinduism, while fascinating, is a classic example of justifying oppression by the elites over the “lesser” castes, who of course, have earned their status. In my limited experience, upper caste Indians can be egregiously snobby and class conscious. But then, Europe’s and their American heirs babbled about the Mark of Ham, with the Mormon cult holding to this belief up until the 1970s!
But the British worship of the precious, precious free market led to millions of people starving to death. Which is worse? Arguably, India, which was by some measures the richest country in the world, saw its economy and society devastated by British colonial rule. Despite a few nice things like railroads and your example.
This kind of calculus is both impossible and should be seen as necessary before making such statements.
I came across a historian (English) who was educated at Cambridge, and taught at universities outside Britain; he was much exercised by anyone paying attention to slavery, and said the proper field of interest should be colonial history, by which he appeared to mean rehearsing the old tales of Clive of India, Cecil Rhodes et al. I remarked that slavery was an integral part of colonialism so that I did not see how it could be ignored. I find nothing positive, morally or otherwise, about slavery, the constant use of violence, and the extreme violence that was used if slaves rebelled; and I find nothing positive about the torture, mutilation, rape and murder of members of the Kikuyu tribe in Kenya in the last century, something that British governments sought to cover up for years.
One reason, of course, why India was ‘more complicated’ than the Americas was because the people of India were not susceptible to the Old World diseases that European adventurers brought to the New World. Africa, which is a continent, is a great deal more complicated than many people would like to suppose, and it always has been. But few people in the West are seriously interested in the history of Africa south of those nations bordering on the Mediterranean, largely because they don’t suppose it had a history, or, rather, many histories.
Australia seems to be at last coming to some sort of terms with the violent history of its treatment (which included many massacres) of the original people who settled there, as does New Zealand; and if that involves a bit of ‘woo’, I really do not care, since it is not going to change the present course of science – science that in the past included the kind of ideas that remain dear to the heart of the still extant James Watson.
No doubt there were some positives in colonialism, and I do not wish to deny them, but I am reminded by those who dwell on them of something my Japanese wife heard from a colleague at the music university where she taught, here in Japan. The colleague was complaining about Chinese ingratitude because, after all, ‘we Japanese’ had built railways there prior to the Second World War. I have heard the same words with respect to India from British people.
Blood Knight #12
I suggest that you look up the name of Ram Mohan Roy in connexion with suttee; you will find that its banning was certainly not due solely to the enlightened members of the East India Company. He also fought against polygamy, child marriage and the caste system, and for property inheritance rights for women.
As for the benefits of colonialism, Roy, as well as other Indians, criticised the ‘drain’ whereby around one-half of the total revenue collected in India ‘was sent to England, leaving India, with a considerably larger population, to use the remaining money to maintain social well-being.’ (See Wikipedia)
And here’s something from the Economic Times of India:
JAIPUR: The East India Company knew the best way to conquer India was to control its trade and that is why controlling of ports became so important for them, noted politician and writer Shashi Tharoor said here today.
Tharoor, who was speaking at a session at the ongoing Jaipur Literature Festival here, said the company indulged in “fair amount of loot” and was “ruthless” in exaction of taxes.
“They found they could not succeed by buying Indian textiles and have to destroy it (textile industry) and they did that systematically,” he said, noting that there were “vested interests” involved that kept the company going.
According to him, the “horrendous” organisation did not even spare weavers and cut their funds.
“The Company also cut the funds of the weavers. The largest exporter of textiles was reduced to importing textiles from England,” he said, adding that India also had a “sophisticated” banking system.
Tharoor was in conversation with historian William Dalrymple at a session titled, “The Dishonourable Company: How the East India Company Took Over India”, where he also talked about his latest book, “An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India” which attempts to challenge the notion that the British rule was beneficial for India.
He said the British were in India only for money and also controlled the revenue in the country.
Agreeing with Tharoor’s description, Dalrymple said the company was a “tiny multi-national which created mayhem”.
Note I mentioned the duke, and not the East India Company which was notorious for being corrupt, incompetent, and inclined to start shit when it didn’t have to. Old Nosey was in India to clean up their fucking mess and he did to an extent, gaining experience that was put to good use liberating the continent from the Corsican Ogre. He did this while fighting armies from the multiple sub-nations within India most of which had significantly more men, comparable kit, and in many cases comparable drilling to what the Brits were using (and had fewer shit officers). Hardly mowing down natives with Lewis guns then, was it?
What do we get from colonialism? Diverse democracies, greater genetic diversity, an end to the speciation of homo sapiens, and less genocide than is the human default. Obviously it was still quite bad, so the important thing is to remember who we were and to stop doing it (we’re mostly there).
Note that I mentioned Ram Mohan Roy, because I wished to draw attention to the common assumption that if something which we agree is good was done to improve ‘native’ societies, it was conceived and put into practice solely by enlightened Empire Builders, and those ‘natives’ who fought for their rights and for social improvements – like Roy, like Apongo, like Olaudah Equiano – are mostly ignored. We prefer feel-good stories that make us appear in a good light. I am not going to get into an argument with your Pinker-esque views, but shall merely say that matters are a great deal more complicated than Pinker’s breezy optimism and the utilitarianism which underpins it allow.
[…] a pair of comments by Tim Harris on Imperialism: not THAT […]
I should like to add, with respect to Sastra’a claim that the British introduced universal education in India ‘to the horror of the deposed ruling class’, that there are a number of articles that may be Googled on the internet about education in India before and after the British took control, and none of them are very flattering about the ‘reforms’ introduced by the British. One might start with the Wikipedia article: History of education in the Indian subcontinent.
Sorry to add something so late on, but ‘Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire’ by Caroline Elkins (the historian who brought to light British behaviour towards the Kikuyu in Kenya) has been published to considerable acclaim. I have not read it, and since it is quite expensive, I am waiting for the paperback edition to come out later this year.
The second thing I want to say is that I find it difficult to respect the unquestioned assumption among rather too many people (and the defensiveness that accompanies it) that recognising the evils one’s country has done, and is doing, is somehow incompatible with a love of one’s native land, and is unpatriotic. That assumption of course is an important element in the Boris Johnson view of national history. I believe that one has a moral duty to recognise realities and truth, and to seek to make one’s native land a better place.