‘The critics of the empire are in many ways the critics of capitalism.’
Why has it become a reflex for Britain to emphasise the worst of our history while neglecting the best?
This week on The Capitalist, I spoke to Robert Tombs, emeritus professor of French history at Cambridge and author of The English and Their History, about Our Islands’ Story, the new book he has written with Nigel Biggar. It’s out next week.
We discussed why the history of empire and slavery has come to crowd out everything else, why Britain’s part in abolition gets so little attention and what the empire did for global trade. We also covered why he thinks the institutions are now too captured for the free market of ideas to fix things on its own, and why he fears Britain’s precious inheritance of free speech and thought is under threat.
Below, you’ll find some longer excerpts from the conversation.
Marc Sidwell
Editor, CapX
A story told in very dark terms:
‘It’s something that affects not only Britain, but much of the Anglosphere. You see very similar phenomena in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand… [The British empire] was once seen as being probably at least better than the alternatives. Well-meaning, if not always successful, with occasional crimes, mistakes, etc. But basically, probably on the whole beneficial… And we’re taught to see our whole history in very dark terms. You might say it’s not entirely new. There’s been a left-wing history for a very long time, which tended to concentrate on oppression and exploitation at home. But I think now that’s become much more a global story in which this oppression is imposed on the world. And hence the history of the empire and the history of slavery have become almost an obsession.’
Why a common history matters:
‘It’s been believed for a long time by very many people that if you want to have a society which is based on some sort of consent, consensus, solidarity, then it needs to have a common culture. And that culture will have as its foundation, or at least one of its major pillars, a common history… History now is being taught in a very partial way, in which the things that one might think were good are being marginalised, and the things that were bad are being foregrounded.’
Perpetual victims:
‘We do have, as you say, a multi-ethnic population, and the histories need to be acknowledged and told… It’s quite right that we should recognise other people’s histories, especially if they’re now part of our community… But it seems to me slightly perverse to think you’re building a better society if you try to convince everybody, and in particular members of ethnic minorities, that they are perpetual victims of a racist society. And that things like the abolition of slavery are not things that we want to talk about. We only want to talk about slavery. And therefore we only want to create a perpetual sense of grievance. Now, that seems to me both bad history and also bad politics, bad sociology.’
Empire, trade and capitalism:
‘The critics of the empire are in many ways the critics of capitalism. I think the enemies of imperialism at the time and since have often been its enemies or its critics because they see it as having spread capitalism – essentially, trade. Well, yes, if you think that the spreading of trade was a very bad thing, and it certainly had some bad results, then you can say the empire was dreadful. If you see some benefits in economic development, then I think one cannot deny that the empire was a vector for major economic development.’
No longer a free market in ideas:
‘I’m sorry to say it will have to be a major political effort, because I don’t think this is any longer a legitimate exchange of views between academics… A certain orthodoxy has largely captured the institutions, and that means they’ve also captured the funding, the promotions, the exhibitions and so on, and are often not willing to engage with critics. You can point out to them that they’ve said something that’s not right, and they’ll simply ignore it. So I think it has to be a political effort which will include changes in the school curriculum, much more control by politicians – and I’m sorry to say this, being a sort of classical liberal – over institutions that spend public money, to make sure that they’re not using public funds to undermine our social cohesion… We can’t just say, let’s leave it to the free market of ideas, because it no longer is a free market.’
Shame and growth:
‘These things would be very difficult to quantify. But if economic efficiency and economic growth require a level of trust, and a willingness of most people at least to obey the rules and think the rules are worth obeying, then you do need a sense that you are part of the same family – the same national family at least, and I suppose also the same Western family. If that starts to go and you feel that everything has always been criminal, then I think you can no longer assume that the people you’re dealing with are trustworthy or will trust you.’
Britain’s greatest inheritance?:
‘I think the freedom to think. And I think it’s also the one that is in most danger now. Perhaps that’s where we should have started. The whole intellectual climate in our societies, not only here, has become much, much more repressive. And I think we have to try to preserve the idea that people surely have a right to think and express views without being punished or sent to Coventry or cancelled… It’s not something that came quickly, of course. It is the result of a long period of effort. And it’s something that we should be very wary of casting away without much thought.’
