Enslaved by Falsehoods 

The black slave trade is an inexcusable blight on Britain’s history, but to listen to some commentators, such as those affiliated with Black Lives Matter, you could be forgiven for thinking that it was still taking place or that it had only been abolished a few years ago. In the minds of many young people, the issues of slavery, colonialism, and racial prejudice are intertwined in an unholy trinity of ideas, which are then extrapolated and applied to people and institutions in various ways, ranging from the most particular details to the most ridiculous generalities. For example, Winston Churchill presided over the British government at a time when Britain was still a significant colonial power, ergo Churchill was bad, his statue represents evil, and therefore, it should be defaced or removed.

To my mind, these people are now the ones who are enslaved. They are enslaved by false ideas and by organisations such as Black Lives Matter, who merely see them as cannon fodder in the class war. Black Lives Matter is an avowedly Marxist organisation towards whom any appeals to logic fall on deaf ears. It rarely occurs to the paint daubers and statue topplers that, were it not for the likes of Churchill, they would most likely be goose-stepping down Whitehall instead of defacing statues with spray paint.

The example of Black Lives Matter and Churchill’s statue is only one manifestation of the absurdity of seeking simple solutions for the complexity and the undoubted wrongs that were promulgated during the eras of slavery and colonialism. It would take considerable mental agility to uncover anything positive about the slave trade, and I will not try. But to reduce the issue to straightforward racism (more accurately termed racialism) is undoubtedly an oversimplification. The major driver of the slave trade was economic. What better way could there be to get your cotton fields or sugar plantations to turn a profit than to use a massive unpaid workforce whose upkeep was minimal and who were replaceable by further batches of the same?

Clearly, to keep people working in appalling conditions for endless hours and to deprive them of the means to sustain themselves and their freedom, considerable brutality was required. The cruelty and the dominance by predominantly white families required an excuse to help good Christians sleep easy in their beds. Thus, black people were considered little better than animals; they were an inferior species and not worthy of equality alongside white people. This thinking almost certainly gave rise to modern racial supremacy theories.

Such excuses also can be broadly applied; thus, the largely white working classes in Britain were also treated like a subspecies, working long hours for little reward as this is what they—as opposed to the aristocracy—were bred for. It was their station. The analogy is far from perfect, and rather than seeking similarities in the respective plights of the black slaves in America and the Caribbean with white mill workers in Britain, I point to the similarities in the mindsets of the landed gentry, who were undoubtedly up to their necks in both injustices.

Colonialism, as we presently understand it, is a different phenomenon from slavery. During the era of slavery there were entities, mainly in the Caribbean, called “the colonies,” which were claimed by various countries for purely economic gain. Initially, their land was worked by indentured labour imported from the countries which owned the colonies, and by prisoners and other labour which was not far removed from the slavery which later replaced it.

As previously mentioned, the plantation owners ultimately found a cheaper and easily replaceable source of labour in the slave trade from Africa. It may also be the case that these labourers—that is, the ones who survived the dreadful journey in the barbaric slave ships—were fitter workers than the largely white workers they replaced. This is a controversial issue, as it points to potentially genetic reasons for the preference for black slaves, but at least one prominent black athlete has raised this possibility. Frankly, we will never know for sure, but the main motivation for the slave trade was, without a doubt, untrammelled greed.

The colonialism so despised by groups like Black Lives Matter, resulting in the defacement of statues such as those of Churchill and others, and in efforts to rename streets with colonial names, occurred much later. In fact, the slave trade had been abolished long before the major period of colonisation of India, the Antipodes, the Far East, Southeast Asia, and Africa. While everything colonial was not perfect, this colonialism had absolutely nothing to do with the slave trade. Some countries were harsher colonial masters than others, but unlike slavery, a great many positive aspects of colonialism—especially British colonialism—emerge. These include Christianity (as opposed to superstition), formal education, and organised government.

I have met many people from Hong Kong, South Asia, and Africa who, while not expressing a particular love of the British, are clear that under British rule, almost all their countries were better off. They were better governed, less corrupt, and had higher levels of economic prosperity. For a perfect example of a former British colony that failed to prosper independently, look no further than Zimbabwe. Of course, some former colonies are thriving economically, such as Nigeria, but there are also a great many undesirable aspects to present-day Nigeria, in relation to human rights.

It is undoubtedly correct that all these countries should have the right to independence and self-determination. In some cases, the British have little to be proud of. It is worth bearing in mind that in one of the most economically successful British colonies—Hong Kong—democracy did not exist until 1997. It remains fragile under Chinese rule, but we have never held the moral high ground from which to lecture the Chinese government. It is also worth noting that Hong Kong was one of the last colonies Britain relinquished—being obliged to under the leasing arrangement with mainland China—but the British could have withdrawn earlier and established a democratic system which the Chinese would have found difficult to dismantle. The reason Britain held on to Hong Kong is quite simple: Hong Kong was a highly profitable place for British companies and for the vast numbers of expatriates who worked there. Other colonies, principally in Africa, were a net drain on Britain’s resources. Indeed, the British conservative writer and journalist Paul Johnson, in his History of the Modern World, argues that British colonialism was largely an unprofitable vanity project.

I can well imagine that many colonialists held racially superior views of the people of colour over whom they presided, just as some people do today. That and our undeniable and, indeed undenied, participation in the black slave trade, clearly calls into question how we mark the memory of some individuals who were, undoubtedly, slavers as well as buildings and streets named after individuals who have demonstrable links to specific injustices. By all means, after due process, remove a few offensive statues and rename some streets and buildings if they cause genuine offence. But this is not the business in which Black Lives Matter and those over whom they hold sway are engaged. Instead, they are engaged in a culture war, and anything tainted by colonialism or slavery is a target for cancellation, removal, or relabelling. Thus, any individual or entity who could have ‘benefited from the slave trade’ is targeted. For example, Sir Isaac Newton, who discovered gravity and developed the laws of motion, apparently invested in a company with links to the slave trade, so he is being removed from university curricula (incidentally, he lost a fortune on the investment). Others have similarly been targeted in this absurd witch-hunt. It is absurd because during the era of slaving, there cannot have been a man, woman, or child who did not, to some extent, benefit from the slave trade. Even if they were not an investor as such, anyone wearing cotton or using sugar was nevertheless a beneficiary. However, Black Lives Matter and their camp followers have this covered: they want to erase the whole of British history and to make us ashamed of our past. Conveniently, and remarkably, they gloss over the years during which Britain and British politicians and campaigners achieved the abolition of the slave trade.

The bug of shame has even infected some of our major British institutions, such as art galleries, universities, and, notably, The National Trust, who are now wont to providing “trigger warnings” regarding anything remotely linked to the slave trade. This is to avoid feelings of trauma in those who view exhibits and identify the link to slavery. Some may, indeed, take offence. But they are free to turn away from the exhibits, not to leave a financial contribution, or to leave a suitable comment in the visitors’ book. Despite decades without any such ‘trigger warnings’, not a single case of trauma has been recorded. This is a perfect example of a solution being implemented for a problem that did not exist.

The National Trust has probably been the most active in its excoriation regarding its links to slavery and colonialism. Towards that end, it commissioned a major report into colonialism and historic slavery which, in fact, makes for quite interesting reading. The links of many of our major country houses to both the slave trade and colonialism is undeniable, but the report also indicates that many colonialists and even slavers were involved in philanthropy, just not towards the black people they enslaved.

It is difficult to know where and when the attack on our culture and history will end and on what pretence it will next be targeted. But the National Trust seem to be at the vanguard of super-wokery. Now they have produced a calendar which highlights cultural and religious festivals such as Ramadan and Diwali but, guess what, not Christmas or Easter.

The hamster wheel of apology and self-abnegation by major institutions and venues is likely to continue. Taken to its logical conclusion, every statue, painting, and historical artifact will be festooned and possibly obscured by notices and ‘trigger warnings’. The British government, at least, is pushing back against the removal of statues, and individuals are taking action against organisations such as the National Trust by cancelling their subscriptions. It is a shame that this must happen to these organisations, which exist to protect our culture. But they must learn that if their mission drifts to undermining our culture, then they will have to seek funding elsewhere. Perhaps they could try Black Lives Matter.

Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please share this piece with your friends, or consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!

Please follow and like us: