Dear Dominic,

Re: Stop saying sorry for our history: For too long our leaders have
been crippled by a post-imperial cringe: A Rejoinder

I have read with interest your article titled “Stop saying sorry for our
history: For too long our leaders have been crippled by a post-imperial
cringe” which was published in the Daily Mail. In your article, you express
your displeasure with Prime Minister David Cameron for adopting a spirit of
humility during his recent visit to India. You argue that rather than being
apologetic and expressing humility for Britain’s imperial and colonial past,
David Cameron and other British leaders should be proud of Britain’s past
achievements.

As you have rightly pointed out in your article, Britain has made a number of
positive contributions to the world. This feat is even more remarkable when
one considers the size and population of Great Britain. As a result, it is
expected that Briton’s should be and must be proud of Britain’s contribution to
world such as the English language, the Rule of Law and parliamentary
democracy. Likewise, Briton’s should be and must be proud of the
contribution of various Britons such as Williams Shakespeare, Sir Isaac
Newton, John Lennon, David Beckham and John Wesley amongst others in
the fields of literature, science, music, sports and religion respectively.
Likewise, Briton’s should be and must be proud of Britain’s role in the pursuit
of some aspects of justice and international diplomacy.

However, for one to argue that we should not apologise for our colonial and
imperial past is to imply that the damage caused by colonialism on the people
of the colonies was right and just. Such viewpoint fails to view colonialism
from the perspective of the colonised group.

In the next couple of pages, I will seek to address some of the points that you
have raised in your article and also explain why Prime Minister David
Cameron was right to go to India with a spirit of humility and why our leaders
should be apologetic for our colonial and imperial past.

Before, I go any further, I would like to briefly describe my background. I am a

British Citizen (Lex Soli) of African Descent. I grew up not only in England, but
also in a former colony of Britain and my experience in these two countries
has given me a unique perspective to understand colonialism and imperialism
from the viewpoint of both the descendants of the colonised group and the
coloniser group.
Ill-gotten Treasures

In your opening paragraph, you cite the historical 1911 Delhi Durbar, which
marked the coronation of King George V as the Emperor of India. You use
this historical occasion to argue that “George V could never have imagined
that one day a British Prime Minister would be talking of his ‘humility’ — not
his pride — in Britain’s relationship with India”. However, you fail to discuss
the history behind the diamond-studded, 34-ounce Imperial Crown worn by
King George V on that day. The diamond engraved on the Crown used by the
King probably was the Koh-I-Noor diamond, which was illegally taken away
from India during the British Raj. This diamond has been a source of dispute
between the British authorities and the Indian authorities ever since the late
19th century. In 2000, a number of Indian MPs demanded the return of the
106 carat diamond back to India, while a couple of days ago, Prime Minister
David Cameron explained that returning the diamond back to India would set
an “unworkable precedent” which could potentially empty the British Museum
if the trend continued.

As a young child my parents taught me that when something belongs to

someone else, you should not deceive the other person or beat up the other
person in order to obtain the item. The history of British Colonial rule in a
number of colonies is full of instances in which treasures, artifacts and other
precious items were illegally taken from the colonies and shipped to Britain.
As at the time of writing this letter, many of these ill-gotten treasures are yet to
be returned.

For instance, during the British invasion of Benin in 1897, a number of Benin
sculptures including the famous Oba Mask of the Queen Mother Idia were
illegally taken by the British and kept in the British Museum. Despite pleas
from the Nigerian Government, these sculptures are yet to be returned. Other
looted artifacts currently in the possession of Britain include the Egyptian
Rosetta Stone, the Ethiopian Tabots etc.

When a leader is aware of such past misdeeds, don’t you think it is

appropriate for him or her to exhibit a spirit of humility and apologise for the
wrong deed?

Balkanization

You attribute India’s success to the Anglo Saxon foundation and you suggest
that its unity could be due to British Colonial rule. However, you fail to provide
any premise to support your assumption. If British Colonial rule was a
contributory factor to India’s emergence as the second fastest growing
economy, how come majority of the countries that constitute the
Commonwealth of Nations still experience low per capita income, low life
expectancy, high levels of infant mortality and high level of poverty?

You also fail to address the role Britain played in the partition of India into
Pakistan and India, yet you seem to attribute India’s unity due to the British
Colonial rule. One legacy of British Colonial rule was the balkanization of a
number of territories. One area where this was common was in Africa.
Territories that shared similar cultures were divided and areas with different
cultures were joined together.

Britain was a key player along with other countries such as Germany, France
and Portugal in the Berlin Conference of 1884-85, which resulted in the
partition of Africa among seven European countries with no regard to the
existing ethnic and political boundaries in place. This balkanization of the
continent is a contributory factor to the numerous conflicts that continues to
exist throughout Africa today. When you consider Britain’s contribution to the
balkanization of territories, which has lead to conflicts, and loss of lives, do
you still think that British leaders should still stop saying sorry for these past
misdeeds?

Historical Apologies are Meaningless

You also state “…by and large, of course, historical apologies are
meaningless”. One problem with this statement is that it fails to look at history
from the viewpoint of the victim. Apologising for past misdeeds is a sign of
remorse and demonstrates that one has learnt lessons for historical
misdeeds. Afterall, it was the same Winston Churchill who you quote
throughout your article that said, “Those that fail to learn from history, are
doomed to repeat it”.

Moreover, victims and descendants of victims of historical atrocities do not

regard historical apologies as meaningless. The descendants of the
Tasmanian Aborigines who learnt of how their ancestors were massacred will
not regard an historical apology for such genocide meaningless and would not
want such atrocities repeated; the Jews will never regard an historical apology
for the holocaust meaningless, neither would they want such atrocities to be
repeated; the families of the victims of the millions of people who died from
starvation during the Biafra war in Nigeria would not regard an historical
apology for the loss of lives meaningless neither would they want such
atrocities repeated; the victims of apartheid rule in South Africa would not
regard an historical apology for the crime of apartheid meaningless, neither
would they want such atrocities repeated; a number of African’s whose
ancestors were once referred to by Lord Luguard as “having a mind far nearer
to the animal world than that of the European or Asiatic” would not regard an
historical apology for such statement meaningless, neither would they want
such a statement to be used to describe any African again .

Slave Trade

With reference to the slave trade, you note that critics of Britain’s role in the
trade “are suspiciously slow to rejoice in the fact that more than any other
people on earth, it was the British who brought that age-old exploitation of
human beings to an end”. Admittedly, a number of British people and groups
such as Williams Wilberforce, the Quakers, Thomas Clarkson, Granville
Sharp etc played a significant role in the abolition of slavery. However, these
individuals and organizations at the time of speaking against the ills of slave
trade were going against the tide. Furthermore, slavery should not have taken
place in the first place.

While one should salute the courage of these reformists in their quest in
abolishing slavery, I still do not understand why you feel that critics should
REJOICE in the fact a number of Britons were instrumental to bringing an end
to slavery, especially when Britain was a key player in the slave trade for
almost 250 years.

Why should critics of Britain’s role the slave trade rejoice when millions of
Africans were transported as slaves to work in plantations before slave trade
was abolished?

Why should critics of Britain’s role the slave trade rejoice when slave trader
Sir John Hawkins referred to the Africans that he captured as “human
cargoes”?

Why should critics of Britain’s role the slave trade rejoice when African’s were
described as “'two-legged beasts' or 'savages' that were not quite beasts but
were certainly not human either.”

Relative Injustice

You also appear to trivialize the atrocities of British colonial rule by suggesting
that these atrocities were not as grave as those committed by other great
empires. To support your argument, you state that there is nothing in British
history that equates to the extermination of the ten million people in Belgium
Congo or the torture of the Algerians. With this line of reasoning, you appear
to define injustice in relative terms, whereby an unjust act that negatively
impacts say three people is better than an unjust act that negatively impacts
five people. However, the problem with this line of reasoning is that it views
injustice from a relative perspective.

When an unjust act happens, there are usually two parties involved namely
the oppressed party who suffers loss, pain or sorrow and the oppressor who
inflicts the pain. The oppressor often views injustice in relative terms, whereas
the oppressed party views injustice in absolute terms. For instance, a woman
who has been raped views rape from the physical pain that she suffers and
the psychological trauma she experiences, whereas the rapist could justify his
crime by viewing the incident relative to the activities of more vicious rapists; a
taxi driver who has had his car stolen would view the theft in terms of loss of
earnings and the replacement value of the stolen car, whereas the robber
could feel justified since he might not have stolen as many cars as his fellow
gang members.

An unjust act is an unjust act and injustice is injustice - whether it affects one
person, thousands of people or millions of people; whether it is carried out by
the Roman Empire, the British Empire or the Ottoman Empire; whether it
results in the loss of life, the enslavement of people or the loss of property.
Conclusion

In conclusion, while it is makes sense for Britain to take pride in its past
achievements, let us also learn to show remorse and humility for our past
prejudices, exploitation and cruelties. David Cameron has adopted the right
approach in expressing his humility, however this spirit of humility should be
extended not only to India, but also to other members of the Commonwealth
of Nations, likewise other leaders of former colonial powers should follow
David Cameron's example.

Ahmed Sule, CFA

suleaos@gmail.com
Friday, 6 August 2010