St Benedict, writing his Rule, fifteen centuries ago urged his monks always to practise balance between two contrary things and to remain attentive to what is essential. For most of us lay people this translates to a balance between work and play (or recreation), sensory satisfaction and silence, socialising and solitude. Too much of anything can be very bad indeed and I think this applies to intellectual as well as practical scenarios. With age comes the realisation that things can rarely be explained in black-and-white terms, even less as “good” and “bad”. In an age where moral relativism reigns supreme it is paradoxical that there is a tendency to condemn the actions of people, institutions and nations from by-gone times.
Very few areas of historical study illicit such strong (vitriolic, even) emotions than the British Empire. It was a pleasure to welcome Professor Nigel Biggar to deliver an academic lecture to senior house boys at this morning’s assembly. Professor Biggar, who was Regius Professor of Moral Theology at Oxford, was determined to give boys a balanced account of the British Empire. He accepted, how could one not, that the British were heavily involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade and that individuals acting out of greed and self-interest behaved reprehensively to indigenous peoples, as was often the case with the East India Company. Professor Biggar’s approach was then to explain the opposite arguments. The move from trade to dominion in India was the British Government’s attempt to put order on chaos – to check the excesses of EIC employees and to bring peace to a land where tribal warfare reigned supreme.
It was the British who led the world in abolishing slavery and the slave trade. This was the influence of Wilberforce and other Evangelicals whose tactics included the use of broadsides and pottery to promote abolition, under the banner Am I not a man and a brother? The Professor argued that the British presence was not always resented by local peoples. He gave the example of Ram Mohan Roy who wanted to see western scientific knowledge and the English language promulgated in India’s schools and universities. He quoted Professor Ronald Hyam’s study of Christian missionaries in Africa and their extraordinary success in converting locals from tribal religious practices which came to be seen as a form of liberation, especially for women. Nor can we speak of the British Empire as a monolith. Christianity may have taken root in Africa but it failed to make significant headway in India (despite its ancient status).
What did the boys take away from this lecture? That there is more to the study of the British Empire than “Colonialism and Slavery”, and that history consists of the study of individuals operating in specific contexts as well as grand narratives. It might seem contradictory, albeit tempting, to ask whether on balance the British Empire served a purpose that was good or bad? I think Professor Biggar’s response would be to say a bit of both; on balance he is probably right.
It is not commonplace that prep school boys get to hear a lecture delivered by an Oxford don. Their attention was held throughout and many asked sensible and searching questions.
Categories: Uncategorised
