I am really grateful to The Telegraph and Nigel. It is marvellous to watch people who point to the facts and have expertise. I guess everyone is tired of baseless allegations and overwhelming emotions of some groups. Let's study more and try to be more accurate
Nigel Biggar should read more on India, where the British administration created famine after famine and was influenced by Malthus, and John Sturat Mill, and did nothing to control the incident of a famine. The worst example was the 1943 Bengal Famine which was caused because Bengal was isolated from the rest of India, and the Government started hoarding foodgain to be exported to Europe, imports from other states of India were allowed only for exports to Europe. About 5 million perished as a result directly, another 5 milion died afterwards with diseases as a result of the famine. These type of writers like Biggar, or Murray, or Ferguson are justifying evils of colonialism.
They should teach the Ottoman Empire, Zulu Empire etc in schools (or run a series on world slavery and empire since pre-history on the TV). Many people are totally unaware that these have been a feature since the dawn of human existence.
@@p382742937423y4 Whatever the other empires did, does not diminish the atrocities carried by the British. And no one's stopping anyone from writing books about other empires.
One wrong cannot justify another. Massacres of Armenian and Greeks by the Turks cannot justify massacres of the Jews and Russians by Germans or the killings of the people of india through famines created by the British.
Hooray for Nigel Biggar! And hooray Steven Edginton for interviewing him. I will go straight out tomorrow morning to buy the book and will look out for more of these interviews.
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 Ah, a most illuminating proclamation, indeed, to suggest that the sprawling dominion of the British Empire danced to the devil's tune. How quaintly sinister, for one can easily picture the legions of imperial bureaucrats moonlighting as fiendish minions, all while sipping tea and plotting the nefarious takeover of far-flung lands.
Basically a pretty thought provoking History lesson. Got me very curious about the book. Also, on another note,we need more young people like this Journalist/interviewer ,as opposed to Propagandists reading from a politically charged script.
Looking forward to buying his book. His voice was needed on Radio 4 during the Summer of 2020 when they had a moral maze episode about decolonisation but did not include a panelist who was critical of it. That was the last time I tuned in.
What that lady with the very right wing views wasnt on it? I havent listened in a while. I always found I learned something from it. Didnt always change my basic view but often one moderates ones view or at least learns to understand why others might differ.
@@helenamcginty4920 I don't recall who was on it, but the very question was presented as an uncontested fact (something like decolonisation is a sensible thing that needs to happen... how shall we do it). Not what I was looking for in the BLM frenzy that had taken over the country. No debate (not on the level it was needed at anyway). Yes, it is a good programme generally (or was once - not sure what it is like nowadays).
Would there be any industrial revolution in England without the revenue of Bengal? Bengal was occupied in 1747 and the industrial revolution was started in 1760 in England.
An ethicist in our time is rare if not unique. Under his humble almost ascetic demeanour with which he assesses the vast wealth of historic facts he clearly has poured over in search of the true contextual morality of the time make him a scholar and a true force in this field. His account is pure history perceived from the ethical vantage point. What would be history and historic research/facts without discerning them and seeing them from the ethical viewpoint. His work is a valuable contribution to the British Empire history, an account deeply researched with amazing integrity and humility. A veritable scholar, so rare in our times.
At 2.:30 Prof Biggar correctly summarises and identifies the problem. And the answer is yes, without doubt, the basis for the Britain's mercantile and economic endowment, and its concomitant wider social impacts, is a legacy of its colonial endeavours in the past . But the next discussion should be about how to acknowledge this, and how to learn from it and how to frame an appropriate national and international response that looks to a more fairer and more equitable framework of engagement with other peoples and countries.
Africans had been selling other Africans for centuries (or even longer) before the British arrived. When the British started buying them, they were already being sold to the Arabs, Ewjs, and other Africans - so why shouldn't the British buy them too? Also read "They were white, they were slaves". Britons had been en slav ed for centuries too - tens of thousands ending up in Africa and Arabia...
@@garyphisher7375 Ah, verily, the assertion that Africans had engaged in the trade of their brethren ere the British's arrival does not absolve the latter's participation in such iniquity. To claim that others partook in the abhorrent act of slavery does not diminish the wrongness of the British's involvement. The argument of "why shouldn't the British buy them too" stands on shaky moral ground, for it disregards the fundamental principles of human dignity and compassion. Furthermore, to draw comparisons with the enslavement of Britons in distant lands does not condone the suffering inflicted upon others. The fact that hardships were endured by Britons in the past should not be used to downplay the gravity of the transatlantic slave trade or its enduring impact on countless lives. Let us not be swayed by the temptation to excuse historical wrongs by pointing fingers at others; instead, let us seek to understand the full extent of human suffering and strive to promote empathy, reconciliation, and justice.
One thing he said very confidently that how Royal navy spent 30 percent of its resources to stop slave trade . This begs the Q where does the finances came from? It came from the back breaking toil of Indian , African peasantry in hot burning sun of tropics . How convenient of him !! No doubt old man is desperate because narrative of good empire is falling like the pack of cards when so much of evidence can be marshaled.
Yes nd there were loads of people loyal to Britain in America. It was only with the help of the French that the Americans were able to pull it off. What I love is the fact the French did this at a time when they would have been, I am guessing here, executing democrats as commiting treason (sedition), like they did in the UK at the time. That the democratic theory which largely originated in France at that time came back on them in the form of the French Revolution. Like Ancient Rome though the American constitution is designed to keep out tyrants like George 3rd. Pretty sensible really, even if the motivation is greed all dressed up as liberty, fraterny, equality.
Britain has an apalng histry. Britain waged wars against Australian aboriginals and nz maori. Britain waged 12 wars in the Indian subcontinent Britain waged 3 wars against afghanistan We did the right thing by rebelling against britain.
@@briancrowther3272 Britain has an apalng histry. Britain waged wars against Australian aboriginals and nz maori. Britain waged 12 wars in the Indian subcontinent Britain waged 3 wars against afghanistan We did the right thing by rebelling against britain.
I wonder if a deeper explanation of Prejudice vs. Racism would be useful. Humans are born with a need to Pre-Judge the outcomes of situations they encounter in life. Every society has Prejudice. However, racism is an incorrect, and extremist learned behaviour, and is relatively rare in most countries including the U.S.
My mind don't make me laugh British empire ie England was the most evil empire in the world thieving,plundering committing genocide starving other countries deliberately and England UK are still at it
Surely at its simplest it is the movement from being a colonised entity to being an independent state i.e. from being colonised to being not colonised?
It is not that simple. Decolonisation is often followed by the process of the seizure of power by a small clique of indigenous individuals who rule the country as if it were a conquered territory. This process occurred in almost all African countries.
No, 'decolonisation' is the West being colonized by people who hate it and want to destroy its history and culture in the name of historical grievance.
Wow! It is scary the whole Race thing is scary globally. It has happened here in New Zealand under Jacinda Ardern, trying to rewrite history. Here in New Zealand we had a Treaty...we still squabble about it, but not too often. However now we are being forced to discover Co Governance....no more one person one vote!!!!!???!!!
The biggest slave owner in the history of mankind was Mansa Musa, the King of the Mali Kingdom in the midst of the 14th century. He possessed only for his own use (not in his whole kingdom) between 12000 and 13000 slaves. He has been, by the way, the richest man that has existed so far. He owned about 400 billion Dollars in nowadays currency. The story of the "poor Blacks" is a leftish myth. African kingdoms or tribes fought against each other for centuries and sold their war prisoners to Europeans or/and Arabs. Charles Taylor, Mobutu, Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe were "very nice" Blacks, too...not to forget Papa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti. What about Louis Farrakhan who declared the superiority of the black race? A "nice guy", too, of course...??
The slave trade by Britain accounted for about 20 million slaves. SO your argument is silly. two wrongs dont makje a right anyway. Slavery is bad always bad.
Am not a fan of the idea of Empire from the Persians, Romans through to the current Russian imperial pretensions. We are witnessing what it feels like from the invaded country currently. But whereas I learnt about the British Empire at school, even while it was slowly disintegrating, why did we never learn about the Malian Empire, the Zulu empire et al. Possibly because back in the 1950s it was still not acknowledged that African countries were civilised before Europeans went there? I am also not keen on the wholesale kow towing to the (what seems to be mostly white, middle class, and self important ) bullies who do not want even to listen to another view.
@@bryanoneill2639 There is indeed! The Anglo-saxons, the hundred years war, The Stuarts, the English Civil War, the enlightenment, industrial revolution, ww1...
@@tiger6218That revolting practice was part of their customs. The Indians had civilisations going back to possibly 3000 BC. We were still in the neolithic. So the British, quite rightly,banned a cruel cultural practice while at the same time in Britain women were not allowed to control their own lives. Especially women from wealthy families and the aristocracy who were treated as chattels to be bargained lije cattle.
Colonialism seems to me to have the dynamics of an arms race. We simply couldn't opt out of it just like we had no option than to build a strong navy. It was bad enough when it was just the French and Spanish, but when Germany started their colonies in East Africa everybody had no other choice but to join in the scramble.
Loads of countries are better off than we are. The tories have eviscerated our nation. I would leave if I could, and I wouldn't be able to raise a family here
Mind boggling ability to discuss the European imperial era without use of vocabulary such as class, democracy, self-determination, nationalism. Did he use the word colonialism? Not sure.
All European countries with a colonial past engaged in slavery. Different times and morals. Excuses are irrelevant. Being nostalgic about it is delusional. Fight slavery today instead.
Every generation looks back on the prior generation. We must understand the context of the times. Instead some seem to shame the past looking through the prism of current beliefs(which maybe attacked by a future generation). Lastly, we cherish our past for particular actions they did. It is the action that is cherished embodied by the figurehead. In todays world, the figurehead is attacked for faults they had unrelated to the act we cherish. So many people, rightly or wrongly, do not bother themselves with the historical record instead relying on the town cryer to contextualize their own views.
Anti-imperialism has been around for over 100 years. Not just in the US, but in the UK itself as well as other geographies. Todays view in the UK ratifies the relinquishing of colonialism. So why then speak to what countries, like the US, pushed for anti-imperialism. No one or few in the UK are pining for the old imperialistic days so who cares who was for it or against it so many decades ago?
Its almost as if there is a concerted effort to remove national identity, we need to past to learn from it so the same mistakes are not made in the future, by removing it and denying it, we are condemning us to repeat it in the future, I don't think the UK alone is seeing this, slowly over time this will happen to all the other western countries then the eastern ones stripping their identities too, they are working from largest to smallest.. are we heading towards a 1 world government?
We almost certainly are. The dismantling of the nation-state in favour of an international network of smart cities, with planned settlements on the Moon and Mars.
The west? Asserts Putin and China are not the west. The european part of Russia is the west? Its economic and political model is western. China has communism as its ideology, this is a western ideology. Marx did much of his resaerch based on the mills of Lancashire with his mate Engles who owned one. Communism as per Marx comes out of western theory of demorcarcy that led to the French Revolution, liberty, equality and fraternity. It is the bnit that concentrates on fraternity, this is western. The telegraph does not like this fact and in that regard publishes much that undermines democracy eg neo liberal ideas, based soley on the liberty part. So the thesis that Russia and China are not west is silly. They under communism totally took on a western ideology and Putin's capitalism does the same. That other emoires had salvery does not make the use of t OK. Just as its bad for the British Empire it is bad for those as well. It is false to say that people who criticise slavery only iuse it to bash the British EMpire, just rubbish.
To what extent is society’s change of view on slavery related to the advent of machines in the industrial revolution? One could argue that when mechanical effort began to replace human effort, it became easier to abandon slavery.
@@kimspence-jones4765 Study up about it and how Jesuits and others helped people of South America against secular imperialist and slave owners. The Pope had little power, he proclaimed a Bull, the secular monarchs said, no.
Attacks on the British empire… otherwise known as the historical record. Why exactly is it that the telegraph is so keen to tell historians what they can and cannot say?
The British Empire has positively benefited the world. The legacy of English Law, democracy, education, a civil service to run a modern state, industrialisation, a common unifying language, even international sport. And the obvious one, abolishing slavery. We all know the phrase “what did the Roman’s ever do for us” That applies even more where the British are concerned.
The New Zealand Labour government introduced a New Zealand history curriculum this year. Written by largely activist Māori academics it “places colonisation at the heart of the curriculum”. This is built on the presumption European British colonisation was all negative and brought no benefits. The curriculum for not include Polynesian colonisation (of the last land mass to be inhabited by humans since Homo sapiens left Southern Africa). This avoids “confronting uncomfortable truths” about endemic tribal warfare, slavery and widespread cannibalism well documented by eyewitness European observers from navigator Captain James Cook onward and including idealist Christian missionaries, Anglican, Wesleyan et al. The colonial office was loathe to extend imperial rule beyond the Australian colonies - until French explorers and navigators arrived in New Zealand. In fact the Treaty of Waitangi between the Crown ie Queen Victoria was signed just in time for French settlers to sail into Akaroa Harbour in the South Island to find the Union flag flying.
yes and later 10,000 British troops were sent to bring a rebellion by Maories into line and another Treaty was signed. The Maories as far as the Oz ABC show I watched, with the NZ famous actor doing the presenetaion (of Jurrasic Park fame etc, superb actor, Sam....?) made a treaty with the British as they thought they had to make one with one or the other and thought it wiser to go with the Bristish as it would help them more than going with the French.
There was only 1 Treaty signed. The Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. There was an earlier Alliance between some northern Maori Tribes who declared the country's independance. But they had no authority over other Tribes. Who rejected the Alliance! Therefore, no means of exercising authority across the whole country! It was this relative state of lawlessness and the on going tribal wars and disputes. That led to the Treaty of Waitangi with Britain. Instigated in the end, by Queen Victoria. The majority of Maori Chiefs and leaders saw the Treaty as a way of bringing this 'lawless' state of affairs to an end! And also increasing numbers of British settlers and citizens were arriving in NZ. Some Maori Tribes later rebelled against the Treaty. And they were punished, which included land confiscations. However a number of innocent Tribes also, (wrongly) had some of their land confiscated. This played a part in the land wars of the 1860s. Which resulted in later settlements and compensations. When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. There were 2 other prospective colonisers emerging. France and just starting to take an interest in the Pacific at the time. The U.S. No doubt these factors also played a part in the Treaty of Waitangi.
As an African who studied African history in an AfricanUniversity, I see what he saying as being philosophical gloss over British colonalism. Did British colonialism bring modernization and innovation to Africa? Yes it did but mostly for the benefit of trade of which the British govt was the main beneficiary. They took over all factors of economic production in Africa. When they opened African society especially in Nigeria, to indigenous trade, loans for example, that came from the few banks that existed at time like Barclays went to mostly to whites, indians, Syrians, Lebanese first before it got to the indigenous population. They tricked us into signing off our lands through dubious schemes they claimed was in protection from foreign adversaries (which they ended up being these adversaries), called Protectorates. They insisted and tried to force a visit to the Oba of Benin on the day of a sacred indigenous festival and were warned beforehand not do so. Yet they didn't respect the culture which led to the 1898 Benin Massacre (about 8 people were killed) as they called it and bombarded the Benin Kingdom killing thousands which they called just a bombardment. And I can go on and on horrific things the British Empire did in Africa. So there is no moral justification for colonialism.
Excellent but, I think also think we've missed that these people were religious! They didn't have post Darwininan understanding of the world. Many believed in Christ, salvation & spreading the gospel.
He points out that under the ottoman empire a slave could rise to the heady heights of prime minister but does not point out how that would have been impossible under the the type of slavery the British Empire had. If one is going to compare then do so properly. Slavery was completely different under different empires. I wonder why he does not do this. 🤔
@@vernongoodey5096 Gandhi was very angry at the Brits in Natal, South Africa because they lumped him with black people. Apparently that was a major injustice for him.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 for reasons of common history, we can't exclude Canada, but I'll take Hawaii if the US and the native Hawaiians are happy with it
I'm Irish and I understand the empire does not exist. Canada, NZ and Australia are independent states of the Commonwealth (whateverthat is). Sheesh, if this is the level of ignorance is it any wonder incompetent tories are voted in and nonsense like brexit happens.
@@alanbstard4 Britain has an apalng histry. Britain waged wars against Australian aboriginals and nz maori. Britain waged 12 wars in the Indian subcontinent Britain waged 3 wars against afghanistan We did the right thing by rebelling against britain.
I googled the title for his book before I came to RUclips cause I’m considering buying his book. First link. Guardian column. Surprise surprise they weren’t impressed.
It was only after their defeat in the First World War that the Ottoman Empire abolished slavery under pressure exerted by Britain and France, circa 1923.
As a Texan, I'd like to apologize for America's corrupting leftist influence. FWIW, we have a similar situation where new catastrophic policies start is California, Chicago, or New York City, and then spread like cancer across America. This is a huge reason some us want an independent Texas, although we recognize this is unlikely to be realized.
It's worse than that, they walk around minority majority cities thinking the natives they've replaced owe them an apology over colonialism! They will try and find a grain of salt in the pepper shaker just so they can try and explain to them what it felt like to be colonised. It would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous!
Undermines the imperialists crooks still freely operating in London, fat off Indian wealth. Many of whom served as inspiration for Ian Fleming's Bond villains. Piracy is not a "Western value."
I am not sure that from a clear and unambiguous position of juniority, since really WWII to the present (and perhaps even more so having cut our influence and ties with the continent of Europe), to the United States we should be talking disparagingly about the United States, our one and only *special* *relationship* . Especially, given what that relationship has given us over the years (actually as far back as WWI). We really ought to know how reliant upon the U.S. we have been and still very much are, rather than the U.S. being all that heavily reliant upon us. We ought to be pragmatic and know our place, as United Kingdom, before the United States. It is called *realpolitik* , and I expected much better from the Telegraph. Being junior partner to the United States has stood the United Kingdom in good stead. We ought to always remember that.
@@briancrowther3272 No Brian. If we were in the 1820s, I would have happily gone along with your dismissive acronym. But we are in the 2020s. To know one's place in the order of things, certainly know our place before the United States is realism. Think of Churchill, think of our great Margaret Thatcher: ultimately, it is pragmatism, pragmatism and more pragmatism in the Anglo-American special relationship. It is working with reality, Brian, and thus furthering our interests in the shadow of the United States. Really, nothing wrong with that. We have to adapt Brian. I expected the Telegraph to do its work from within such well established realities.
Even the Spanish Empire has redeeming traits: they ended two of the worst systemic genocides in human history to that point, the Incan Empire and Aztec Empire. Bottom line, slavery was endemic worldwide and Christianity (and the British Empire) ended it in most of the world.
Pity the book did not cover any of the substantial moral issues like decimating natives in America, Australia, and elsewhere. It should have covered the potato famine in Ireland. It should have covered the two Opium Wars against China. And so on and so forth.
He reminds me of my uncle John who just can’t believe we don’t have an empire anymore and those cheeky natives are even daring to come and live here!! The cannon fodder stopped breeding long ago haha
Europe now has massive net immigration from young people seeking a better life. The choice is to either build walls or get involved in the management of countries that are run so badly that young people want to leave. Colonialism is one way of getting involved perhaps we need to find other ways.
There is no need to place lived before experience, the entire point of the word experience is to convey the understanding that the person has, experienced something, they can not do that while dead for example.
It is astonishing that one criticises the EU to which every nation applies but the British Empire is marked by slavery, racism, and the EU is a better vindication of the West, not the British Empire
Take the discussion to the next level. Is pushback from whites happening and if so how big will it go does panic overcome sound civic humane policy in correcting this perceived wrong an injustice to whites that is going unheard today
The slave trade flourished right up to the early 1900s in Queensland and Northern West Australia. So, while officially banned it was socially and judicially accepted.
The British cope just fine and it's worth remembering that most of the former colonies have kept the British Monarch as a figure head and joined the British commonwealth. I honestly don't think there is another empire going back as far as the Akkadian's that have remained on such friendly terms with their former colonies!
It's the expression and politics of envy pure and simple. What would the world look like now without the British Empire ever having happened? History is history isn't It?
The British should be thanked and compensated for what we achieved against the slave trade and the sacrifices we made. African slavery has nothing to do with racism as they even supplied and sold their own people into slavery. It was an easy resource to exploit and many countries exploited it.
The British were part of this slave trade and created it until they stopped doing it. So no thanks required. Maybe if the Brits did not pillage the Catholic Church and stayed Catholic it would have been a more moral empire. Back in 1537 Pope Paul III condemed and forbade slavery.
The slave owners were compensated to the tune of £400 billion - a debt so large that a loan had to be taken out, a loan that was only recently paid off by the British taxpayer. The slaves were thrown under the bus.
@@vivo-audio Good point. And the slave owners were often British themselves and spent that money in Britain so it was just money being recycled among the elites.
@@peterc.1419 Their great great grandchildren still reside in the faux Victorian castles and stately homes they built or purchased on return from the Caribbean. They bought peerages and land - they benefit from slavery to this very day.
The Spanish Empire was subjected to the 'Black Legend', by the Dutch and the British, it's ironic that the British are now complaining of getting unfairly criticised in the same manner as they did to others.
For many years the British Empire supported the Congress of Vienna, a fascist oppressive system which oppressed people in central Europe and the Balkans. If oppression is Western than the British Empire was western but Western philosophy and culture was not collectivist to a major degree and liberty emerged from that. Maybe the British Empire wasn't all that Western, after all. Not in the Aristotelian tradition at least? Maybe was more backward, tribalist pre-civilisational? I read about pre-Perry Japan. It was a country which practiced infanticide. Again not Western, slavery and infanticide and support for oppression, hardly Western.
Christ alive. The emphasis isn't put on European empires because it's some kind of concerted "assault" on the West. The emphasis is put there because an incredible amount of modern geopolitics, demographics and economics can only be understood in light of Western imperialism. The Zulu Empire might be a very important thing for people in (for example) South Africa to study, but it didn't exactly shape the modern world. No doubt at all that non-western imperialism has been just as bloody, brutal and greed-driven as Western imperialism, but what does studying those things do to inform the average western person about why things are as they are? Not all that much. Now yes, sometimes this focus on western imperialism does fail to take nuance into account. That is a bad thing. Sometimes the mistake is made of acting as if the west was purely evil and all the people they conquered were purely good. That is also bad. But it is _so_ easy to see, simply from an academic and pedagogical perspective, why this shift has happened, and it makes sense. It's partly, as I have said, out of expediency. It's also partly out of an academic desire to address a historic imbalance, since there was a time not all that long ago when imperialism was put on a pedestal with _at least_ as much bias as the modern narrative is accused of having. It's not because of some shadowy spooky leftist cabal trying to undermine the west. At the absolute most, the degree to which the left is responsible for not presenting a fully nuanced picture is out of a desire to _repair_ fractures within our own societies. Probably not the best way of going about it, admittedly, but (contrary to what many oddballs on the right seem to thing) leftists are not engaged in a deliberate attempt to make the world actively worse.
Hope this presentation does not become ammunition in the polarization that forces people not to listen to the there side. I don't see him as championing those who dismiss the other side . As someone who would be dismissed as left,progressive or woke, I see a genuine attempt here by him to be fair and,without having read his book I hope what he has to say will be heard and pondered.
"The motive of the massive migration was to seek a better life, due to famine, religious prosecutions, etc." But then he said the motive then is different from the motive of migration via the English channel. What is the difference? Everyone who comes to the UK came there for a better life, due to famine in their homes, wars caused by the US/UK, political and religious prosecutions, etc.
@@johnpower8849 agreed, your transcription is precise. He did indeed note that the motivations of mass-migration outward then were essentially the same as those trying to cross into the UK today. I don't agree with him entirely, however, as those heading out from the UK were not seeking to join a hand-out economy, nor a criminal underworld as a significant proportion of those heading to the UK today are doing.
Or maybe simply because they have an opportunity to come? Because white leftists in the West keep tolerating illegal immigrations. Where is this "wars caused by the US/UK" in Tunisia or Morocco?
There is a dilemma. Should we only post unity and positive monuments? Do we not risk nostalgia for the past to be misunderstood. Slavery and colonial rule were bad. There is a risk that like the Soviets we reshape the perception of the past. Abandoning our ideals for quick profits 📈. Skin color is a poor observation in this day and age. I feel a lawsuit coming.
If the British cannot withstand criticism of an empire that doesn't even exist any longer, what kind of a country are they. He is politising empire, he is not strengthening it.
The British, in general, have no 'problem' in a fair discussion that emphasizes both the good and less good aspects of the Empire - the good/best being an end to seaborne slavery globally, a massive increase in basic and university education, global trade across and between continents, a huge increase in public health and a decrease in poverty and isolation, and the creation of many new industries. Perhaps the biggest was the suppression of inter-ethnic and inter-tribal conflicts, often genocidal, that were the norm before the British arrived in Africa and south Asia - a scourge that exploded again across both continents - after the Empire ended.
@@MarktheMole Britain has an apalng histry. Britain waged wars against Australian aboriginals and nz maori. Britain waged 12 wars in the Indian subcontinent Britain waged 3 wars against afghanistan We did the right thing by rebelling against britain.
@@presidenteden6498 Battle of Britain was a very very very small even compared to Battle of France/Poland Battle of Britain was an embarasment of a battle compared to battle of Stalingrad Stop comparing styoopi battles like battle of britain to heroic battles like battle of stalingrad
His quote on criticism of empire: "Its only white empires, its only European empires, why is that?" Answer: ...because ultimately won out...and the winners often write the history, and reap the greatest benefits from it. And it's rich for him to say it's okay for the Brits to do it, since they were the best at it...but merely just parroting and touting the benefits of empire building in the West's history doesn't mean it was morally RIGHT! The problem of Russia and China using this as talking points against the West matters greatly, I agree...but the answer is NOT to deny the fact that racism has had a massive affect on the subjugation of mostly non-white races by European powers in the past. So...stop blaming BLM for this, they have very valid arguments, and the answers to some of those problems exist in the form of reparations funds, etc. Lets not ALLOW dictators to fabricate their opposition to the West based on this entirely separate matter.
Colonialism is not inherently good but it's not something inherently European either. Almost every major group/civilization has approximated colonialism and conquest of others.
I am really grateful to The Telegraph and Nigel. It is marvellous to watch people who point to the facts and have expertise. I guess everyone is tired of baseless allegations and overwhelming emotions of some groups. Let's study more and try to be more accurate
+140
557
6635
Text him on
WHATAPP
Nigel Biggar should read more on India, where the British administration created famine after famine and was influenced by Malthus, and John Sturat Mill, and did nothing to control the incident of a famine. The worst example was the 1943 Bengal Famine which was caused because Bengal was isolated from the rest of India, and the Government started hoarding foodgain to be exported to Europe, imports from other states of India were allowed only for exports to Europe. About 5 million perished as a result directly, another 5 milion died afterwards with diseases as a result of the famine.
These type of writers like Biggar, or Murray, or Ferguson are justifying evils of colonialism.
They should teach the Ottoman Empire, Zulu Empire etc in schools (or run a series on world slavery and empire since pre-history on the TV). Many people are totally unaware that these have been a feature since the dawn of human existence.
There were many empires in Africa.
I agree, if our history is to be taught properly in a "global" sense, then context is necessary and the wider history should be explained.
Yes, since other empires are not studied, they can be idealized as morally outstanding, equal, emancipated and peaceful, which they were likely not.
@@p382742937423y4 Whatever the other empires did, does not diminish the atrocities carried by the British. And no one's stopping anyone from writing books about other empires.
One wrong cannot justify another. Massacres of Armenian and Greeks by the Turks cannot justify massacres of the Jews and Russians by Germans or the killings of the people of india through famines created by the British.
Hooray for Nigel Biggar! And hooray Steven Edginton for interviewing him. I will go straight out tomorrow morning to buy the book and will look out for more of these interviews.
I bought it this week, its a great read that provides a lot to think about.
The British empire was under the influence of Satan
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 Ah, a most illuminating proclamation, indeed, to suggest that the sprawling dominion of the British Empire danced to the devil's tune. How quaintly sinister, for one can easily picture the legions of imperial bureaucrats moonlighting as fiendish minions, all while sipping tea and plotting the nefarious takeover of far-flung lands.
Basically a pretty thought provoking History lesson. Got me very curious about the book.
Also, on another note,we need more young people like this Journalist/interviewer ,as opposed to Propagandists reading from a politically charged script.
Attacks on young people undermine The West.
Hearing that from France, I have the feeling most of this is quite relevant to us as well.
Looking forward to buying his book. His voice was needed on Radio 4 during the Summer of 2020 when they had a moral maze episode about decolonisation but did not include a panelist who was critical of it. That was the last time I tuned in.
I’ve got the book. Gonna start reading it tonight.
@@Skibadeedee Oh I didn't realise it had already been published!
What that lady with the very right wing views wasnt on it? I havent listened in a while. I always found I learned something from it. Didnt always change my basic view but often one moderates ones view or at least learns to understand why others might differ.
Yes indeed the "moral maze" I caught that episode myself and it was a disgracefully biased event.
I bought his book this week, well worth a read.
@@helenamcginty4920 I don't recall who was on it, but the very question was presented as an uncontested fact (something like decolonisation is a sensible thing that needs to happen... how shall we do it). Not what I was looking for in the BLM frenzy that had taken over the country. No debate (not on the level it was needed at anyway). Yes, it is a good programme generally (or was once - not sure what it is like nowadays).
Would there be any industrial revolution in England without the revenue of Bengal? Bengal was occupied in 1747 and the industrial revolution was started in 1760 in England.
An ethicist in our time is rare if not unique. Under his humble almost ascetic demeanour with which he assesses the vast wealth of historic facts he clearly has poured over in search of the true contextual morality of the time make him a scholar and a true force in this field. His account is pure history perceived from the ethical vantage point. What would be history and historic research/facts without discerning them and seeing them from the ethical viewpoint. His work is a valuable contribution to the British Empire history, an account deeply researched with amazing integrity and humility. A veritable scholar, so rare in our times.
I did not know starving people and killing people was a good thing.
Very well articulated and thank God for men like this.
Very interesting commentary. I've just ordered a copy of Nigel Biggar's book.
Excellent interview
At 2.:30 Prof Biggar correctly summarises and identifies the problem. And the answer is yes, without doubt, the basis for the Britain's mercantile and economic endowment, and its concomitant wider social impacts, is a legacy of its colonial endeavours in the past . But the next discussion should be about how to acknowledge this, and how to learn from it and how to frame an appropriate national and international response that looks to a more fairer and more equitable framework of engagement with other peoples and countries.
Africans had been selling other Africans for centuries (or even longer) before the British arrived. When the British started buying them, they were already being sold to the Arabs, Ewjs, and other Africans - so why shouldn't the British buy them too?
Also read "They were white, they were slaves". Britons had been en slav ed for centuries too - tens of thousands ending up in Africa and Arabia...
@@garyphisher7375 Ah, verily, the assertion that Africans had engaged in the trade of their brethren ere the British's arrival does not absolve the latter's participation in such iniquity. To claim that others partook in the abhorrent act of slavery does not diminish the wrongness of the British's involvement. The argument of "why shouldn't the British buy them too" stands on shaky moral ground, for it disregards the fundamental principles of human dignity and compassion.
Furthermore, to draw comparisons with the enslavement of Britons in distant lands does not condone the suffering inflicted upon others. The fact that hardships were endured by Britons in the past should not be used to downplay the gravity of the transatlantic slave trade or its enduring impact on countless lives.
Let us not be swayed by the temptation to excuse historical wrongs by pointing fingers at others; instead, let us seek to understand the full extent of human suffering and strive to promote empathy, reconciliation, and justice.
@@arunnaik3375 Explain why it was wrong for the British to partake in slavery?
@@garyphisher7375 Pray tell, what barricades thwart your path in unraveling the enigma unaided?
He doesn’t address the fundamental question - what was the purpose of British Colonial Enterprise ?
@Richard Derbyshire Derbyshire the British colonial enterprise purpose was to steal other countries natural resources under the disguise of trade
One thing he said very confidently that how Royal navy spent 30 percent of its resources to stop slave trade . This begs the Q where does the finances came from? It came from the back breaking toil of Indian , African peasantry in hot burning sun of tropics . How convenient of him !! No doubt old man is desperate because narrative of good empire is falling like the pack of cards when so much of evidence can be marshaled.
Money
world trade... and war
Look forward to reading this book.
All empires come to the end when their time runout.
Do all empires necessarily have a shelf life?
same as disfunctionable so called nation states
Finally an honest explanation for why America REALLY rebelled against the motherland. American greed … nothing more
They wanted it all
Yes nd there were loads of people loyal to Britain in America. It was only with the help of the French that the Americans were able to pull it off. What I love is the fact the French did this at a time when they would have been, I am guessing here, executing democrats as commiting treason (sedition), like they did in the UK at the time. That the democratic theory which largely originated in France at that time came back on them in the form of the French Revolution.
Like Ancient Rome though the American constitution is designed to keep out tyrants like George 3rd. Pretty sensible really, even if the motivation is greed all dressed up as liberty, fraterny, equality.
Britain has an apalng histry.
Britain waged wars against Australian aboriginals and nz maori.
Britain waged 12 wars in the Indian subcontinent
Britain waged 3 wars against afghanistan
We did the right thing by rebelling against britain.
@@briancrowther3272 Britain has an apalng histry.
Britain waged wars against Australian aboriginals and nz maori.
Britain waged 12 wars in the Indian subcontinent
Britain waged 3 wars against afghanistan
We did the right thing by rebelling against britain.
I wonder if a deeper explanation of Prejudice vs. Racism would be useful. Humans are born with a need to Pre-Judge the outcomes of situations they encounter in life. Every society has Prejudice. However, racism is an incorrect, and extremist learned behaviour, and is relatively rare in most countries including the U.S.
Racism is not rare in China, Japan, the Middle East and Africa. It is rare in all the nations where it is claimed to be systemic.
No debate. British Empire was good to the world. Certainly better than almost any other Empire.
We didn't sacrifice virgins like the Mayas, Incas and Aztecs.
Roman Empire. Without that, there would have been no British empire.
Exactly. Under a Han Chinese Empire or a Turkish Empire or a German Empire. Omg.
My mind don't make me laugh British empire ie England was the most evil empire in the world thieving,plundering committing genocide starving other countries deliberately and England UK are still at it
Then try it again this time asia ruling Britain?
I love Steven’s work. He is a top journalist.
Surely at its simplest it is the movement from being a colonised entity to being an independent state i.e. from being colonised to being not colonised?
It is not that simple. Decolonisation is often followed by the process of the seizure of power by a small clique of indigenous individuals who rule the country as if it were a conquered territory. This process occurred in almost all African countries.
No, 'decolonisation' is the West being colonized by people who hate it and want to destroy its history and culture in the name of historical grievance.
Thanks
I wonder how many black historians Mr Biggar has asked for comment on his manuscript, or on his assessment of the British Empire in general.
Best deal in facts than box ticking
Bruce Gilley wrote a more forceful defense of colonialism and uses many anecdotes from natives.
@@forsetiaxe6784 _The case for colonialism_ (2023). Thanks for the tip.
Very well explained.
Well spoken, Nigel Biggar.
Wow! It is scary the whole Race thing is scary globally. It has happened here in New Zealand under Jacinda Ardern, trying to rewrite history. Here in New Zealand we had a Treaty...we still squabble about it, but not too often. However now we are being forced to discover Co Governance....no more one person one vote!!!!!???!!!
The biggest slave owner in the history of mankind was Mansa Musa, the King of the Mali Kingdom in the midst of the 14th century. He possessed only for his own use (not in his whole kingdom) between 12000 and 13000 slaves. He has been, by the way, the richest man that has existed so far. He owned about 400 billion Dollars in nowadays currency. The story of the "poor Blacks" is a leftish myth. African kingdoms or tribes fought against each other for centuries and sold their war prisoners to Europeans or/and Arabs. Charles Taylor, Mobutu, Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe were "very nice" Blacks, too...not to forget Papa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti. What about Louis Farrakhan who declared the superiority of the black race? A "nice guy", too, of course...??
The slave trade by Britain accounted for about 20 million slaves. SO your argument is silly. two wrongs dont makje a right anyway. Slavery is bad always bad.
Am not a fan of the idea of Empire from the Persians, Romans through to the current Russian imperial pretensions. We are witnessing what it feels like from the invaded country currently. But whereas I learnt about the British Empire at school, even while it was slowly disintegrating, why did we never learn about the Malian Empire, the Zulu empire et al. Possibly because back in the 1950s it was still not acknowledged that African countries were civilised before Europeans went there?
I am also not keen on the wholesale kow towing to the (what seems to be mostly white, middle class, and self important ) bullies who do not want even to listen to another view.
Finally, someone who can see it from both sides, this is why Uk has to look at its education system, there is more to history than
ww2 and the tudors
@@bryanoneill2639 There is indeed! The Anglo-saxons, the hundred years war, The Stuarts, the English Civil War, the enlightenment, industrial revolution, ww1...
Russians are influenced by the Mongols. Remember that Russians bowed down to the Mongols and were their enforcers on other people.
@@tiger6218That revolting practice was part of their customs. The Indians had civilisations going back to possibly 3000 BC. We were still in the neolithic.
So the British, quite rightly,banned a cruel cultural practice while at the same time in Britain women were not allowed to control their own lives. Especially women from wealthy families and the aristocracy who were treated as chattels to be bargained lije cattle.
Spot on
Colonialism seems to me to have the dynamics of an arms race. We simply couldn't opt out of it just like we had no option than to build a strong navy. It was bad enough when it was just the French and Spanish, but when Germany started their colonies in East Africa everybody had no other choice but to join in the scramble.
Just entitled people grabbing what they could,reprehensible
@@bryanoneill2639 No; worldwide competition to negate the power of the other. Germans, French, Ottamans, If no response, then defeat. Imperative!
@@bryanoneill2639 not "entitled", dominant.
@@robjob9052 exactly, the story of human existence. The strong flourish, the weak are subsumed.
@@bryanoneill2639 It's human nature. All nations did it including in Africa, Asia and the Americas.
Fantastic interview. Love this guy
Loads of countries are better off than we are. The tories have eviscerated our nation. I would leave if I could, and I wouldn't be able to raise a family here
Just bought the book
Mind boggling ability to discuss the European imperial era without use of vocabulary such as class, democracy, self-determination, nationalism. Did he use the word colonialism? Not sure.
Zulu wars he used . Spear v spear not spear v 15 pounder and martini henrey
which pre-colonial countries were democracies?
@@ario4795 what colonists were/are democracies?
@@Oluinneachainso it was moarchies ve monarchies
Interesting topic.
All European countries with a colonial past engaged in slavery. Different times and morals. Excuses are irrelevant. Being nostalgic about it is delusional. Fight slavery today instead.
People of all races throughout the world engaged in slavery
Every generation looks back on the prior generation. We must understand the context of the times. Instead some seem to shame the past looking through the prism of current beliefs(which maybe attacked by a future generation). Lastly, we cherish our past for particular actions they did. It is the action that is cherished embodied by the figurehead. In todays world, the figurehead is attacked for faults they had unrelated to the act we cherish. So many people, rightly or wrongly, do not bother themselves with the historical record instead relying on the town cryer to contextualize their own views.
Good man, good interview; book ordered. 😊
Oxymoronic: de-colonisation is actually colonisation in plain sight!
Precisely, but under the guise of democratic values. Empires evolve, colonialism evolved the masks change but the faces remains the same
Hear, hear!
Well done Harry for fanning NYT's flames
I will never apologies for my countries history or for the colour of my skin.
I’m proud to be British and European.
Just ordered the book
Anti-imperialism has been around for over 100 years. Not just in the US, but in the UK itself as well as other geographies. Todays view in the UK ratifies the relinquishing of colonialism. So why then speak to what countries, like the US, pushed for anti-imperialism. No one or few in the UK are pining for the old imperialistic days so who cares who was for it or against it so many decades ago?
Its almost as if there is a concerted effort to remove national identity, we need to past to learn from it so the same mistakes are not made in the future, by removing it and denying it, we are condemning us to repeat it in the future, I don't think the UK alone is seeing this, slowly over time this will happen to all the other western countries then the eastern ones stripping their identities too, they are working from largest to smallest.. are we heading towards a 1 world government?
So knowing the truth, flaws & all does NOT strip any nation or culture of their identity! What a bizarre idea.
We almost certainly are. The dismantling of the nation-state in favour of an international network of smart cities, with planned settlements on the Moon and Mars.
I am from Yorkshire. I want comoensation for what they did to my people in 1069-70 where they murdered and displaced 85% of my people.
The west? Asserts Putin and China are not the west. The european part of Russia is the west? Its economic and political model is western. China has communism as its ideology, this is a western ideology. Marx did much of his resaerch based on the mills of Lancashire with his mate Engles who owned one. Communism as per Marx comes out of western theory of demorcarcy that led to the French Revolution, liberty, equality and fraternity. It is the bnit that concentrates on fraternity, this is western. The telegraph does not like this fact and in that regard publishes much that undermines democracy eg neo liberal ideas, based soley on the liberty part. So the thesis that Russia and China are not west is silly. They under communism totally took on a western ideology and Putin's capitalism does the same.
That other emoires had salvery does not make the use of t OK. Just as its bad for the British Empire it is bad for those as well. It is false to say that people who criticise slavery only iuse it to bash the British EMpire, just rubbish.
To what extent is society’s change of view on slavery related to the advent of machines in the industrial revolution? One could argue that when mechanical effort began to replace human effort, it became easier to abandon slavery.
1537, Sublimis Deus.
@@peterc.1419 Theory vs practice?
@@kimspence-jones4765 Study up about it and how Jesuits and others helped people of South America against secular imperialist and slave owners. The Pope had little power, he proclaimed a Bull, the secular monarchs said, no.
What a blanket statement putting down a people.
Who other than Britain abandoned slavery? There was no black slavery in Britain.
Lenin was anti-emperical but created the largest empire, by land mass, in history.
Paul, George and Ringo were OK though.
@Vatsmith lol. Yea they weren't bad. Auto-correct
Lenin inherited the Russian empire. He did not add to it.
The British empire was massive and it stopped slavery
Attacks on the British empire… otherwise known as the historical record. Why exactly is it that the telegraph is so keen to tell historians what they can and cannot say?
R.D. Hamel fake historical records
Irony
can i ask, where is the empire again???
Good point, what was it really, so different in so many places.
Occupied six counties, Gibraltar, Diego Garcia, parts of Cyprus and a few more.
The British Empire has positively benefited the world. The legacy of English Law, democracy, education, a civil service to run a modern state, industrialisation, a common unifying language, even international sport. And the obvious one, abolishing slavery. We all know the phrase “what did the Roman’s ever do for us”
That applies even more where the British are concerned.
The New Zealand Labour government introduced a New Zealand history curriculum this year. Written by largely activist Māori academics it “places colonisation at the heart of the curriculum”. This is built on the presumption European British colonisation was all negative and brought no benefits. The curriculum for not include Polynesian colonisation (of the last land mass to be inhabited by humans since Homo sapiens left Southern Africa). This avoids “confronting uncomfortable truths” about endemic tribal warfare, slavery and widespread cannibalism well documented by eyewitness
European observers from navigator Captain James Cook onward and including idealist Christian missionaries, Anglican, Wesleyan et al. The colonial office was loathe to extend imperial rule beyond the Australian colonies - until French explorers and navigators arrived in New Zealand.
In fact the Treaty of Waitangi between the Crown ie Queen Victoria was signed just in time for French settlers to sail into Akaroa Harbour in the South Island to find the Union flag flying.
yes and later 10,000 British troops were sent to bring a rebellion by Maories into line and another Treaty was signed. The Maories as far as the Oz ABC show I watched, with the NZ famous actor doing the presenetaion (of Jurrasic Park fame etc, superb actor, Sam....?) made a treaty with the British as they thought they had to make one with one or the other and thought it wiser to go with the Bristish as it would help them more than going with the French.
There was only 1 Treaty signed. The Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. There was an earlier Alliance between some northern Maori Tribes who declared the country's independance. But they had no authority over other Tribes. Who rejected the Alliance! Therefore, no means of exercising authority across the whole country! It was this relative state of lawlessness and the on going tribal wars and disputes. That led to the Treaty of Waitangi with Britain. Instigated in the end, by Queen Victoria. The majority of Maori Chiefs and leaders saw the Treaty as a way of bringing this 'lawless' state of affairs to an end! And also increasing numbers of British settlers and citizens were arriving in NZ. Some Maori Tribes later rebelled against the Treaty. And they were punished, which included land confiscations. However a number of innocent Tribes also, (wrongly) had some of their land confiscated. This played a part in the land wars of the 1860s. Which resulted in later settlements and compensations. When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. There were 2 other prospective colonisers emerging. France and just starting to take an interest in the Pacific at the time. The U.S. No doubt these factors also played a part in the Treaty of Waitangi.
@@briancrowther3272 Sam Neill actually born in Ireland.
As an African who studied African history in an AfricanUniversity, I see what he saying as being philosophical gloss over British colonalism. Did British colonialism bring modernization and innovation to Africa? Yes it did but mostly for the benefit of trade of which the British govt was the main beneficiary.
They took over all factors of economic production in Africa. When they opened African society especially in Nigeria, to indigenous trade, loans for example, that came from the few banks that existed at time like Barclays went to mostly to whites, indians, Syrians, Lebanese first before it got to the indigenous population. They tricked us into signing off our lands through dubious schemes they claimed was in protection from foreign adversaries (which they ended up being these adversaries), called Protectorates.
They insisted and tried to force a visit to the Oba of Benin on the day of a sacred indigenous festival and were warned beforehand not do so. Yet they didn't respect the culture which led to the 1898 Benin Massacre (about 8 people were killed) as they called it and bombarded the Benin Kingdom killing thousands which they called just a bombardment.
And I can go on and on horrific things the British Empire did in Africa. So there is no moral justification for colonialism.
Truth Matters
Excellent but, I think also think we've missed that these people were religious!
They didn't have post Darwininan understanding of the world. Many believed in Christ, salvation & spreading the gospel.
This guy must really dislike the movie RRR.
He points out that under the ottoman empire a slave could rise to the heady heights of prime minister but does not point out how that would have been impossible under the the type of slavery the British Empire had. If one is going to compare then do so properly. Slavery was completely different under different empires. I wonder why he does not do this. 🤔
Blacks can't because they don't have the smarts
Slaves also acquired their freedom in the West. They could become very influential and rich. Your argument is looking at irrelevant points.
Didn’t Gandhi rise to power in India when it was part of the British Empire. Then was assassinated by a fellow countryman after Independence
Imperialists will find any excuse for slavery and their inheritant racism.
@@vernongoodey5096 Gandhi was very angry at the Brits in Natal, South Africa because they lumped him with black people. Apparently that was a major injustice for him.
the empire should be reformed with only Australia, NZ, Canada, UK
Please exclude Canada, it's too cold and run by a Frenchman. Include Hawaii which Britain used to own.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 for reasons of common history, we can't exclude Canada, but I'll take Hawaii if the US and the native Hawaiians are happy with it
I'm Irish and I understand the empire does not exist. Canada, NZ and Australia are independent states of the Commonwealth (whateverthat is). Sheesh, if this is the level of ignorance is it any wonder incompetent tories are voted in and nonsense like brexit happens.
Have a look at the flag of Hawaii
@@alanbstard4 Britain has an apalng histry.
Britain waged wars against Australian aboriginals and nz maori.
Britain waged 12 wars in the Indian subcontinent
Britain waged 3 wars against afghanistan
We did the right thing by rebelling against britain.
I googled the title for his book before I came to RUclips cause I’m considering buying his book. First link. Guardian column. Surprise surprise they weren’t impressed.
It was only after their defeat in the First World War that the Ottoman Empire abolished slavery under pressure exerted by Britain and France, circa 1923.
As a Texan, I'd like to apologize for America's corrupting leftist influence. FWIW, we have a similar situation where new catastrophic policies start is California, Chicago, or New York City, and then spread like cancer across America. This is a huge reason some us want an independent Texas, although we recognize this is unlikely to be realized.
Anyone have the book details please?
It’s: N. Biggar, ‘Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning’ (Collins, 2023). 👍🏻
It's merely the SIZE of the British Empire, and how recent de-colonization has been occurring.
What? The people who were colonised didn’t like being colonised? And now they are critical of their colonisers? 😳😱
It's worse than that, they walk around minority majority cities thinking the natives they've replaced owe them an apology over colonialism! They will try and find a grain of salt in the pepper shaker just so they can try and explain to them what it felt like to be colonised. It would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous!
@@thehound9638 If the British had not wrecked and interfered with their countries they would have no need to be here.
@@boota1979 Well they wouldn't be overpopulated if we hadn't given them a cure for smallpox and penicillin.
@@thehound9638 What may I ask has that got to do with wrongs The British Empire did to 90 countries ?
@@boota1979 Name a tribe/nation/religion/ people/ caliphate/ empire that are innocent of any 'wrongs' ?
Really good and very interesting
Undermines the imperialists crooks still freely operating in London, fat off Indian wealth. Many of whom served as inspiration for Ian Fleming's Bond villains.
Piracy is not a "Western value."
Empire is not a Western value. Western values would be Christianity (Catholic Church), Roman Law and Greek Philosophy.
Shame on the cowardly Bloomsbury.
I am not sure that from a clear and unambiguous position of juniority, since really WWII to the present (and perhaps even more so having cut our influence and ties with the continent of Europe), to the United States we should be talking disparagingly about the United States, our one and only *special* *relationship* . Especially, given what that relationship has given us over the years (actually as far back as WWI). We really ought to know how reliant upon the U.S. we have been and still very much are, rather than the U.S. being all that heavily reliant upon us. We ought to be pragmatic and know our place, as United Kingdom, before the United States. It is called *realpolitik* , and I expected much better from the Telegraph. Being junior partner to the United States has stood the United Kingdom in good stead. We ought to always remember that.
BS
@@briancrowther3272 No Brian. If we were in the 1820s, I would have happily gone along with your dismissive acronym. But we are in the 2020s. To know one's place in the order of things, certainly know our place before the United States is realism. Think of Churchill, think of our great Margaret Thatcher: ultimately, it is pragmatism, pragmatism and more pragmatism in the Anglo-American special relationship. It is working with reality, Brian, and thus furthering our interests in the shadow of the United States. Really, nothing wrong with that. We have to adapt Brian. I expected the Telegraph to do its work from within such well established realities.
The current special relationship is between UK and Rwanda.
Even the Spanish Empire has redeeming traits: they ended two of the worst systemic genocides in human history to that point, the Incan Empire and Aztec Empire. Bottom line, slavery was endemic worldwide and Christianity (and the British Empire) ended it in most of the world.
He really has given it his best 😂, but it’s apparent, he’s got a lot of knowledge of a little.
Pity the book did not cover any of the substantial moral issues like decimating natives in America, Australia, and elsewhere. It should have covered the potato famine in Ireland. It should have covered the two Opium Wars against China. And so on and so forth.
He reminds me of my uncle John who just can’t believe we don’t have an empire anymore and those cheeky natives are even daring to come and live here!! The cannon fodder stopped breeding long ago haha
Europe now has massive net immigration from young people seeking a better life. The choice is to either build walls or get involved in the management of countries that are run so badly that young people want to leave. Colonialism is one way of getting involved perhaps we need to find other ways.
Britain killed 4 million Indians in Bengal in 1943 by imposing a famine
Not true. It a debunked myth. Churchill tried to alleviate the famine as much he could.
It was Churchill's policies that led the famine. Whatever grain that the Bengalis were able to harvest was shipped to Europe as buffer stock .
Books, books, books. Look at all the books. They must be on the side of truth.
We only abolished slavery in the u.k. when the government gave compensation to the British owners of slaves .
There is no need to place lived before experience, the entire point of the word experience is to convey the understanding that the person has, experienced something, they can not do that while dead for example.
It is astonishing that one criticises the EU to which every nation applies but the British Empire is marked by slavery, racism, and the EU is a better vindication of the West, not the British Empire
Take the discussion to the next level. Is pushback from whites happening and if so how big will it go does panic overcome sound civic humane policy in correcting this perceived wrong an injustice to whites that is going unheard today
The slave trade flourished right up to the early 1900s in Queensland and Northern West Australia. So, while officially banned it was socially and judicially accepted.
Australia uses islanders for agri labour in 21C. they are good workers and enjoy and profit from it
Really silly comparisons.
Man, the British never really coped with going from the most powerful, important country on earth to a failing regional power, did it?
Indeed
The British cope just fine and it's worth remembering that most of the former colonies have kept the British Monarch as a figure head and joined the British commonwealth. I honestly don't think there is another empire going back as far as the Akkadian's that have remained on such friendly terms with their former colonies!
The British cope just fine by trying to ignore what absolute c*nts we were.
Why are unwanted 👽 alien migrants going to England escaping their sh#thole countries for better life
@@thehound9638 Only Canada, New Zealand and Australia have kept the monarch as thier figurehead dumbass
Hahahaha " Not all publishers are as cowardly as Bloomsbury " legendary stand up guy 🤣 😆 😂
It's the expression and politics of envy pure and simple. What would the world look like now without the British Empire ever having happened? History is history isn't It?
The British should be thanked and compensated for what we achieved against the slave trade and the sacrifices we made. African slavery has nothing to do with racism as they even supplied and sold their own people into slavery. It was an easy resource to exploit and many countries exploited it.
The trans-Atlantic slave trade had rather a lot to do with racism however.
The British were part of this slave trade and created it until they stopped doing it. So no thanks required. Maybe if the Brits did not pillage the Catholic Church and stayed Catholic it would have been a more moral empire. Back in 1537 Pope Paul III condemed and forbade slavery.
The slave owners were compensated to the tune of £400 billion - a debt so large that a loan had to be taken out, a loan that was only recently paid off by the British taxpayer.
The slaves were thrown under the bus.
@@vivo-audio Good point. And the slave owners were often British themselves and spent that money in Britain so it was just money being recycled among the elites.
@@peterc.1419 Their great great grandchildren still reside in the faux Victorian castles and stately homes they built or purchased on return from the Caribbean. They bought peerages and land - they benefit from slavery to this very day.
The Spanish Empire was subjected to the 'Black Legend', by the Dutch and the British, it's ironic that the British are now complaining of getting unfairly criticised in the same manner as they did to others.
100% spot on. Same as the lies spread about the Spanish Inquisition.
Let’s just stick with the facts when examining these various Empires, not ironic to attempt to deal with the facts.
The wokists are increasingly attacking the Spanish Empire too. They are not spared from this.
For many years the British Empire supported the Congress of Vienna, a fascist oppressive system which oppressed people in central Europe and the Balkans. If oppression is Western than the British Empire was western but Western philosophy and culture was not collectivist to a major degree and liberty emerged from that. Maybe the British Empire wasn't all that Western, after all. Not in the Aristotelian tradition at least? Maybe was more backward, tribalist pre-civilisational? I read about pre-Perry Japan. It was a country which practiced infanticide. Again not Western, slavery and infanticide and support for oppression, hardly Western.
Christ alive. The emphasis isn't put on European empires because it's some kind of concerted "assault" on the West. The emphasis is put there because an incredible amount of modern geopolitics, demographics and economics can only be understood in light of Western imperialism. The Zulu Empire might be a very important thing for people in (for example) South Africa to study, but it didn't exactly shape the modern world. No doubt at all that non-western imperialism has been just as bloody, brutal and greed-driven as Western imperialism, but what does studying those things do to inform the average western person about why things are as they are? Not all that much.
Now yes, sometimes this focus on western imperialism does fail to take nuance into account. That is a bad thing. Sometimes the mistake is made of acting as if the west was purely evil and all the people they conquered were purely good. That is also bad. But it is _so_ easy to see, simply from an academic and pedagogical perspective, why this shift has happened, and it makes sense. It's partly, as I have said, out of expediency. It's also partly out of an academic desire to address a historic imbalance, since there was a time not all that long ago when imperialism was put on a pedestal with _at least_ as much bias as the modern narrative is accused of having. It's not because of some shadowy spooky leftist cabal trying to undermine the west. At the absolute most, the degree to which the left is responsible for not presenting a fully nuanced picture is out of a desire to _repair_ fractures within our own societies. Probably not the best way of going about it, admittedly, but (contrary to what many oddballs on the right seem to thing) leftists are not engaged in a deliberate attempt to make the world actively worse.
Hope this presentation does not become ammunition in the polarization that forces people not to listen to the there side. I don't see him as championing those who dismiss the other side . As someone who would be dismissed as left,progressive or woke, I see a genuine attempt here by him to be fair and,without having read his book I hope what he has to say will be heard and pondered.
"The motive of the massive migration was to seek a better life, due to famine, religious prosecutions, etc." But then he said the motive then is different from the motive of migration via the English channel. What is the difference? Everyone who comes to the UK came there for a better life, due to famine in their homes, wars caused by the US/UK, political and religious prosecutions, etc.
31:02 he states the motives were not dis-similar to the motives today ie same
@@johnpower8849 agreed, your transcription is precise. He did indeed note that the motivations of mass-migration outward then were essentially the same as those trying to cross into the UK today.
I don't agree with him entirely, however, as those heading out from the UK were not seeking to join a hand-out economy, nor a criminal underworld as a significant proportion of those heading to the UK today are doing.
Everyone? What about the Albanian criminals or the Islamic terrorists?
Or maybe simply because they have an opportunity to come? Because white leftists in the West keep tolerating illegal immigrations. Where is this "wars caused by the US/UK" in Tunisia or Morocco?
There is a dilemma. Should we only post unity and positive monuments? Do we not risk nostalgia for the past to be misunderstood. Slavery and colonial rule were bad. There is a risk that like the Soviets we reshape the perception of the past. Abandoning our ideals for quick profits 📈. Skin color is a poor observation in this day and age. I feel a lawsuit coming.
Agreed, acceptance of past mis deeds is the first step
If the British cannot withstand criticism of an empire that doesn't even exist any longer, what kind of a country are they. He is politising empire, he is not strengthening it.
The British, in general, have no 'problem' in a fair discussion that emphasizes both the good and less good aspects of the Empire - the good/best being an end to seaborne slavery globally, a massive increase in basic and university education, global trade across and between continents, a huge increase in public health and a decrease in poverty and isolation, and the creation of many new industries. Perhaps the biggest was the suppression of inter-ethnic and inter-tribal conflicts, often genocidal, that were the norm before the British arrived in Africa and south Asia - a scourge that exploded again across both continents - after the Empire ended.
@@MarktheMole Britain has an apalng histry.
Britain waged wars against Australian aboriginals and nz maori.
Britain waged 12 wars in the Indian subcontinent
Britain waged 3 wars against afghanistan
We did the right thing by rebelling against britain.
@@MarktheMole has this been done or what?
@@presidenteden6498 Battle of Britain was the smallest battle of the war
Britain of Britain was nothing
@@presidenteden6498 Battle of Britain was a very very very small even compared to Battle of France/Poland
Battle of Britain was an embarasment of a battle compared to battle of Stalingrad
Stop comparing styoopi battles like battle of britain to heroic battles like battle of stalingrad
His quote on criticism of empire: "Its only white empires, its only European empires, why is that?" Answer: ...because ultimately won out...and the winners often write the history, and reap the greatest benefits from it. And it's rich for him to say it's okay for the Brits to do it, since they were the best at it...but merely just parroting and touting the benefits of empire building in the West's history doesn't mean it was morally RIGHT!
The problem of Russia and China using this as talking points against the West matters greatly, I agree...but the answer is NOT to deny the fact that racism has had a massive affect on the subjugation of mostly non-white races by European powers in the past. So...stop blaming BLM for this, they have very valid arguments, and the answers to some of those problems exist in the form of reparations funds, etc. Lets not ALLOW dictators to fabricate their opposition to the West based on this entirely separate matter.
Colonialism is not inherently good but it's not something inherently European either. Almost every major group/civilization has approximated colonialism and conquest of others.
LOL, given the times I thought this was about literal attacks on a current empire.
Yes
Great. Im glad he has a publisher. I will make sure that my History department buys it.
The targeters are always those with Irish blood.
“Targeters”?
Because we always fought their wars!!
Lots of Irish joined the rulers.
@@user-ts4rd7sv5n Sadly that’s true, the ones at the top did.
How many police shooting that year ? Education is no cure for ignorance
3 in the uk for 2022
So Lenin was anticolonial? What was the USSR?