Britain instead of confronting historical legacy of colonialism and slavery, tries to justify it
In recent times, Britain has been embroiled in a contentious debate about its historical legacy, particularly concerning the role of slavery and colonialism in its economic development. This debate has been fuelled by publications such as “Imperial Measurement: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Western Colonialism,” a recent work by Kristian Niemietz published by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). Despite its modest length of 88 pages, this book has ignited significant controversy due to its provocative stance that slavery and colonialism played, at best, a minor role in the economic rise of Britain and the West. Instead, Niemietz attributes this rise to inherent British ingenuity and favourable economic policies.
However, such assertions are not only misleading but also part of a broader right-wing narrative that seeks to downplay the dark chapters of British history. By examining the content and context of Niemietz’s book, as well as the wider discourse it inhabits, we can better understand the ongoing struggle to reconcile Britain’s past with its present and future.
Niemietz’s work is presented as a counter-narrative to what he describes as the “BLM-isation or Woke-ification” of historical arguments that link the West’s economic prosperity to its exploitative practices. His conclusions starkly contrast with the prevailing scholarly consensus, which acknowledges that the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism were integral to the economic development of European nations.
Scholars such as Eric Williams, in his seminal work “Capitalism and Slavery,” have long argued that the wealth generated from slavery and colonialism provided the capital necessary for the industrial revolution. This argument is supported by a wealth of evidence showing how profits from the slave trade and colonial exploitation were funneled into industries and infrastructure in Europe, laying the groundwork for modern economic systems.
In stark opposition, Niemietz dismisses these contributions as negligible and instead highlights indices such as the Economic Freedom Index and the Ease of Doing Business Index as primary indicators of economic success. This perspective not only oversimplifies complex historical dynamics but also conveniently aligns with the deregulatory and tax-cutting policies favored by right-wing think tanks like the IEA.
A critical flaw in Niemietz’s argument is his selective use of sources and the glaring omissions in his bibliography. By ignoring significant works by historians such as Joseph Inikori, Kenneth Pomeranz, and Roy Bin Wong, Niemietz’s analysis lacks the depth and rigor necessary for a serious academic inquiry. These omissions suggest a deliberate attempt to shape a narrative that aligns with the ideological positions of his publishers and supporters within the Conservative Party.
Moreover, the treatment of colonial histories is cursory at best. For instance, the German and French empires, which played substantial roles in the global colonial enterprise, are barely discussed. This lack of comprehensive analysis undermines the credibility of his conclusions and reduces the book to a political tract rather than a scholarly work.
The publication of “Imperial Measurement” is emblematic of a broader right-wing strategy to engage in culture wars, particularly as the Conservative Party faces declining popularity and impending electoral defeat. By focusing on issues such as race, immigration, and national history, right-wing politicians and commentators aim to distract from pressing domestic issues like declining living standards and crumbling public services.
Kemi Badenoch, a prominent Conservative MP and cabinet minister, has been a vocal supporter of Niemietz’s book. Her endorsement is part of a pattern where critical evaluations of Britain’s past are dismissed as “wokery” or unpatriotic. In a speech at the CityUK International Conference, Badenoch lamented that discussions about Britain’s wealth being tied to colonialism or white privilege detract from recognizing the country’s achievements. Her rhetoric suggests a reluctance to engage with the complexities of history and an eagerness to move past uncomfortable truths.
Badenoch and Niemietz’s perspectives reflect a broader unwillingness within certain segments of British society to confront the nation’s imperial past honestly. This reluctance hinders the ability to address contemporary challenges effectively. Nations that fail to acknowledge and learn from their history are ill-equipped to navigate present complexities or prepare for future ones.
Understanding the true impact of slavery and colonialism is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, it provides a more accurate picture of how wealth was accumulated and distributed, highlighting systemic inequalities that persist today. Secondly, it fosters a deeper understanding of the historical grievances and struggles of colonized peoples, paving the way for more meaningful reconciliation and reparative justice.
For Britain to move forward, it must engage in an honest and nuanced examination of its past. This involves acknowledging the significant contributions of slavery and colonialism to its economic development and understanding the long-lasting impacts of these practices on former colonies.
Educational curricula should include comprehensive histories that reflect the contributions and experiences of colonized peoples. Public discourse should move beyond simplistic and nationalistic narratives to embrace a more inclusive and accurate historical perspective. Furthermore, policymakers must consider the legacies of colonialism in their decisions, particularly in foreign policy and international development.
The debate sparked by Niemietz’s book underscores the importance of historical accuracy and integrity in shaping public understanding and policy. While “Imperial Measurement” may serve as a tool in the culture wars, its lack of scholarly rigor ultimately diminishes its value. Instead of relying on politically motivated interpretations, Britain must strive for a clear-eyed and honest confrontation with its past to build a more equitable and informed future.
The wealth and success of Britain cannot be divorced from its history of exploitation and enslavement. Attempts to rewrite or minimize this history not only do a disservice to the truth but also impede progress towards a more just and understanding society. As the nation grapples with its identity and place in the world, it is crucial to remember that confronting and understanding the past is an essential step towards creating a better future for all.
Vijaya Laxmi Tripura
