Good and Evil in the British Empire ｜ Dr. Nigel Biggar ｜ EP 359 (PpwI0YYLh5M)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=PpwI0YYLh5M

There ain’t nothing wrong with power. We all want it. I mean if we don’t have power we can’t do anything Right, so so let’s stop assuming that the power is always bad The only question is whether we use power well or badly justly or unjustly Hello everyone Today I have the privilege of conversing with professor Nigel Bigger a distinguished British theologian and ethicist his controversial book colonialism a moral reckoning Was recently published and hit the nonfiction bestseller lists in the UK It’s now available in North America and English language world. We discussed the ethics of the colonial enterprise The reality and falsehood of the idea of privilege the purposeful and pointless miseries of cancel culture and The separation of good from evil in the process of historical analysis So Nigel we’re gonna talk today about your book colonialism a moral reckoning, which is just being Released just a few weeks ago and which as I understand is doing quite well I would like maybe to start with the story of why it was that you got drawn into this Historical why you decided to write a history of this type? It’s not precisely in your bailiwick as a as a professor So why do you outline the circumstances that led to to your undertaking this endeavor? Yes, Jordan So I’m I’m an academic professor of ethics of Christian ethics and so over the years I have been in the business of Trying to make moral sense and come to moral judgments about complicated moral issues for example the the the moral problem of war My first My first university degree and my first love has always been history so all of my life I’ve read history And I’ve been reading British Imperial history for 20 30 years And so moral questions that Have been raised by European colonial endeavor around the world especially the British Effort have always interested me and so in 2015-16 there was a agitation in Oxford imported from South Africa to have a statue of Cecil Rhodes the late 19th century imperialist which which Stands over Oxford’s High Street on the back of Oriole College, Oxford to have it dismantled because it was said Rhodes was South Africa’s Hitler as it happens at the time December 15 I was reading the standard biography of Cecil Rhodes. I thought to myself. No, that’s just not true and so in early 2016 I Published articles and I I took part in a debate in the Oxford Union Opposing the dismantling of Rhodes statue because what was being projected onto him just seemed to me to be Untrue so that was my first as it were public performance on on this issue And then in 2017 Pursuing my interest I launched a research project here in Oxford called ethics and Empire with a very eminent Historian of Empire globally John Darwin and the aim of the project was simply to look at how People across time from ancient China to the modern period how they regarded the empires of their day in moral terms and then finally in late November 2017 I published an article in the London Times in which I Made what I thought was the completely unobjectionable rather bland point that we British We British can find both cause for shame and pride in our imperial history and then About a Few days later I published online an account of the ethics and Empire project and As my wife and I were waiting at Heathrow Airport to fly to Germany to celebrate our wedding anniversary I got word from the university that a group of students have published an online Denunciation of me and my project. I thought nothing of it four days later three days later My historian collaborator abruptly resigned from the project and Then within the space of five days two more online Denunciations appeared one from 58 Oxford colleagues and the second from about 170 academics around the world So that was my inadvertent Baptism of fire. I wasn’t expecting it. I just Pursued a research project. I thought was interesting and important and I published an article saying things that I thought to be true The content I’ve created over the past year represents some of my best to date as I’ve undertaken additional extensive exploration in today’s most challenging topics and Experienced a nice increment in production quality courtesy of daily wire plus we all want you to benefit from the knowledge gained throughout this Adventurous journey I’m pleased to let you know that for a limited time You’re invited to access all my content with a seven-day free trial at daily wire plus This will provide you with full access to my new in-depth series on marriage as well as Guidance for creating a life vision and my series exploring the book of Exodus You’ll also find there the complete library of all my podcasts and lectures I have a plethora of new content in development that will be coming soon Exclusively on daily wire plus voices of reason and resistance are few and far between these strange days Click on the link below if you want to learn more and thank you for watching and listening And that was you said that was in 2017 that all blew up right December 17, that’s right So why did your your collaborator was that John Darwin who resigned and if it was why did okay? So why did he resign? I mean he had obviously thought through participating in this project I presume although you can fill us in that you were working well together and then he felt this was a worthwhile project Why and I mean the fact that he withdrew obviously made things more difficult for you at least that’s how it looks from the outside So what happened to dr. Darwin and and why did he feel compelled to take this route? Well, Jordan, I don’t want to be liable to accusations of defamation here. So I want to be cautious Yes, so what John what John? Told me that weekend was that he had pressing personal problems and just felt he needed to withdraw Okay, so I have some comments about that. So I’ve talked to about 200 people now Who’ve undergone Let’s say a trial by fire of the sort that you describe Now it’s easy to pillory people who withdraw in the face of opposition But my experience has been that most of the people virtually all of the people That I know who’ve been subjected to this sort of treatment React to it in a manner that’s analogous to either facing a very protracted Lawsuit or divorce or a very serious illness on their part or a serious illness on the part of someone close to them It’s devastating Jay Bhattacharya. For example at Stanford He was raked over the coals for his attitude toward for his scientific Discussion of the problem of the epidemic response and his skepticism about the kovat lockdown He lost 35 pounds in three months and I know other people who’ve ended up all devastated Sufficiently to receive psychiatric treatment and who’ve withdrawn, you know into their own Personal lives who’ve been abandoned by their professional colleagues. It’s absolutely brutally awful And so it never surprises me when I hear that someone has in fact withdrawn when they’ve been mobbed because it’s a stunningly effective tactic from the psychological perspective and you said dr Darwin had indicated to you that he was having trouble in his personal life at that point as well and obviously Either couldn’t tolerate or didn’t need the stress and that’s interesting too, you know because lots of people move forward professionally Despite the fact that they’re having all sorts of trouble, right? And then if you complicate that so that moving forward brings with it a tremendous Psychological or personal cost then you can bring the whole enterprise to a shuddering halt Which we seem to be hell-bent on doing at the moment so I have some sympathy for dr. Darwin, but it put you in a Awkward position because your collaborator had disappeared I was I was stunned frankly and I didn’t know what was happening but I was stunned because our collaboration to that point had been very very congenial and we were both very happy we launched the project in July 17, it went very well and I Was aware there was a connection between this student protest and John’s sudden Abandonment of the project. It wasn’t clear to me what it was. He said there were personal reasons Given the timing that seemed to be less than the whole story. I was told by a third party that he did indeed have domestic Concerns that were preoccupying him but Later I discovered on on the an obscure part of the Oxford University website A statement by him saying that he had withdrawn for project because its aims had changed I have to say as far as I can see that wasn’t true but To your to your to your point I mean, I think I mean my experience not just with John but with others too even even some very old good friends was that One friend described the issue of colonialism as toxic and as a consequence He was involved in a research center. I I run and he also withdrew So my experience was a feeling as if I’d suddenly become diseased and people were stepping back, right? Yeah, I think that’s the right metaphor, you know because I think the psychological The psychological mechanisms that underlie shunning and isolation are an extension of they describe it as a what would you say as a consequence of the operation of the behavioral immune system and People who are shunned are essentially Treated with contempt and derision as if they are infectious pathogens Now one of the things I learned for example I read a book called Hitler’s table talk and it was transcripts of his spontaneous discussions over Mealtimes over about a three-year period. I was very interested in the psychology of of contempt and derision and Hitler never used language that was associated with fear in relationship to the Jews you hear this notion that Hitler was afraid of the Jews But that isn’t the case is that the language he used was all Parasite host language contempt and derision and it’s a much more toxic emotion to have directed at you than fear because You destroy things that are pathogens you burn them out you you show them no mercy and To be targeted with derision and disgust as you said you you end up contaminated It’s it’s about the worst thing that can happen to you socially Yeah, I think in the cases I’m talking about I Think it was more fear than disgust of course I’ve had plenty of disgust and hatred and hostility directed from other quarters in this case It was more I mean there, you know, I’ve I accept now there are people out there who really really really hate What I what I say and think and therefore hate me You know that I know that But the other phenomenon is of people who are friends or colleagues who don’t hate you But but I think that they’re more scared of what? The way I interpret it is they step back from you because they’re scared of what other people think of them if you’re there So is it with you? Well, they’re afraid of becoming the target of that contempt. Yeah, okay, that’s catchy Yes. Yes. Yes so the fundamental problem is is that you become a target of disgust and contempt and then people are afraid of Being contaminated by that and thrown into the same Absolutely, and you know another problem you had I presume is that you you’re in some ways. You’re the perfect poster boy for The kind of mobbing that might occur in relationship to colonialism because while you you’re a professor at Oxford you’re a professor professor of Christian ethics your Caucasian and you know you you you are a male Yeah, yeah. Well, there’s that too. There’s that too. And so well, so that begs the question, you know It might be that it’s easier for people to believe ill of you because they might say well Dr. Bigger is only Justifying the structure that gave rise to his incredible privilege his tenured luxury at Oxford and his and so he’s inclined psychologically to support the the colonial enterprise because he’s a prime beneficiary of it, so How would you how do you how have you responded to that sort of? Psychological analysis typical of the mobbing types, right? They read the people That’s a really really Important point and I thought about this so much. My first response is yes, you could be right I mean all of us have social and economic interests, right and sometimes those interests can determine What we decided to research on and it can it can shape the the judgments we come to so so Yes, it’s possible that my views and colonialism are indeed shaped by My private interests, of course not all interests are illegitimate, but It could be that I’m defending my privilege, but of course that goes in my view that goes for everybody including my critics So in principle, yes could be the case So how do you as an ethicist, how do you protect yourself against that? I mean methodologically Methodologically, I mean it’s easier in the scientific domain at least in principle because there are strict methods for separating out personal interest from the facts at hand even though they’re not No, a hundred percent reliable, but it’s a lot harder when you’re investigating history so I think Jordan and here I speak as a not simply as a theoretical ethicist, but as one who Thinks himself bound to practice a bit of what he preaches I think we need certain virtues. I mean, I think one needs to have a sense of responsibility to be honest and That means a sense that one is is morally bound to expose oneself to criticism I’m sure I’m not perfect on that but I think I I think I do do that and so in my book You tell me if I’m wrong Let readers aside in my book When I’m coming to judgment about the British Empire, I don’t shy away from the really bad bits And insofar as I identify as British Those are painful for me to admit But I do admit them. So I think What one one response I have is it is it is possible to be honest and And and there are certain marks on on this person that they are willing to face criticism They’re willing to think about it and sometimes even willing to concede and I have to say compared to My critics as I’ve experienced them. I Do more of that than they do? No doubt I’ve got things to learn. Yeah So just go so good. Go back to these go ahead. Yeah, the the the as it were the tactic of Psychologizing People you disagree with and saying well, he’s only doing that or saying that he would say that wouldn’t it because he is white and male and privileged So one thing I say is well, this is it’s possible in principle. Let’s see if it is the case in practice the other thing to say is um It’s a dangerous tactic to deploy this psychology of the of the opposition Because what is it? What it allows you the psychologist to do is to say well Because he’s only doing that because he’s white and male and and privileged I don’t have to listen to a damn thing he says So I immediately exempt myself from any responsibility to listen to what he says and to respond to it rationally giving reasons So it kind of immunizes myself against any responsibility actually to be honest and open to the criticism implicit in what he says So I think it’s it’s a danger that the apologizing dismissal of opposition Allows you to be dishonest That casual kind of moralizing, you know The only reason you think the way you are is because you’re trying to justify yourself First of all that cuts both ways and I think it is worth taking it seriously You have to examine your own bias in order to think straight I used to tell my graduate students to triple double triple and quadruple check their Statistics and to try to make the results they obtained go away because if they were motivated by the Necessity to develop their career to publish something that wasn’t true number one they would warp the whole research enterprise and send other people chasing a red herring and Number two they could spend the rest of their life investigating something that simply didn’t exist and then there’s the other complicating issue of of Just being wrong if you’re a sensible thinker and you’re a critical thinker you should subject your own thoughts to the most intense critical analysis possible knowing that if you put forward second-rate thoughts you’ll act them out and that will cause you no end of grief and partly what we’re supposed to do in university is teach people to subject their own thoughts to a Multiplicity of critical perspective so that there’s nothing left but wheat right so the chaff disappears and so when you’re when you’re writing you said you take an even-handed approach as much as possible to the catastrophes and benefits of the British colonial enterprise I mean, how do you again? How do you what do you do to try to ensure that you’re? Surveying as broad a range of the evidence as you possibly can no knowing your own potential bias Well there are a number of things I mean I Teach my students the the virtues of being Scrupulously just to what someone says in the text and even to be charitable. It’s to say before you start to criticize what they say Construct it to construe it in the strongest possible form and then then dismantle it. So so I apply that same thing to myself So when I come across material in in history that I read about that Is negative about the British Empire. I report it in my book So so that there are a number of pages that deal with the 150 years worth of Abhorrent involvement in the British Empire Abhorrent involvement in in slave trading slavery in the Second chapter, I think Uh, and I I quote descriptions of what what was done to slaves who tried to escape for example, it’s horrific Um, but I so I it’s there on the page. I let the reader see it So it’s probably matter of that. It’s a matter of not just of critical skills I mean, I’m an ethicist so I would say this it’s a matter of personal virtue You have to become the kind of person who just does this one feels obliged to do it. So there’s that right? But but but but but in terms of my in terms of my own work on this topic. So for example, I I have read um a number of books on controversial issues written by the kind of people who are Very hostile to me. I’ve read them um, and on the whole I mean there are a number of cases in the book I I I lay out what they say And then I take it apart and most of the time In my view it falls apart Uh, but I as I said the reader can see what i’m doing exactly and if the reader thinks i’m not playing fair Or i’m cheating in some way or i’m overlooking something they can see it Right, so they can check so you put enough of the process of the inquiry into the work itself so that people can follow along And double check for themselves whether you’re playing a straight game. Absolutely. Absolutely Brandon you you know you pointed to something that’s extremely important I think in this regard given your position also as a professor of say christian ethics, I mean one of the I’ve been investigating the metaphysical presumptions of science And there are metaphysical presumptions that have to be accepted before you can start to operate as a scientist And so for example, you have to believe that there’s a logos or a logic in the objective world You have to believe that there is an objective world you have to believe that that logic is apprehensible You have to believe that apprehending that logic is a moral good because otherwise, why would you bother? And then you have to believe that truth in relationship to that apprehension is the most important Uh orienting principle those are all metaphysical presumptions I actually think they’re metaphysical presumptions that are derived from christianity itself Which is why science emerged in europe and not elsewhere, but you said Know that you have to live your life in a manner if you’re going to Tell the truth when you write you have to live your life in a manner that indicates respect for the truth and how do you How do you justify the claim that that’s what you do do in your life? And why should people take that seriously? That’s very germane question given your Your position as a professor of christian ethics at oxford, right? I mean you above all in some ways are Required to not only make that case but to walk To walk the walk That’s a that’s a that’s a deep question jordan. Um, um, so what what’s my answer to that? um I think it’s first of all to say I mean um We human beings our lives are you know taken by themselves taken in isolation Our lives are little and meaningless. I mean we come when we go and you know, I mean um Unless we plug ourselves into some larger narrative Um, what’s what what on earth does it matter what I do say so partly um um I’d say that if you think of your life as I do as as a kind of pilgrimage or an adventure And um Um The the goal is to approximate oneself to what’s good and true and beautiful You might say god um Then in a sense my little life in this place this time It takes on a larger deeper significance. So I think of myself I mean, I I don’t know the truth. I know fragments of the truth Um, but I think of myself the point of my life Is is to bear witness in the way that I can to what I think is true and worthwhile Um, I mean god knows and I mean that literally god knows alone um How anything I say or do or achieve will last? Or what effects it will have? I don’t know But here and now I have I have a limited task and that’s simply to to bear witness to the truth Uh as I see it that’s one thing i’d say, okay Okay. Well, what was it? What was it in your life? Do you think that drove you to conclude that? Alignment with the truth was the appropriate way to conduct yourself because there are alternatives obviously like Manipulation and and and the pursuit of short-term gratification The use of deception for example to get what you want And why did you decide what drove you to decide that you were going to at least attempt to align yourself with the truth That’s that’s a Yeah, it’s a really good question and um To me, it’s a bit of a mystery. Um, I mean I wasn’t brought I wasn’t brought up in a christian household um, I I was attracted to christianity, um, and I think That has something to do with the question you’re asking so um, I mean for a long I mean I you know Um For for a long long time. I find myself fascinated and admiring of Um individuals who Stand up for what they believe to be true and right Uh, even though the whole world Turns against them. I mean, I know yeah, i’m quite aware that I seem to have become such a person in some respects, but I remember um um age of six seven eight when uh the the movie King of kings by produced by cedal db mill came out in I think 60 night 63 Uh, my father took me to see at the local, uh, uh cinema And I was so moved by the the story of jesus and his crucifixion Uh at the age of seven or eight I came back home Um was put to bed and I lay there staring at the ceiling weeping Saying to god and here here. I was praying though. No one taught me to pray uh, um Take it off jesus and put it on me I mean, it’s a bit Uh, oh, it’s a bit. It’s a bit. It’s a bit. That’s a rough thing to pray for It’s particularly age of seven or eight. It’s a bit it’s a bit messianic for for for that for that age so um, so I think somehow the the the idea that one is Bound And you know it is talking about being bound or obliged. It sounds like a burden Yes, it is but it’s also It’s also a fulfillment And so shortly after that this was I was talking about age six seven age ten. I mean when I was young I used to steal um, and I remember An occasion in in I was at a boarding school the age of I don’t know 10 let’s say And I used to steal toy soldiers from some of my school school mates And uh one evening I was doing this again And I suddenly thought to myself No, this is not satisfying I don’t want to do this. I don’t want this stuff and I put it back I never stole again now, uh, I again Why did I do that? So in that case it was a sense of this is not what I really want It’s not where so and and uh, yes. Did I say this to myself? well The the phenomenon was no um Something said this to me That’s and I heard it. Yeah President trump recently issued a warning from his mar-a-lago home Quote our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard which will be our greatest defeat frankly in 200 years There are three reasons why the central banks are dumping the u.s dollar inflation deficit spending and our insurmountable national debt The fact is there is one asset that has withstood famine wars and political and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times Gold and you can own it in a tax sheltered retirement account with the help of birch gold That’s right birch gold will help you convert an existing ira or 401k Maybe from a previous employer into an ira in gold the best part You don’t pay a penny out of pocket just text jordan to 989898 for your free info kit They’ll hold your hand through the whole process think about this when currencies fail gold is a safe haven How much more time does the dollar have protect your savings with gold? Birch gold has an a plus rating with the better business bureau and thousands of happy customers Text jordan to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold again text jordan to 989898 So what makes you so the radical claim then we’ll get to your book but I want to go into The trustworthiness of its source. Let’s say and how that might be established The radical post-modern slash neo-marxist claim is that all claims to truth are essentially Masks for an underlying Drive to power Sort of a demented nichianism and that there’s really no escaping your motivation That and even if you claim to be as you’re claiming now to be The representative of a higher truth all that is is a particularly subtle and insidious justification of your underlying motivation and What makes you believe do you think? You touched on it with regard to the like the expression of the truth With regard to the like the external quality of the voice of conscience say and the emotional impact that this admiration you had in the Aftermath of the movie you touched on this what makes you think that There is a truth that can be pursued independent of The subjective striving for dominance and power So You’re quite right the neo-marxists and the post-modernists say that Um, it’s all about power What they mean is they’re all about power Yes, they do mean that yes. Yeah, but but but but the assumption they’re making is They’re all about power and it’s wrong Uh, uh, they’re making that because because they’re criticizing the way The establishment or the elite behave And and the criticism is based on the assumption that they the neo-marxists know the truth And they have it right, which is why they want to dismantle that power But what’s what’s missing here is any sense of self-criticism? Um and any kind of self-awareness because the cynicism is directed completely Uh externally and uh, but but the cynicism with regard to other people implies actually Uh an oblique affirmation that there is truth and there is morality. It’s just that we have it Uh, so so I think well that’s very that’s very interesting because the other problem with that. So essentially your observation is that Well, the post-modern types, especially with the more neo-marxist twist Accused every system and every other person other than themselves. Let’s say of being motivated by nothing but power Yet they claim that that doesn’t apply to themselves And they implicitly claim that objection to the use of power is moral But they absolutely never as far as I can tell explain why which is actually why I was asking you that question It’s like well if it’s self-evident that power is wrong And it’s self-evident that you stand for something other than the use of power Which is obviously something both transcendent because it can unite people who are united against power and higher in that It’s morally preferable to power Then exactly what the hell is this and that post-modernists simultaneously disavow the existence of anything like a unifying Metanarrative and they do that explicitly even though they seem to have A unifying metanarrative in their objection to the use of power, but it’s all left implicit It’s like an unconscious god as far as I can tell it’s something like that and so You elaborated out your relationship to Transcendent truth in the confines of conscience you said with regards to the theft but also To the feeling of admiration that overcame you when you were six or seven years old when you saw this particular movie And that’s an interesting observation to me because I think often that our Moral intuition is grounded in something like Admiration right and that comes upon us. It’s not something we create You said that happened to you when you were six or seven you you learned that there was something to admire And you didn’t come from a religious background and yet you became a professor of christian ethics. So how did that unfold across time? Just on this business of of admiration Um, um, I mean and another reason I would give for saying uh for for for justifying why I think of human life properly as being about the the the acknowledgement and the approximation and the calling towards truth goodness and beauty is that It makes those who who adopt that position more beautiful so so um that they become you know, they they those who and I think Even post-modernism might agree with this if they were willing to be thoughtful. Um, uh, when you look upon as it were exemplars of the um Of the moral position you hold those who have Risked all for justice or for the truth um There’s a beauty about them that is fascinating and and draws you to them and that raises the question You know, I don’t suppose, you know cows or slugs React this way, but it raises the question. Why is the cosmos so constructed? That we human beings Are really moved by by people who do such things and sometimes moved to risk all To risk all to follow them and do the likewise Um that must that tells us something really important about the cosmos Well, it it seems to me And I think your level of analysis is correct. I think that It’s a truth that’s metaphysical and objective and theological once that The proper pathway forward all things considered is to be found in establishment of a relationship with the truth and you might say well, that’s because If you’re in accordance with reality you can dance with reality in a much more effective manner than if you set yourself up in opposition to it And then you might say well, that’s such a fundamental truth that we’re actually oriented instinctively to apprehend its presence when we see it And I think the reason that heroes in movies and heroes in literature I think the idea that the king of kings that that idea of a king of kings even emerged is it’s the Hierarchical ordering of that which is most admirable and what you have on the christian front is this peculiar Proclamation that what’s most admirable is the union of what is highest with service to what is lowest and most And most helpless and you see that i’ve been looking for example at shepherd imagery in the old testament because the shepherd is a common trope For well obviously for christ but also David is a shepherd and abel is a shepherd that and a shepherd is a very interesting character because a shepherd back in more archaic times was a very brave person because The sheep that he guarded were preyed upon by vicious predators lions and wolves were very common in the middle east and shepherds were often called upon to defend their flock from very vicious predators with very Primordial implements so david for example obviously used a slingshot which he also used to kill giants And then the shepherd at the same time has to be the person who despite that monstrous capacity to kill even wolves and lions Is capable of paying attention and caring for the most vulnerable possible creatures and in the shepherd story It’s obviously lambs But the idea that that’s the lost among human beings or infants is a it’s an easy move from that position And you look at david Michelangelo’s statue of david and you see this combination of no masculine capacity to Stand firm in the face of terrible opposition And this ability to care for what’s vulnerable and it seems to me that that’s that idea is core to the christian Like the christian set of images and stories and it calls out admiration because it calls to the instinct to emulate that And that’s not a cognitive. It’s not exactly a cognitive process. It’s way deeper than that Yes, yes, yes Jordan you ask about should we turn to your so please go in you just ask about how one of that became a christian ethicist um Just just briefly to tell you that um Um I mean I I said my first love was always history. I studied history at university in oxford in the early 70s, but um That period of of history in this country in britain was extremely disturbed. Um um My first term in oxford in october 73 um, I I had to learn to drink my tea without sugar because the The docks were all closed because the dockers were on strike. No sugar was coming to the country I had to learn I had to prepare for my first set of exams by candlelight because the Power stations were all shut down because the coal miners were on strike And uh, that was when the violence in northern ireland was at its height. So there was a sense of sense of national crisis and um as a a young christian I had decided to become a christian when I was 13 and I was now aged 20 or so 1920 I was asking myself What is what what have the um, um the theological and moral resources of christianity got to say to this national crisis? And actually looking back I I ended up pursuing um a career as a professional ethicist Because I wanted to to work out My answers to those questions Um, and so it’s a really I became christian ethicist partly because I became a christian, uh, but also because I I was early um, um Fascinated is too trivial. I was possessed by questions of of right and wrong and good and bad and uh, particularly with regard to The political crisis in in britain of the 1970s um In some ways jordan the book i’ve just written of colonialism. I feel that all that i’ve written That probably is the book I was born to write Uh-huh You you used this language of possession you said and like you insisted upon that And what what what do you mean by that and why did you use that terminology particularly? well again, because it’s not true that the the the experience the the the phenomenon Was not I chose to do x uh as with the the the the story of of when I Finally decided I didn’t want to steal anymore. It was a sense that Something came to me that was the experience came to me and said najal You don’t really want to do this and I said no, I don’t really want to do this so the sense of which Uh, uh, so the word of the talk of possession being possessed is a more accurate description of the experience Right, right. Well that seems to me To be a reflection of the intrinsic logos of being and it’s partly you see that in science because there are phenomena that scientists study, but those phenomena are also Those phenomena that call to the individual scientists, right? They pursue an interest that makes itself manifest to them in some ways independent of their will That that grip of interest it manifests itself as the problems that beset you that will not let you lie in peace And it manifests itself as the set of opportunities that beckon to you You know, I don’t know if you know this but the word phenomenon itself Is derived from a greek root Phanez thigh and it means to shine forth And there is this yeah, that’s very interesting. There is this autonomy of Problem and interest that’s quite the mystery You know you if something bothers you you can’t just easily shake it off voluntarily And if an opportunity compels you forward you can capitalize that and use it as a source of motivation and you could Object to it and put it Off to one side, which is a big mistake But it’s very very difficult to convince yourself that you’re interested in something that doesn’t call to you So there is that autonomy right and that’s related to that idea of possession is that something seizes you and directs you and you can act in concert with it or Or reject it those those seem to be your options. I was looking at the story of Jonah the other day Trying to sort it out. You know, it’s such an interesting story because It’s very germane to what we’re discussing. So Jonah hears the a call from god and he’s basically called upon to go to a city Nineveh And tell the people of Nineveh that they’ve wandered off the path and that they were going to be in serious trouble if they don’t Get their act back together and Jonah being a wise man Just like most professors, let’s say decides there’s no damn way He’s going to go to a city and tell everyone there that they’re wrong because that’s not going to turn out very well for him so he decides to Get the hell out of there and jumps on a boat goes in the opposite direction And then the storms rise around him And the sailors conclude that there must be someone on board who’s offended The gods or god and they go to each person and inquire and Jonah finally admits that God told him to stand up and say what he had to say To the demented citizens of Nineveh and he decided he was going to escape And so the sailors throw him off the boat at which point the waves cease And that’s pretty and so it’s so interesting psychologically because what it implies is that if you are called upon to say something To set things right even at the social level and you don’t the storms are going to rise around you But that isn’t all that happens to Jonah, right? The next thing that happens is that this terrible beast comes up from the abyss and swallows him and pulls him all the way To the bottom of the world. It’s like the harrowing of hell in the christian story. And so the further inference there is that If something calls to you to speak the truth when things are corrupt and you ignore it Not only will the storms rise around you, but you will end up somewhere so dismal You can hardly possibly imagine it and I can’t help but think about that in light of the rise of totalitarian states in the 20th century because People in totalitarian states lied to each other and to themselves 100 percent of the time And that’s why they ended up in hell You know when Jonah repents and decides to go to Nineveh the whale spits him back up on shore in consequence and Because of that because of he goes there and tells the truth the god then decides to not destroy the city and what that also implies is that if Jonah would have permanently abandoned his ethical responsibility to say what he was called upon to say That an entire city would have been devastated and that’s a hell of a good lesson for the current times Yes, I mean I guess my my Something that puzzle made I don’t the answer to it is is Why are some people so made that they Respond to the call. I mean i’m you caught Jonah. I’m thinking of a passage in the book of the prophet Jeremiah Where the prophet is is complaining to god is saying, you know You give me your word and I speak it and everyone hates me and insults me Bloody hell i’m i’m not i’m not going to do it anymore. He says i’m i’m sulking I’m not doing anymore. But then he says but when I do that this thing burns within me. I cannot hold it in So there are some people like that um, um, but there are others who are not like that who Who somehow um When the flak arrives they distance themselves. They they keep themselves safe and I don’t know I I I don’t know what the secret is. I mean, well, I think I think part of it is I think part of it is the consequence of a million micro choices You know, there’s this old idea that the blues singers in the u.s Had that you meet the devil at the crossroads And the crossroads is obviously a choice point and what I saw happening in universities is that whenever the faculty were called on to withstand the pressures of the administration, especially as the administration became more and more woke They retreated it was a micro retreat Yes And so it was a failure to and and the rationale was well, I don’t I don’t need to make an issue out of this But if you fail to make an issue out of a million micro catastrophes, then it’s a macro catastrophe and you’re weak Now it doesn’t completely address the question because you might say Well, why do people turn to the right or the left in the initial stages of that decision process like in childhood in principle? When you were faced with your conscience in relationship to stealing those Soldiers you could have continued to steal them, right? You could have upped the ante you could have doubled down like the pharaoh let’s say and pursued that pathway You know the classic christian Response to that is that well we have free will and whatever that means is our soul is granted the capacity to freely choose between up and down and You know barring a better explanation. That’s a pretty good one. Otherwise you end up with notions of predestination and so forth, which yeah Yeah, I think there’s a mystery there that we can’t completely Resolve. I certainly can’t can observe. Yep. No No, no, so So shall shall we turn to your to your book itself? Yes, please all right, so There’s eight chapters in the book and you associated each of the chapters with a question I thought we would just go through the chapters in the question. So chapter one is uh, well, let’s start with the introduction you already laid out the Opposition to your work that arose when you started to investigate the ethical The ethical pros and cons of colonialism And you decided to undertake a moral assessment of the british empire project You lay that out in the introduction in chapter one You start with motives good and bad and the question you put forward was is was the imperial endeavor? Driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate. Well, that’s the ultimate in post-modern questions you might say allied in that sense we discussed with the marxists and so Was the imperial endeavor driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate? Tell us what what you concluded and why? Yes, so, um This phrase the lust to dominate is the one that um Saint augustine used in the early 400s to describe The roman empire that’s why I used it and and uh, if if you if you take Uh, um your cue from from augustine then that was the kind of essence of of roman empire um um, so My so when I came to think about the history of the british empire that was in my mind and um, it seemed to me certainly as far as the british empire goes to be Completely inadequate to describe it as as driven by either the simple lust to dominate Uh or or greed. Um In fact if you look at the variety of motives that Moved britain’s to Travel over the world and to take control of various territories The reasons are various and I make a point here that um No one woke up in london one day and thought to themselves. Oh Uh, let’s go and conquer the world. It wasn’t like that. It was much more ad hoc in response to circumstance I mean there may be empires where someone wakes up in berlin and decides to go and conquer eastern europe Uh, but it it wasn’t always so and there may be empires that are entirely about the lust to dominate maybe You know gengus khan Was of that and his his mongols were of that kind but uh, what needs to be careful very careful I think not to import Uh, I kind of one fits all theory and to say well this was an empire So this must have been like that and a lot of the uh of my critics, uh, they that they’re the reading of historical data Is kind of pre-programmed by a theory as to what empire must be But if you look at the history of the british empire motives I mean the An early and and and persistent motive was trade people the east india company went out to india in the 1600s to trade and make money um other people at the same time went westwards across the atlantic And pitched up on the coast of north america Why did they do that? Uh, partly because they were there to harass Um spanish shipping bringing gold back to the americas to spain. Why because Spain was the dominant empire and england was a was a protestant country at the At the wrong end of power at that time ironically the beginnings of english british empire in that case were actually anti-imperialist uh, and then and but yes then people like francis drake and Walter raleigh are keen to find gold in the americas and yes, they abused the natives Um, but there you’ve got you’ve got trade which I think is innocent you’ve got actually a desire to to defend yourself against overwhelming imperial power, which Could be innocent The lust for gold that leads you to abuse other people is not so innocent later on in the 19th century one reason the british ended up in uh west africa and east africa one reason was uh lobbying by humanitarians to suppress Uh the the the trading slaves so there was a humanitarian reason um, so The historical phenomena tell you there are a variety of motives here some good some bad We’d like to thank the sponsor of today’s video bulletproof everyone bulletproof Everyone is a premier american body armor manufacturer and supplier designed and built for everyday wear their unique armor systems offer 25 more coverage than standard armor while maintaining flexibility and all-day wearability Bulletproof everyone’s ultra light armor system is so light and thin you might just forget you’re wearing it Your safety and discretion is their top concern unless someone puts their hands on you No one will have any clue you’re protected with bulletproof everyone. You’re not a walking billboard There are no visible logos and no flashy designs Their comfortable tailor-made clothing system goes above and beyond adding additional security by keeping you incognito and under the radar Worker play bulletproof everyone has got the perfect armor system to fit your everyday lifestyle and everyday budget Right now they are giving dr. Jordan peterson’s listeners a free 3a backpack with the purchase of any 3a clothing with code jordan at checkout go to bulletproof everyone.com That’s bulletproof everyone.com promo code jordan Okay, okay Okay, so we could perhaps assume as a rule of thumb That the motivations of our ancestors were just as complex as our motivations and then we could assume that the tendency to Monomaniacally reduce all motivations to a single motivation is probably more reflective of the refusal to think in complex ways than it is an what would you say a manifestation of Accuracy and diagnosis and so you see I mean I’m an admirer of freud in many ways, but he was rather monomaniacal about sex and The marxist types and the neo-marxists are absolutely monomaniacal about power They assume that all human relationships are structured by power except theirs as we pointed out before and then they extend that analysis to the Economic and historical domains and that really does simplify the endeavor, right? It’s also interesting from a religious perspective I would say because the atheist neo-marxist post-modernists have elevated power to the status of a god and I would say If the spirit of power is your god And if you’re a god That’s about as close to an antichrist as you could possibly formulate and that’s a very interesting That’s a very interesting phenomenon as well, you know, because you might ask well In the aftermath of the Nietzschean death of god what arises to replace? that central unifying tendency, let’s say One possibility would be nihilistic disunity, which Nietzsche did And that’s one of the reasons why I think power is the only motivation One is that power is a human being that’s in a looming danger, but the other is that another kind of Monotheism will arise and it’s it does seem to me to be very self-serving because once you Have decided that power is the only motivation You never have to think about anything again. You can just interpret everything that happened in terms of oppression and victimization This issue of power for a moment Jordan, because I realized in retrospect A major Not the articulate theme running through my my book and in fact all my recent thinking and writing is What I would call a certain realism So just taking the issue of power. Um My view is There ain’t nothing wrong with power We all want it. I mean if we don’t have power, we can’t do anything Right, so so let’s stop assuming that the power is always bad The only question is whether we use power well or badly justly or unjustly um And and you know the postmodern critics Obviously oppose certain kinds of power But they need to be honest about the fact that they oppose it because they they want power for themselves And the question posed to them is will you use it well or badly? My experience of them insofar as they’ve Criticized me and and what I think is they abuse power Very Very broadly and very casually But well if it’s the only motivation then why not use it? I always think of it as self-justification for For use of compulsion. I think we could we could also distinguish two kinds of power There’s ability and there’s use of compulsion and you pointed out as one of the motivations that drove the british empire you pointed out the Desire to trade now a skeptical marxist would say well, there’s no difference between trade and greed and so you’ve undermined your own argument but If I have something valuable to offer That you can’t produce and vice versa and we trade in principle. We’re both better off I mean, that’s the classic free market argument and I don’t see anything at all that reeks of compulsion in that endeavor I mean, I think you have to be damn cynical to think that all production and exchange can be reduced to mutual exploitation Doesn’t account for productivity, right? There’s no productivity there. So it’s a foolish theory And so it is I mean greed greed is excessive desire for for whatever it is. It’s a lust And the question of when we all Everybody I think wants to flourish we we want to profit in some way nothing wrong with that at all Uh, but yes our desire to flourish and profit can become excessive when it’s at other people’s expense or whether it’s unjust um, uh, so let’s let’s distinguish the desire to to profit or flourish from from greed Well, okay, and so I would also say we could point to a natural ethos that emerges as a consequence of repeated trade so We’re trading repeatedly in this conversation and hopefully i’m not dominating and hopefully you’re not dominating and what would happen if one of us Did is that the conversation would degenerate? Like if we can exchange mutually and reciprocally Then we can play a game that’s self-sustaining and that’s growing and the same thing applies on the trade front So I would say there’s a natural limit intrinsic natural limit to the use of exploitation in economic exchange because if you Do nothing but exploit your trading partner the next time you come to trade you’re going to fail Yep Yep, and and in the early in the early, uh decades centuries of Um overseas colonial endeavor Uh the the british europeans Uh were on on the weaker foot Indian merchants indian In fact the east india company only got a foothold a toehold in india because it was granted them by uh native indian uh rulers so At that point the the british were the weaker not the stronger Right so that the role of the mercantile impulse which is an impulse for mutually beneficial trade in the Expansion of the empire is radically understated by the marxist types partly because they don’t distinguish Trade in any other economic enterprise from greed and power. Yeah Now I think that you know Go ahead. Yeah, I I mean let’s let me be honest here and say for example, um in in the use of native african labor in in southern africa Um and elsewhere in in the british empire in the 19th century There is no doubt well It’s highly probable one needs to examine each case that that uh Native labor was exploited. Uh, that’s to say the terms of their employment was unfair and they were forced to do things They didn’t want to do to which my answer is well Um, yes, i’m sure i’m sure that happened But it it also happened in britain itself and it happens no doubt in in contemporary india and nigeria Um, so the the the exploitation of labor through unfair terms and conditions wasn’t particularly colonial sin So, okay, so now let’s go to chapter two from slavery to anti-slavery the question you posed there was Should we speak of colonialism and slavery in the same breath as if they were the same thing? Now one of the weird tensions that emerges for me there and i’ve tried to think this through clearly i’m reading at the moment of multi-volume history of slavery put out I think by cambridge university press and my sense historically and you can correct me if you think i’m wrong here is that slavery is a ubiquitous feature of human societies and the conscious realization that slavery Itself is intrinsically wrong even in the case, let’s say of prisoners of war or debt or debtors That was a that that notion emerged with great difficulty and it manifested itself most profoundly In the uk probably in the person of wilberforce Who and and the christian protestant evangelists who made a very strong case that slavery itself was intrinsically immoral? and the consequence of that was at Eventually that the british navy fought for about 175 years on the high seas to Make slavery a counterproductive enterprise and one of the things that sort of terrifies me about the radical leftist enterprise Is that they really risked throwing the baby out with the bathwater because whatever it was that impelled wilberforce and then the entire uk To stand against slavery is the only thing we know of in the entire history of the world that actually did stand against slavery with any degree of success so why do you What other cases do you think can be made that colonialism and slavery were not the same thing? And why do you think there is this insistence on the radical left side? To deny the very process that actually did free slaves in so far as they’ve become free in recent times So jordan, I think um The identification of colonialism with slavery is similar Um to the 1619 project in the united states which identifies the foundations of the u.s with fundamentally racist and therefore fundamentally illegitimate, I think what’s happened is that the Uh the the probably through black lives matter the killing of george flight in 2020 minneapolis black lives matter movement came across the atlantic with with No change of clothes landed in in britain and our equivalent is to say Contemporary britain is systemically racist And the reason was the same with the racist is that we continue to revere Our colonial past let’s say By having a statute of social roads and as we all know Colonialism was essentially about slavery which was based on a A racist view of africans as subhuman so colonialism Is equal slavery equals racism and that’s the foundations of britain and that’s why we have to repudiate our colonial past pull down sessile roads Pull down john johnny mcdonald in canada and somehow therefore we liberate ourselves from systemic racism and that’s that’s the logic behind the colonialism and slavery mantra so in this country those two things are commonly Uh, uh talked about as if they were the same thing and My very simple point in that second chapter is to say wait a moment as you’ve just said jordan Um, yes for 150 years Some british people by no means all were involved in slave trading and profiting from slavery in the west indies But from 1807 Uh onwards and then in 1933 First the slave trade then slavery itself were abolished by the british and for the rest of the empire’s existence for another 150 years Roughly the british were involved in anti-slavery. So you cannot you cannot identify british colonialism with slavery because for the second half of its life it was anti-slavery and and yes, um um Slavery in one form or another and some forms more were more humane than others Has been around since virtually the dawn of time Practiced on every continent by black and brown and red-skinned and yellow-skinned people as well as white-skinned people the kamanshi Nation in the southwest of the u.s Ran what one historian has called a vast slave economy in the 1700s Um, the arabs were involved in slavery africans were selling african slaves to the to the romans and arabs before they ever sold to europeans um, so so you know we may um be dismayed Uh at the fact that so many europeans and british people up until the late 1700s Accepted this institution and the fact of of slave trading, but we have to put it in context. Everyone did it including including Slaves who escaped from the plantations of jamaica into the forest of interior some of them kept slaves of their own So common was the practice so yes, it what what happened in the late 1700s was that for the first time in in history um some nations not just britain also denmark and france Came to the view that owning other people as your property without them having any rights was morally Abhorrent and for the first time in history these nations eventually led by britain abolished the slave trade and Slavery and then britain used its imperial power its power For humanitarian purposes to abolish slavery from brazil across the atlantic across africa india to malaysia Um, so so power can be a good thing and in that case it was used Uh for humanitarian purposes they are in here is jordan as you suggested Just just before I started speaking They are in here is in that case um the the empire And those humanitarians who were lobbying for the imperial power to be used to suppress slavery They were the progressive people of their day Well, it also seems to me And you’re in a great position to comment on this So first of all we have to accept to some degree that The willingness to use power and compulsion and to keep slaves is relatively ubiquitous across the entire human family Let’s say and that opposition to that Emerges with difficulty and rarely And then you have to ask yourself what are the preconditions for that kind of opposition and certainly the case with wilberforce as far as I can tell that He was driven by the conviction that all men and women are made in the image of god And that it was a violation of a transcendent ideal That slavery in and of itself was the violation of a transcendent ideal and that is something that’s deeply rooted in the In the christian tradition and and deeper than that I mean there’s certainly the dawning of objection to the notion of slavery and tyranny in the book of exodus That’s much older than christianity But it’s it’s still an idea that emerged with difficulty and I I have tried To think my way around this right because I don’t like to multiply unnecessary metaphysical presumptions But I can’t see at all that opposition to slavery would have emerged the way it did in britain If it wouldn’t have been able to draw on a well of metaphysical and religious Presupposition that was predicated on the idea that each person has a soul and that that soul In some manner has a divine value Yeah, yeah, so um You’re quite right the the the main impulse for the evolution movement was uh christian evangelical christian And so john wesley in 7074 published a treatise called upon thoughts of slavery and on the front page of of the treatise Is a quotation from the book of genesis where um Is it is it is it? Cain says something like i’m i’m a brother’s keeper Uh the god’s answer being yes. Yes, you are and the implication being that that that all human beings regardless of race and cultural development are Equally children of of the one god and that was clearly uh the the main conviction that drove um, um, even geochristen non-conformist christians initially To to to found and I hadn’t yep. I didn’t know about that comment by wesley so that ties the story of cain and abel in with the opening chapters of of of Of the of the earlier parts of genesis the old verses of the earlier part of genesis Right, so you have the proposition that human beings are made in the image of god and you have the later proposition in the cain and abel story that that means that you have a divine obligation to act in relationship to others with that Divine value in mind. That’s right. And so and now we’re getting on to chapter three on race here jordan so This this christian conviction of the fundamental basic equality of all human beings regardless of race um that that that persists throughout, um the the british empire there was um, um in the second half of the 1800s the development of of a contrary View, uh, which you might call scientific or biological racism which holds that you have a hierarchy of races and the white races are naturally biologically superior to Uh to non-white races, so you have a kind of permanent fixed heart racial hierarchy um, um, but but this this notion of Some people’s being naturally inferior Uh, um vied with the christian notion but never displaced it. So for example, I was reading And I put this in in my book an account of debates in the parliament of canada in the 1880s And it’s reported by the historian that every time someone would stand up and say that the native americans are naturally inferior Others would stand up and other mps would stand up say no, that’s not british. That is not christian um, yeah Yeah, well that’s that’s an interesting there’s a lot of Issues there that are of great interest. I mean one is that the white supremacist movement In the late 1800s was grounded in the sign in the quasi scientific tradition and not in the christian tradition so that’s pretty interesting for those who think that Science by necessity will offer a morally superior view to say a mythologically predicated metaphysics and the eugenicist movement was A scientific movement as well and it was predicated on a misapprehension of darwinian presumptions And a misuse of the notion of survival of the fittest fittest being equated with let’s say Most successful and dominant right now and those concepts are by no means equal So a scientist would object well, they were bad scientists and you know, there’s some truth in that but it’s still interesting that the dominant form of Explicit racism emerged out of the confines of the scientific community and not within the confines of the religious community and so and so Your the question that you pose in chapter three Which we just discussed was was the british empire essentially racist one of the things that struck me about Wilberforce and westley This is particularly true in relationship to india is that even though by the time they were operating and agitating against slavery there were extremely potent economic reasons to keep india under the thumb of britain so to speak there was still a tremendous amount of impetus on the moral side to Translate the british empire into something like self-government for the Inhabitants of india as rapidly as possible and that’s of course a radical improvement over the situation that obtained before the british occupied india because it wasn’t like it was a Equality a paradise of equality of opportunity prior to the emergence of of british power That’s that’s right. I mean, I mean um as I as I am frank in the book, um Yes, the british empire did contain all sorts of uh racial prejudice Um, but my point is it didn’t only contain that it also contained as we’ve just discussed Uh this this major movement for the abolition of slavery and later on in the in the 1800s a movement a movement of of concern for the plight of native peoples who were suffering under the sudden impact of modernity based on a racial racially egalitarian view um and and also um, yes, sometimes you get britains who are uh dismissive and contemptuous of native cultures But on the other hand, um in india, for example, you have britains who are fascinated by ancient sanskrit hindu culture who who Unlike indians who are allowing the ancient monuments to disintegrate preserve the monuments um, and then you get this very um Just in case you think that that um uh, the british imperialists were constantly imposing their unwanted culture on native peoples you have this incident in 1829 I think when um, or 1823 maybe when the east india company it wants to invest in a um in building a a hindu college devoted to to um ancient indigenous sanskrit learning and you have um a progressive Indian social reformer raja ramo and rai who writes to the governor general and says, uh, look Sanskrit learning is benighted What indians need is exposure to european science in which europe has become pre-eminent And just just think of that for a moment in this case the brits Want to support indigenous learning? And the indian says no, we need the new stuff the european stuff um so so um, yes, there was racism, but there was also uh respect for and fascination for and admiration for native native cultures And also yeah. Well the issue the question that you posed was it essentially racist now if it’s racist by By error and by corruption that’s very different than say as you pointed out the 1619 project Which is making the case that the essential motivation was both racist and and slave owning Let’s say predicated on this need to dominate and oppress And there’s a big difference between saying that things might degenerate in that direction even frequently and saying no that was all it was That’s that essential monomania again that we were talking about Yeah, and so See and another I would say historical fact that mitigates against the essentially racist Um accusation is the the persistence of the commonwealth after the empire? Abandons its Direct political control. I mean you have to ask yourself It’s not as if the commonwealth is as tight or effective as it might be but as far as a loose collection Of nations on the international front goes the commonwealth is pretty damn voluntary in its structure and also An aggregation of the countries that function better on average than almost all countries in the world And and that includes india interestingly enough, which is a very very complicated country and hard to get all moving in a productive direction simultaneously, yeah Yeah, just going back to your earlier point about the kind of um The the liberal vision of of an empire that would as it were relax into independent states I mean the british learned their lesson from the american war of independence in the 1770s and 80s and um In my book I quote um Three scotsmen, uh, all of whom ended up governing cities in india madras, calcutta, bombay in the 1820s And every one of them can be found writing to each other or saying to their subordinates look Uh, uh, we aren’t going to be here forever. We british can’t rule here forever. All we can hope to do Is to help build decent government Leave with grace and carry we hope the goodwill of of indians And then from 1860 on 1867 onwards As you as a canadian will know when canada became a dominion canada australia new zealand south africa Uh all become increasingly independent about 1930s. They’re virtually independent states And india is put on the same track. Uh, um after the the first world war so Yes, yes Some britains wanted to cling on to power imperial power too long Uh, but there was also a a kind of liberal vision whereby the empire Would relax into what was being talked about as a commonwealth of nations as early as 1916 Mm-hmm Yeah, well that it’s it’s very interesting to speculate on the motives for that emergence too. It’s I mean No, you don’t want to be naive when you look at the historical record, but it seems to me to be undeniable that especially again in the impulse that gave rise to people like wesley and wilberforce there was this notion of the universal dignity of mankind and the idea that If we could all cooperate voluntarily towards the highest possible ends that that would be much preferable to any state of preferable in maintenance and productivity and ethical desirability to any state that might be imposed by force Yeah, so I think there was a kind of a positive Liberal conviction plus a kind of wise political recognition that britain didn’t have the power to impose itself Uh, it it lost the war against the americans in the 70s 70s And it recognized it it it it didn’t have the power to to make Colonies do exactly what it wanted so it had to have to negotiate it Right. Well, so the cynical view would be well because britain couldn’t exercise power It settled for the second best choice But that’s pretty damn cynical because there are other ways of being foul and corrupt that don’t involve necessarily the use of direct power And it is quite interesting that that india for example still maintains very positive relationships with the uk Yeah, it does and I I I myself think since power is a fact of life And the other question is whether you use it badly or or or well I think those who recognize the limits of their power are wise and many people don’t Chapter four land settlers and conquest how far was the empire endeavor based on the conquest of land? And So, um in north america and in australia um And to some extent in africa um Yes, there was conquest um As an ethicist as a as a as a theorist about just war That doesn’t settle the matter ethically because I have to know, you know What were the reasons for the conquest but my reading of what happened in north america was that the english um Colonists in the 1600s were pretty brutal and pretty unscriptulous In taking lands from native peoples um, but there was a moral revolution as we talked about till or the end of the 1700s and uh in australia, I think certainly colonial governors and officials were They tried very hard uh to prevent settlers from seizing lands unjustly from natives and in the 1900s in the 1800s uh The principle was that you don’t seize territory you negotiate and you make treaties and uh in the 1800s That’s what happened in in canada. So there was a so when people talk about You know the british empires if it was one thing and when people say well It was essentially racist or essentially exploitative or essentially about conquest. I have to say well No, it was all sorts of things. Um And you you’ve got you’ve got um You do have the unjust seizure of territory um, but in the case of india, for example Uh, the british never settled there in large numbers in 1900 Um when there were about 300 million indians there were only about 164 000 britains Um, so there wasn’t there were conquests in india, but again one has to ask well Was the use of force in this case justified sometimes conquests are justified. I mean the the allies conquered nazi germany in 1945 Most of us would say that was justified. So conquest is not necessarily wrong Um, but there’s no doubt that that some land was taken unjustly from from natives um But let’s put this in context again The the the mass movement of people and the trespass on other people’s territory Uh had been a fact of life throughout history Within the north american continent uh indian peoples Uh were in the business of displacing other indian peoples um So the the iraq, I think in the 1600s Expanded they had their own if you like they had their own empire that was expanding the zulu in 1820s africa They expanded and pushed other african peoples off territory I’m not justifying that i’m not saying it was good Um, i’m just and when the europeans did with the british did i’m not saying it was good But it happened a lot because because unlike the world we have today We we didn’t have they didn’t have stable states with fixed boundaries Um, uh things were much more fluid and uncertain um But it’s not the case that the british empire was built entirely on conquest or entirely on the unjust seizure of land It depends on the case in some cases in canada for example Uh, the cession of land by native canadians was agreed by treaty And partly because inadvertently europeans are brought disease to north america native peoples had died out in droves and uh Land that had been occupied was then vacant and it suited native canadians Uh to to see this land that they had no use for it depends on the case Number five is cultural assimilation and genocide how Did the british empire involve genocide? I mean this is a hot issue in canada because our own prime minister has basically defined our country And our culture as intrinsically genocidal and that’s an accusation that’s causing no end of trouble But nowhere near as much trouble as it’s going to cause and so it’s a crucial issue And so what did you conclude on that front? So everything depends on how we define genocide jordan, uh, I think first of all following the Um following what what international law says about genocide genocide has to be intentional, right? Uh, so if we’re talking about the the mass annihilation of real people uh, uh, my understanding is that No genocide occurred with the british empire not even in tasmania and i’m not alone in thinking that there are australian historians who also think the Use of the word genocide to discuss to describe the annihilation of the virtual annihilation of tasmania aborigines was Was genocide that’s not appropriate Um as for canada why not in tasmania if that’s the most crucial case that okay? Obviously be a reasonable place to focus. So why is that inappropriate in the case of tasmania? Because it’s quite clear that the colonial government, um, um sought to protect aborigines there was no intention of the part of the Colonial government to exterminate aborigines and the evidence i’ve read says that even among settlers Yes, there were some who were so hostile to natives. They wanted to exterminate them But that was not a majority opinion Uh, so to describe what happened the reason to describe the reason the aborigines Uh were virtually annihilated not completely uh as Because because of an intentional campaign to exterminate them is just not true Uh, many of them, of course died because of of of disease and because of displacement Uh, but it was not an intentional campaign of extermination In canada predicated on explicit state policy. No, no not at all and and the the the state Uh did its best to to prevent uh, the abuse of natives by by settlers problem was Uh, as was often the case with colonial government. It was too weak not too strong. I didn’t have the power the manpower of the resources to stop was what was going on the frontier which was Was wild and lawless Right. Well, we should point out as in the case of slavery that Explaining ethnocentrism isn’t actually a problem. The problem is explaining any resistance to Ethnocentrism, that’s the miracle. I mean human beings have very distinct in-group propensities and that seems to characterize us at every level of social organization and so the probability that when one group meets another there’s going to be a certain degree of Dehumanization of the other to use the leftist tropes. That’s almost certain but there is that Countervailing position that we’ve been elaborating which Extends a hand of welcome and an invitation to trade to people who aren’t part of our particular ethnic group and that’s a non-trivial Modifying force to the expression of that desire to dominate and destroy Absolutely, and just just to to um expand a bit on that, um Yes The human propensity to identify with one group Against another and to feel superior to the other whether it’s football clubs or Um or nations or races or churches or whatever have you that that’s a universal human Propensity, we all like to do it because it makes it makes us feel bigger and better um But when you’re thinking about what happened when um europeans encountered natives in Aboriginals in australia or native americans or canadians in north america You need to bear two things in mind first of all The cultural gap was vast I mean europe at that time was at the pinpoint of modernity in terms of technology and science and Weaponry and whatever and that they met peoples who in terms of cultural development Were much less developed and so the cultural gap was just vast and these people don’t understand each other And you have weak government authority so there’s not much to control your encounter Um, and so the sense of threat was high and where people feel insecure. They don’t understand each other. They don’t have the same customs Uh, um conflict is almost inevitable and it’s uncontrolled and that that was tragic. Um um, but so when you’re thinking about this encounter between Uh different ethnic groups, uh, then the the the inclination to be Uh dismissive and hostile to another group is intensified because of those conditions Right. Yes. Well, and I would also say too. We don’t want to underestimate the degree to which many of the earlier earliest adventurers on the colonial frontier Were ne’er-do-wells and psychopaths who left their own country because no one could tolerate them and so There was a certain heightened percentage of the worst who left first because no one could stand them where they came from and They had the opportunity to let their sadistic motivations run free on the frontier So yeah, so when we talk about colonialism and I I try to avoid The ism because it implies again something that was unitary. We’re talking about Uh colonial imperial government in london colonial government in in um ottawa and missionaries and traders and adventurers Um, we’re talking all sorts of different people with different attitudes and you’re right. Uh, the story in in north america and africa, uh was sometimes of of independent private adventurers and part part of the reason for imposing colonial government is to is to try and control the encounter between europeans and And natives in the hope that you that you might be able to to to protect natives Right, right. Well number seven Or number six was free trade investment and exploitation. Was it the empire driven fundamentally by the mode of economic exploitation? I think we’ve covered that so let’s move to Number seven government legitimacy and nationalism chapter seven since colonial government was not democratic Did that make it illegitimate? So what I say about that jordan is I mean, I think any good government Has to be government for the people and any government that wants to to serve the people’s interests needs to to um, Needs to understand what it is the people need and it needs to be able to hear from the people So that it forms policies that serve the people’s interests So there needs to be communication between the the top the bottom and the top And democracy is is one way of doing that and it’s one way of holding executive government to to account But it’s not the only way and I just think it is it is quite implausible to suppose that sufficient political justice only visited the earth With the birth of the american republic in the late 1700s early 1800s So so the fact that a government isn’t democratic to my mind doesn’t make it illegitimate And mass democracy mass democracy, uh was only developing in in the western world In the 1800s and in europe the late 1800s. I mean britain didn’t uh give the vote equally to men and women Until 1928 So if the empire wasn’t democratic it was partly because britain was only becoming democratic and the last thing i’d say about that is that um native people sometimes recognize that that Even the government that isn’t democratic is good enough. So in the 1950s and 60s No one knows how many but there were several million chinese who fled the chinese mainland because it was then in a state of civil war or anarchy Uh, where did they flee? They fled into the british colony of hong kong. They did it voluntarily Not because hong kong was democratic But because at least there was the rule of law and there’s sufficient stability to build a decent life um, so your your case essentially is is I think is that Even if there is a hierarchy of legitimate government with highly functional democratic states being at the pinnacle That doesn’t mean there’s no differentiation whatsoever Between states that haven’t reached that level of development for one reason or another and that would be exactly Well exemplified in the case of hong kong And so it’s not obvious to me at all that hong kong was well served by being returned to the chinese communists, for example I mean, I know that was a transition away from democracy, but People had been voting with their feet long before that On the inside of the cover of my book. I insisted there be a photograph of young chinese student protesters in hong kong With a placard saying Hong kong is british Just to make that point Right, right, right. Right. Well, so what do you think it is that lends a government legitimacy? If it can be legitimate to some degree outside of the formal structures of Of the kind of democracy we more or less take for granted now it’s it’s because it it’s um provides just government and uh, just government means that the The genuine interests of the people are well served and uh the thing about democracy, I mean, we all know government can go bad and democracy Liberal democracy is a way of constraining that It doesn’t remove the possibility even democratic government can go bad um, but um Sometimes without the democratic constraints Non-democratic governments can rule justly and that’s why if Yeah, well, that’s why people talk about that’s why people if that weren’t the case chinese people would not have entered hong kong Right, right. Well, we could go back to our early discussion and presume that Non-democratic governments that are still predicated on the idea that there’s something intrinsically valuable about each individual and that each individual is responsible for the Safekeeping and safeguarding of other individuals. That’s not a bad step in the legitimate government direction Absolutely, I just to go back to to your biblical allusions earlier jordan, of course the in the hebrew scriptures the old testament, uh, A common metaphor for the king Is shepherd So even back there there’s a notion that a king a good king is a shepherd of his people and sometimes Sometimes it happened He’s also subordinate to a higher authority and you even saw that among the messipitamians. So This is not in the judaicristian line of thinking but the messipitamians regarded their empire emperor If he was exercising his sovereignty Properly he was an avatar of marduk and marduk had eyes around his head so he could see in all directions and he could speak Truthfully and magically and so the messipitamians had already figured out that there was a principle of legitimate Sovereignty and it had something to do with the ability to pay attention to everything and to speak honestly Yeah, so this goes back to our earlier discussion jordan because yes a good ruler Is one who recognizes that he is subject to the requirements of goodness truth and beauty and You know human consciousness aren’t always sensitive, but sometimes a ruler’s conscience is sensitive and that’s why um one reason why I remain a supporter of the monarchy in britain because as we saw at the coronation ceremony, uh a few days ago The symbol of the head of state gets on his knees to receive authority from above which is given to him and I think that’s a fantastic a really important political symbol Right. Well, and it’s comprehensible too when you put it in terms of something like an aggregation of virtues you say well Even if you’re not explicitly religious in the classic monotheistic sense you could say well a good ruler should be Subordinate to the principles of truth and beauty and justice and courage and like the panoply of more or less universally recognized Virtues and that those are in some sense rulers above him or her Yes Yes Chapter eight justified force and pervasive violence was the empire essentially violent and was its violence pervasively racist and terroristic Okay, um first thing to say is um all states depend upon the threat of the use of violence, um, because states are in the business of uh, um of suppressing unjust behavior whether within or threats from without and Unfortunately in the world we have some people do abuse others and sometimes they have to be forced to stop and therefore Force and sometimes violent force has to be used. So let’s recognize that as true of all states next thing to do is to recognize that as I said, um in the past whether in britain or in in britain’s colonies governments in the 17th in 1700s and 1800s were compared to the states. We have now very weak limited resources and uh, we’ve got a weak state that the threat of of violence erupting and the whole system disintegrating is high and therefore, uh, um in greater insecurity Uh, the greater use of violent force is morally permissible. The only reason that we in um in canada or the states or in the west in europe We can afford to be very Restrictive in the use of force within our own territories The only reason we can afford that is because we’re very strong states and where where we don’t have a lot of violence in the streets But in the past that wasn’t so so there’s that and then then the third thing to say is um Um, whether violence is justified or not depends on the circumstances of the case and I give some instances in that chapter of Imperial violence that I think was quite unjustified Um, but then I say, um The british empire was at its most violent Between 1939 45 During the second world war When as canadians and australians and indians and africans well know The british resistance to nazi germany was an imperial Uh effort Between may 1940 and june 1941 may 1940 franzfeld june 41 germans Unwisely invaded russia in that period the british empire with the sole exception of greece offered the only military resistance to the massively murderous racist regime in berlin Uh, so yes, uh, the empire was often violent Sometimes and in that latter case its violence was well justified Well, let’s wrap up on with the conclusion and the epilogue I mean One of the things that i’ve noticed Is that this insistence that our ancestors let’s say were motivated by nothing but oppression and power Is And is perhaps designed to be something that’s profoundly demoralizing to To modern people and I think that’s especially true of young men because the implication is that their ambitions are Nothing, but the manifestation of a sort of narrowly self-centered greed That they’re feeding nothing but patriarchal oppression at every level of social organization from marriage up to the state itself and that even if they manage to And and not only are their ambitions manifestations of that Patriarchal oppression say it’s also part of a planetary destructive planetary force And that seems to me to be profoundly demoralizing if if we lose respect for our ancestors like a balanced respect I think we simultaneously lose respect for our institutions and for ourselves and I really think that’s happening in a widespread manner at the moment and that seems to me to be nothing but bad and so You you wrote your epilogue in your conclusion What what did you conclude overall? In terms of what you would hope for and recommend for the future Yep so just in the conclusion I I craft An overall judgment about the british empire and I say You know we end up with And I I list them a list of evils and a list of goods Um, there’s no way we can say that one outweighed the other you can’t do it that way. I mean how many you know how many Emancipated slaves are worth how many people killed at america in 19. You can’t do it that way Uh what what you can do and I I see to demonstrate that is to say that the empire was not essentially racist or exploitative or given to Unjustified violence and then vision you’ve got these growing humanitarian strands In the 1800s and the liberal political strand whereby the empire relaxes into independent states and then When does the empire exhaust itself? During the second world war fighting nazism, which has to say something good about what it had to become. So that’s how I That’s what I conclude about the empire. Um but to your question about The present relevance of all this and this is why I wrote the book it wasn’t just for historical reasons at all It was because you know, I noticed that in in current, uh debate in in the english-speaking world The focus is entirely, uh by the uh by the um Post-modernist or anti-colonial critics entirely on european British empires the fact that arabs and africans and native americans Did empire the chinese or the japanese doesn’t matter. It’s all about the white empires. Why is that? and uh, I read that as Being because this is an assault on the record and the self-confidence of the west because if it’s true that um our countries canada britain Australia new zealand if if our countries were built on racism exploitation then that surely undermines our confidence in institutions that we’ve we’ve created and is a recipe for And ourselves and as a recipe for for as it were year zero revolution, which generally speaking doesn’t serve humanity very well So that’s why I wrote the book Okay, so I see two things driving that and I’d really like your comments on this and then maybe we could turn Finally to the issue of critical reviews of your book so the first thing I see in that enterprise is an attempt to Revivify the marxist doctrine of oppression and victim is that if you can point to the west as Fundamentally exploitative and the rest of the world say as fundamentally victimized you Breathe new life into the corpse of marx and can maintain that Monomaniacal fixation on power as the fundamental motivating The fundamental motivator of humanity, but I see something deeper going on there, too, you know, and this is a trickier problem you know i’ve been Writing about the story of cain and abel and Cain and abel are of course the first two real human beings in history because adam and eve were made by god and They locked themselves in a fratricidal Relationship that degenerates into chaos as the story progresses and The fundamental story is envy and revenge the spirit of bitterness envy and revenge against the spirit that prevails as a consequence of making proper sacrifices And I see that battle And i’m not alone in this people who analyze mythological stories have noted the trope of the hostile brothers as a universal trope for for decades But it is something like the spirit of envy against the spirit of productive generosity and I see the marxist enterprise itself as a manifestation of That more fundamental resentment and envy and this as a continuation of an ideological or religious battle that’s been going on Essentially as long as there’s been human beings It’s the attempt by those who refuse to produce and refuse to share To tear down and destroy the accomplishments of those who have done it to some degree Even however badly and so I’d like your reflections on those suppositions if you wouldn’t mind Yeah So in the epilogue I Having having decided that the the story that is being put about about Colonialism is historically untrue and quite unfair I then asked myself well Why are people Going beyond the evidence and the truth here. So the the evidence says The stroke the record was mixed. They say it was all essentially racist, etc What propels? These people to go beyond What reason and evidence and the truth? permit And I I I end up thinking of it maybe as you do too as it’s it’s it’s not it’s a kind of spiritual thing um it’s it’s one speculation is um, you know we all like you know, we like to big up our little lives by By um Making ourselves into the um Knights in shiny armor and and we we like to put down other people it’s a very human thing And so there’s a bit of kind of self-igradiazment here where I get to be the social justice warrior and there’s There’s the wicked evil bigger and there’s the wicked evil peterson and we’re going to smash them feels great, doesn’t it? Um So there’s a bit of that Going on I think um, I think it’s also perhaps a kind of degenerate Christianity, uh in that um Uh, you know according to Christianity it’s it’s always right to confess our sins and uh, um Uh, the self-righteous ironically that the saint is one who knows just how sinful he really is Right, and I I wonder if he doesn’t know how sinful others are. That’s the thing It’s a well, it’s really I do think it is an attempt to acquire And this isn’t particularly original observation, but it’s an attempt to acquire Unearned moral virtue and it’s a it’s a demented messianism and and it’s unearned moral virtue because the the confession is on behalf of The group and not the individual it’s like here’s how we were wrong and most of those we wasn’t me That was my ancestors and i’m clearly morally superior to them and i’ve done all the necessary work of repentance and transformation. It’s like Yeah, I don’t think so that that’s a lot more difficult than you might think and And I think it’s the desire to avoid that responsibility and to adopt the guise of The cloak of messianism without any of the work that’s driving this in in one of the most fundamental ways Yes, and and and then some of these people I mean they you know, they’re often They’re often white. They’re often highly privileged and uh, they presume to speak on behalf of the oppressed of the world Uh and and and and when some when some members of the oppressed of the world with non-white skins stand up and say We don’t agree with you. I’ve heard i’ve heard um Soon after I got into trouble in 2017 I I got a an email from um an indian Uh ethnically indian britain whom I’ve met 10 years before he was a a medic And he said to me now. I don’t know if you know, but my grandfather Was among those in the jelly and wallabug in umritsar in 1919 when general dyer opened fire for Six to 15 minutes and and shot 350 Unarmed indians my grandfather was among them Uh, but he said nevertheless, I I think the british empire contained good as well as bad So that there was there was one of the oppressed speaking to me and saying on your side um But they but the my my critics, uh, they think they they stand for for the oppressed There’s a there’s an odd ironic patronizing condescending quality to to the attitude to those they think they represent Uh one could say it’s also a bit much for me It’s like one of the things I did notice among the radical say at ivy league institutions in the united states is Not only did they want all the privilege of being privileged which they certainly have merely as a consequence of being in an ivy league institution But they want all the privilege and moral glory of being oppressed at the same time and there’s a kind of Greek Grasping narcissism and that that’s really overwhelming. It’s like I see I see what you want you want everything that goes along with wealth and power and you want to have all the virtue whatever that might be of being associated with The victimized and oppressed that’s too much. That’s that’s too much. That’s too much That’s a greed that is bottomless in its narcissistic extent And so I can’t help but see that the discourse I agree. So so you end up with some people claiming to to have indigenous heritage that it’s discovered they don’t have at all because I take it the the attraction of Identifying yourself as a victim is certainly political now because it will it will gain you Yes political points in terms of your career in terms of your status um So that there are material, you know, but one can turn the the The postmodernist cynicism back on on these postmodernists and say well, actually, what are your interests here? Are they legitimate? um, yeah, yeah So now here you are. You’re not being mobbed horribly as we speak. Um, you published this contentious book a few weeks ago um has the mob come for you in any profound and unsettling way and That’s the first question and the second question is How has your book been received critically? Okay, i’ll let’s take those two questions in in turn so Has the mob come for me? Um Yes, uh, um insofar as um some of the reviews Uh, i’ve received have been extremely hostile And yeah, I confess I took a while to read them because it was always It’s a bit emotionally taxing to read what some people say um Particularly since it’s it’s it’s it’s almost invariably unfair and and distorted um But so so there have been very some very hostile reviews. Uh, one of them um Runs to to fifteen thousand word Uh diatribe that uh, the journal of imperial and commonwealth history will publish glad to say that I was invited to write a response and after Girding my lines and mustering my courage. I read through this stuff and i’ve written a fourteen and a half thousand word response and Uh, um with the exception of three minor points. I don’t think it scores Uh, so my in this case and in all the others Because once I’ve worked my way through the hostile responses I emerge feeling stronger Right, right So that’s a good doctrine for life actually if you’re trying to live a straight life is that if you do confront those accusations Which is very unsettling and requires a lot of soul searching to the degree that they’re unjust and mere accusation then You can What would you say you can fortify yourself in your convictions? Yeah, I mean To be quite honest. I mean I have learned some things If I were to write the book again, I would change some things but not big things. Um and uh, I mean I do You know, I am open to the possibility that i’m completely daft and that i’m making a huge fool of myself um, but as my consistent experience over the last Five six years since two december 2017 is Once I face the opposition and look at it and scrutinizing it I actually think no i’m right As for the reception of the book, um generally, uh tremendous. Um It uh, it was published in the uk in 2nd of february Uh, it went into the uh sunday times newspaper non-fiction Top 10 bestseller lists for two weeks um, I was told Um a week or so ago that in the first three months of its publication here it had sold just under 24 000 hardback copies And it was published in canada in the u.s only last week So we get to see what it does does there so Um, the good news jordan is from my point of view um in spite of my critics and in spite of um attempts to Cancel the book that my original publisher made Um, I think that the book is a great There is evidently, um a a large public appetite For for a reasonable even-handed thoughtful consideration of this contentious issue Well, that’s that’s heartening I would say that There is an audience for it and that the audience is large and that this discussion can proceed and that you can manage it and still Have your life, you know, you can say these things. Well, that’s it’s very it is very heartening You know that that’s still a possibility a real possibility To have it published and to have it widely appreciated and at least or widely criticized for that matter at least available And so now are you still teaching? Are you still teaching full-time at oxford? What what’s no no I I I’m i’m 67 years old. Oh, let’s use about 68 now But I I retired at 67 which was one year earlier than I have to because in oxford we still have a mandatory time of age Um, but but I chose I’ve I I’d always planned to retire at 67, um, so I I’m Yes, I finished being a full-time professor in At end of september Uh last year, but I I did that not because I planned to to Um sit on the beach and drink cocktails all day, uh, because there are things I want to do like this Uh like writing for the press Um, and so I wanted to be free to focus on what I really want to do And i’m doing it and so and so what’s your next project? Uh right now, um, I just finished two books back to back I did did a book on what’s wrong with rights in 2020 and then this book came out and i’m going to be busy I think Doing this kind of thing having these kind of conversations on colonialism, I think through to the autumn of this year um, i’m i’m i’m not uh Set upon writing another book at this point. I may write something on what i’ve experienced in the last five years in terms of free speech and the way in which communities React to the to people like me Reflect on on the silence of colleagues um The way which institutions behave something along those lines i haven’t decided yet All right, everyone well we have been talking today with professor nijel bigger professor of christian ethics About his new book colonialism a moral reckoning which hit the bestseller list in the uk and is now widely available in other Uh What in other english-speaking markets and I presume will be translated quite widely as the months progress Thank you everyone who’s watching and listening for attending to this dialogue and to the daily wire plus people for facilitating the conversation and Adding their level of technical expertise to the film crew here. I’m in cyprus today to the film crew here in cyprus Thank you very much for making this happen Dr bigger it was good to talk to you again and uh, good luck with the continued pursuit of your endeavors and Congratulations on the publication and success of the book and no doubt will be in further contact At least I hope so and it’s very good talking with you today Yeah, it’s a great talking to you. Uh, jordan. Thanks for the opportunity And now as you know if you’re listening i’m going to talk to dr Bigger professor bigger for another half an hour on the daily wire plus platform and we’ll discuss some of the elements of his career And his biography and so if you’re interested in that and I think you probably should be if you found this conversation Useful consider heading over to the daily wire plus platform and picking up that additional discussion See you all later Hello everyone, I would encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guests on dailywireplus.com