First Published by Forum, an imprint of Swift Press – Purchase here
If you are reading this review, you probably have a settled opinion about the payment of reparations and may already believe that it is neither a fair nor sensible, much less necessary way to atone for Britain’s historical association with slavery. The opposite holds true, too – somebody who is already convinced that an acknowledgement of the deep harm caused by the transatlantic slave trade can only be satisfactorily resolved by the transfer of vast wealth between nations, is probably not a regular subscriber to History Reclaimed.
This is a challenge for anybody seeking an informed, rational, evidence-based debate about a subject that is as driven by passion and emotion – and dare I say it, self-interest – as reparations. It is rare to find a genuinely open mind on the subject and people will probably continue to believe what they want to believe, whatever evidence is adduced to prove the opposite. However, it should not be necessary to make the point to our readers that if we are to draw useful lessons from history, it is essential to test all relevant evidence rather than select only that which supports a predetermined conclusion.
Some years ago Professor Biggar faced a backlash of unprecedented fury by daring to challenge those who found nothing good to say about British Empire and were unwilling even to allow the counter arguments to be heard, so it was brave of him to tackle the equally vexed subject of slavery and reparations. The thesis of his latest book, that Britain has gone too far in allowing guilt over its historic association with slavery to negate the very real achievements of abolition, ought not to be controversial, but it is, because too few people have engaged with the issues as thoughtfully as Professor Biggar. He marshals the evidence in a tour de force of restrained analysis, and since he does so from a position of deep moral conviction, it is simply impossible to accuse him of unfair bias or a lack of compassion. Indeed, what comes across is the restraint with which he expresses his views, rather than any sense of outrage. There are debating points to be made against him, but none of them shake his core arguments.
It is important to understand that the reparation claims being made are limited to Transatlantic Chattel Slavery (TCS), not slavery at large. Reparation advocates who are Caribbean slave descendants are surely entitled to make the point that it is for the victims of other manifestations of slavery to make their own case for compensation, but that they (the TCS descendants) should not be prevented from advancing their own case as they see fit. This might suggest that counter arguments should focus on the case being made by them, rather than on the case other potential victims of slavery might have made had they been disposed to do so.
I have never been much attracted by the glib retort by the “former British diplomat” Professor Biggar quotes in Chapter 11 “I entirely agree (that you should have compensation for decades of colonial oppression) And you shall have your compensation – just as soon as we get ours from the Romans” because it implies that reparations have some underlying historical legitimacy were they to be applied across the board, which has never been the case.
There are those, among whom I include myself, who would hesitate to share Professor Biggar’s generous assessment: “My Christian ethical viewpoint involves the belief that there is an objective moral reality that precedes, frames and dignifies with significance all human choices: there are universal moral principles”. Were this really true, the condition of slavery would not have had such wide acceptance throughout the world, nor would it have lasted for so many millennia. Although he carefully avoids drawing too much attention to it, Islamic attitudes towards chattel slavery remained at variance with Christian moral principles well into the 20th century. Indeed, in too many parts of the modern world, attitudes to slavery and, come to that, other humanitarian issues like gender-based oppression, are clearly not viewed through the universality of Biggar’s moral lens. To be sure, morality shifts over time, but perhaps there are rather fewer universal truths than he believes.
I think it is a mistake to divide slavery into different classes, as if there is a moral distinction between “good” slavery and “bad” slavery, since this is the false premise on which TCS reparations advocates build their case. Reparations are justified, so their argument goes, because there was something uniquely terrible about TCS, but surely this only serves to deny to enslaved people elsewhere, the horror of their own experiences? Certainly, 19th century abolitionists did not see the issue in that way: for them, the grievous harm lay in a relationship based on ownership, not in the variety of ways slavery manifested itself because, to be candid, even servants bound by contract and therefore not technically slaves, were subjected to all manner of appalling abuses for which there was no remedy in law.[1]
Central to the book is the dismantling of the twin pillars of the case for reparations – Sir Hillary Beckles’ argument in Britain’s Black Debt: Reparations for Caribbean Slavery and Native Genocide and the Brattle Report, both of which Professor Biggar knocks down in short order. He might have gone further, because the Brattle Report derived its authority from an International Symposium held in May 2021 that billed itself as “…the broadest and deepest ever examination of the legitimacy of demands for the crimes of colonialisation, the transatlantic slave trade and chattel slavery…” rather than directly from Beckles.[2]
That symposium was chaired by former ICC Judge, Patrick Robertson, who picked up the campaign where Beckles left off, and it addressed the legal arguments to support the claim for reparations. I assume that it is because Biggar is not a lawyer that he made no attempt to engage with any of the speakers’ arguments, but it was surely a missed opportunity because even non-lawyers would quickly recognise that they were specious. Having concluded to their own satisfaction that the legal case was all but unanswerable, the delegates, through their chairman, commissioned the Brattle organisation to flesh out the monetary claim. That report was produced pro bono (no fees charged) and the most charitable thing one can say of it is that Judge Robertson got everything he paid for.[3] Professor Biggar showed admirable restraint when he called the intellectual quality of the report “risibly” poor.
Professor Biggar is not, of course, making the case against the payment of reparations, so much as explaining why Britain should not be made to feel guilty about its involvement with slavery, and his arguments are compelling, but referencing the point made at the beginning of this review, to whom should we be recommending the book? Committed reparationists are unlikely to read it, but anybody who genuinely wants to try and understand the issues at stake will be enlightened. Policy makers would benefit from reading it before rushing to bend the knee before every absurd cash demand for reparations, and it should be required reading for our recently appointed Lord Chancellor, the Rt Hon. David Lammy, who was legally trained and claims that he and fellow Caribbeans know their history. On the compelling evidence in this book, he clearly does not.
Marcus Rutherford
