''...........virtue and vice runs through the middle of me.'' - Nigel Biggar so 100% correct. Nigel is a great man and John thank you for inviting him for this rational discussion.

A wonderful corrective to the insanity currently gripping the West. Thank you John for all the terrific conversations you host! You are an excellent interviewer!

The joy of learning...absolute joy. So sad and angry that our young have been robbed - as they have .

At 11:44 from a Sudanese perspective - much of what happened in Sudan was positive! Brought medicine & health needs to infant & mothers - dropping infant & maternal mortality rate. Brought education to girls all the way to University level…

The Scots were THE most enthusiastic participants in the British Empire.

Professor Biggar’s book is superb. It’s extremely balanced and very thought provoking. It really should be included on secondary school reading lists.

Please write a book on how Britain helped STOP slavery

I read “Empire” about seven years ago, and it is a great read. I thought it does a great job of setting out the wider context and weighing up the Empire’s pros and cons.

I wonder if anyone here has read "Blood on the Wattle" by Bruce Elder. I doubt if any of the 'dominated people' buried in those mass graves felt safe and protected. I don't think I'll be reading this book just quietly.

An outstanding interview again thank you. I have just started Nigel Biggar’s book so this interview is a great insight into what is to come.

I recommend Nigel Biggar's book - very readable and even-handed, and well-sourced throughout.

I do believer i am growing up .Thank you both and especially you John , for indirectly contributing to this process...its quite an experience and does not seem to end ?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the BBC could produce a programme tackling this subject in such a balanced way. Somehow I cannot see this would fit the BBCs agenda. But we live in hope. Thank you for such an intelligent discussion.

What a breath of fresh air in these foolish times.. Thanks very much for this interview

Culture is not race. One culture can be inferior to another and in many ways clearly are. I am not British but it is clear to me that on the whole Britain has largely been a force for good in world history.

Book ordered. Thank you, Prof Biggar and Mr Anderson.

Excellent, balanced view - long overdue defence of our history and our British ancestors in Australia

Really enjoyed this interview. Keen to read Nigel's book now!

This was very encouraging and insightful, and balanced look of history. Thank you

I’ve read the book. It’s a good anti-dote to the woke lies.

Thankyou John for you excellent questions. I have just now ordered Professor Biggers book as it touches so much on us ANZAC's. regards to you both Steve

Excellent book. Well done Mr. Biggar

Excellent assessment and analysis. A most enjoyable, balanced discussion. Thank you.

Colonial officials, engineers, agriculturalists etc, serving in Africa in the 1800s died from tropical disease including their wives and children. Abuse of local counterparts and people would result in dismissal from Government service. Government inspectors could turn up at any time. For example the local Brit officer was not allowed to have a drink before sunset and had to wash and change for dinner. The term "Sundowner" came from this practice. I should say I lived and worked as an engineer in six countries in Africa from 1969 to 1996

I don't agree with him, but it is so freaking hard to find people trying to examine this issue from different angles nowadays that I count myself lucky of having found this video.

I’ve really enjoyed this book Nigel, thanks very much.

Great interview! I would love to read “Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning”, which unfortunately is not available yet at my local library. I live in Canada, where postcolonialism is all the rage now, and statues of former British monarchs are torn down or defaced. Biggar mentioned the controversy about the residential schools in Canada. These started before Confederation, when Canada was indeed a British colony. It is fair to say that in general they were intended to assimilate Indigenous children and to erase their languages. This is rightly condemned today, but these were still schools, not concentration camps, and certainly not death camps. The news report about the alleged graves of Indigenous children in the grounds outside a former residential school in Kamloops, British Columbia, often referred to a mass grave, evoking comparison with the Katyn massacre. Not all Indigenous languages have died, and the growth of the surviving languages can still be encouraged, and is being encouraged. Our Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Marc Miller, himself a French-Canadian, has learned to speak Mohawk. The word “genocide”, as defined by the United Nations, is so broad it can mean almost any kind of ill-treatment of an ethnic group. By that definition, the British Empire was certainly guilty of genocide against Indigenous Canadians. The popular understanding of genocide doesn’t match the legal definition, but corresponds to a deliberate effort to exterminate a people. In this sense of the term, there was never any genocide committed by the British Empire on Canadian soil. The Beothuks of Newfoundland no longer exist as a tribe, but they were not deliberately exterminated by the white population. Their numbers were always small, they were decimated by disease, and they were also killed in conflicts with Micmac tribesmen. Some of the Beothuks were assimilated by the Micmacs, and their genes have been passed onto the current Micmac residents of Newfoundland. Eastern Newfoundland was claimed by France until the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The French, as well as the British, have been blamed for the disappearance of the Beothuk. The Micmacs were allies of the French, but it is not true that the French government established a bounty to Micmac warriors for taking Beothuk scalps. The Beothuk only started to disappear in the 1800’s, a century after the French lost control of any part of Newfoundland.

These counter arguments are so seldom heard, brings Orwell to mind: ‘who controls the present controls the past’

The issue with colonialism and empire is that it enhances all the impulses of human nature one can experience through the use of technology and modernity. There were people who utilized the narrative as moral licensing that resulted in genocide and there were others who were sincere in helping people that had contemporary acceptance. Lawrence of Arabia is one. Jonathan Edwards too. Nonetheless, the past is the past. Modernity occurred during the days of colonialism to push forward and away new and old practices that were deleterious by all accounts we understand today. This also is the case with the modernity today absent of colonialism, the spirit of self determination proceeded from colonialism just as science proceeded from an era of faith. The world today moved forward from the blood sweat tears of the past. This includes mistakes and successes. If anything historical discourse has a role not just by collecting and recording what happened but perhaps more primarily serve as some guide for perpetuating humane treatment. Humane treatment aligns with the restraint in the use of force and the use of good faith and good will. New Zealand is an example. The hazards of historiography is that it's practiced by human beings. There is nothing easier than demonstrating and investigating the imperfections of humanity. It goes nowhere at some point. Fact is, some post colonial states have moved on though some haven't had the circumstances to fully move on from the baggage. One interpretation is that colonialism was not the aim but the byproduct of the infighting within Europe that required nation states there to find resources they needed which was already taken by others in the region. France didn't share with the British who didn't share with the Germans who then oppressed the Poles and so on. There's an interpretation where Europe isn't just a collection of nation states but a country or region of civilization itself that at this point in time for the longest time is in a condition akin to a warring states period. A reason Europeans left to the US was to get away from all that and as a result the coagulating spirit in Europe rehoused itself in the US. All states have somehow no matter how different were able to come to be a United States. A key facet of how this occurred is the idea of a shared fate each state felt with another. No European country at the time thought they had a shared fate or a fate to be in a world where another state they didn't like didn't exist. It seemed like it was getting there since the fall of Napoleon, but there are kinks still within each identity and culture that is at odds with another. Someone from China or Japan would feel a bit differently to the different parts of their civilization. If one part messes up itself the others are able to pool in to help them get back on their feet and not get left behind. People from Yunnan province would feel no animosity to people from Guangdong province even when they don't speak exactly the same language and eat exactly the same cuisine. The writing has a common source that everyone can understand just as European languages have elements that exist as a root or common source share by many. This includes Latin etc. At some point everyone stopped fighting and agreed to be part of a larger whole. The hazards in Europe for being part of a larger whole is the historical experience of oppression from a tyrant. Particularly one of one culture who held a pejorative view of another within Europe. Almost all Europeans have some history of being mistreated by another obviously since there were wars in almost every century and no rational arbitrator existed as once perhaps did in the Roman Empire. Everyone in the Roman Empire considered themselves Roman even when their ancestors were Gauls, North Africans, Arabs, Italian, or Greek. All were able to pool their efforts into legions that defended their borders and keep the peace. In fact, Romans from Italy were at one point distinct being of different identities. They were once separated into Latins, Samnites, Etruscans, etc and they knew that and accepted knew tribes into the whole without losing the history of each but instead adding them to a shared canon. No one in Europe ever talks like this or mentions that even if that tribe is different, they can still become citizens just as one came from a tribe that took time to have their generations become citizens as well. One example of this happening was in the speech of Claudius Lugdunum, who though himself was from Gaul did not hold the Roman legions with a grudge whilst the Senate still held the Gauls with a grudge for them at one point warring with the legions. He made a speech where two columns out of four have been found and within there was an argument that the ruin of Sparta of Athens by the Romans occurred due to their infighting. And, the founder Romulus, fought enemies "then hailed as fellow-citizens several nations." It continued with: "Strangers reigned over us. That freedmen's sons should be intrusted with public offices is not, as many wrongly think, a sudden innovation, but was common practice in the old commonwealth." It's been almost over 2000 years since that speech was made in Europe and no country seemed to have that same spirit without at some level subjugating another into their own culture instead of coming together. The fact that there are only two tablets of what he said found and the question of the other two has the sentiment of "Who knows where they are. Oh well." That sentiment of division seems to have not changed even when those ideas were broached millennia ago and history has been examined within the boundaries of nation states rather than European civilization. When a French person speaks of European civilization, they reference more French thinkers, Germans reference more German thinkers, English reference more English speakers. When the sentiment becomes that Europeans reference German and French thinking whilst being English when contemplating their civilization; some progress would exist. If all Europeans came together just as Japan China or India did, they wouldn't have had to leave Europe to get resources that they would have otherwise been able to get around them or live in societies they considered civilized for them and leave all the others as nothing to offer other than for trade. Even here, I sense it has British colonialism and empire in mind over the French, Dutch, or Spanish. In trying to affirm some western unity there is still some stop gap or door stopper keeping the door opening further in conversations of some Europeans. Britons look down on Poles. Poles hold a grudge against the Germans. Northern Europe feels better than Southern Europe. Western Europe seems better than Eastern Europe. One can watch an English language news channel from a country but when watching the French or German language news channel it says something different as if avoiding and finding something not meant to be said for viewers of another language - even when they're all European. If this goes on who knows if in 100 or 500 or 1000 years Europe would still have multiple states just as is today whilst the Arabs would have united to enshrine the Umma into one entity just as China coalesced into one entity. So thinking in terms of the next century or millennia, what outcome would there be that can be reached by what's done today

Excellent and balanced conversation, thank you

The pacifying of a multiplicity of warring factions, accurately describes the impetus for the creation of, and the signing of, The Treaty of Waitangi.

If only the intellectuals who have studied the past would speak out in unison about what's really happening right now in France then maybe the West would have some chance of survival!

So excited to see this, just started watching and it is very reassuring with these older gentlemen (as they are gentlemen) speaking in a relaxed, articulate way to create a sense of hope . Hope that a balanced, historically accurate, intelligent and rational record of past events can still be created and put out into the world, to hopefully make a difference. Thanks for sharing this. I will be purchasing that book, BTW this is how history and most educational discussions and teaching were done in years gone by - my experience in the 70, 80s - you could still get a decent education then! Forget it now, so this is good to see.

The east is colonizing in the west

For a long time, I, progressive leftie, felt uncomfortable about the stories of how unredeemable, bad, if not wicked, every aspect of the British Empire, Colonialism, hence, recently, the "West's" values were. There are many professional victims, very comfortable individuals whose ancestors may have been amongst those working enthusiastically with the European slavers. Now looking to join the cancel and compensation culture... This work will for sure be suppressed 😞

Interesting conversation. Ordered the book while listening. Look forward to reading it.

Like almost all human endeavors, colonialism brought both good and evil. It's complicated.

Thank you very much for this conversation!

Great interview, thankyou both.

God bless heal and save you

Terrific interview 🕊 Thank you 🕊 More please 🕊

Please come to New Zealand to help sort out the "anti-colonial problem" The New Zealand native, the Maori would have wiped themselves out but for the British intervention through The Treaty of Waitangi.

When Biggar's book went for publication Bloomsbury initially accepted it but then declined claiming 'the current public mood does not support it' - it was then published by Harper Collins That in itself is troubling. Surely the public should have access to all perspective on the matter?

A wonderful conversation, thank you

Very enjoyable interview!

Extraneous and off topic question, I know, but can anybody tell me the name of the kind of chairs they are sitting on?

Fascinating discussion

Thank you for sharing. #NigelBiggar #Colonialism #JohnCanoe #Oxford #Enfield #EnfieldTown #GBNews #FreeSpeech #FreedonOfSpeech #ReformUK #British #RoyalNavy #Abolishion #Slavery #SlaveTrade #ReparationsNow #ReparationCorner #ReparationRoad

VERY good video. I love when I hear opinions, which are controversial and at the end make me to re-think popular stereotypes. Some very good points. Congrats for that treat.

Thank you.

Worthy book. My thanks. Carry on!

John, I really enjoy your presents in my feed. Your interviews are thoughtful and poignant. You have a logical and calming influence on the discourse and your wealth of knowledge and experience is greatly appreciated. Thank You, Daniel

This is a great discussion.

Excellent book. The audio book is great

I'd recommend just about anything by Thomas Sowell.

Great listening ….very informative and interesting…

Great book.

KZfaq at its best! 👍👍👍👍

Thanks.

Could you explain the Irish famine...... Shiploads of gráin exported while the Irish population was halved from 8 m to about 4 M during 1840s......

Speaking as someone who is striving to remain open, minded about this topic and analyze its objectively in systematically, I Is i'm always halfway through this and I think many of his Points are interesting and I am Disappointed I was not aware of any of them before. However, his point That most of the massacres and indiscriminate killings of indigenous peoples in the british empire was done by british settlers who were unaffiliated with the colonial governments or the crown is only compelling as a defense of the British government, their colonial governments, and the Crown, not as a defense of "The British." Because those setters were still British.

Educational- and moving.

I've just read his new book and recommend it to anyone interested in balanced history.

Isn’t it just beautiful how people are no longer even ashamed of their crimes? 😅

Seems like a lovely book of wonderful anecdotes and sweeping generalisations... must put it on my xmas stocking list.

We don't learn, do we? The story of the Zulu rule repeated itself in Libia. Once the west got rid of Gheddafi (for economic reasons) north Africa never had a moment of peace.

This from a believing Jew (not in the Christian faith mind). Thank God for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Without the Gospel, past evils and colonial atrocities would have been much worse. These matters really should be studied thru the lense of recognizing human nature common to us all. Then maybe we can all release joint healing laughter at the thought of how absurd and damaging we can all be to one another.

Hey it all worked out in the end, no need for any guilt. Britain is now largely owned by people from the Indian sub-continent, Saudis, and Russian oligarchs haha. It is gratifying that the short, vicious 20 year virus of Nazism was foiled by the slow cancer of 200 years of British Imperialism, and both were killed off. I have seen a few of these apologist guys now, and it is remarkable how quickly they all skip over what happened with those troublesome folks on the neighboring island. "We brought law and order, ended slavery, tried to be nice to our inferiors and are lovely really, now buy my book"

This topic is examined indirectly but in a balanced way in Foster’s Passage to India. The movie also makes clear the advantages and disadvantages of the British empire in India.

Very interesting view, I was brought up in Rhodesia and I garantee it was extremely well run, there was no crime, it was very peaceful, and succesful, it became independant , and could have grown into the most succesful country in Africa,but that wasnt to be, however, the indigenus people are still the most respected and saught after working force, with good education and work integraty.

Echo chamber issues here. Narrowness of perspective is almost palpable. 1. Cannot be comprehensive about European colonial expansion without the trigger-conflicts with Rome. 2. Modernity is not a unique property of the West. The assumption that modernity would not have happened without Europeans is an implicit bias not worthy of serious scholarship. 3. Cross-flows between various colonial projects is an important factor. 4. 1850s decade was a major point separating colonialism before and after that period. 5. Not a strong case at all for bifurcation of culpability between Imperial government and colonial settlers.

Absolutely Riveting John, maybe next time a few thoughts on Social Darwinism, Excellent

Back in my university days in Los Angeles I knew many Pakistanis and Indians. The Pakistanis spoke positively of the British in keeping peace in the subcontinent and the Indians spoke of the British as colonizers who did no good whatsoever.

Thanks, Arun Naikji for speaking out the truth about British colonization.You are indeed a well read person. My pranam to you. SATYAMEVA JAYATE.❤ .

When we view historical events and individuals in the infantile and one dimensional way taught by schools, universities and the media, we doom ourselves to make endless and catastrophic mistakes in the future. "Winston Churchill was a racist and we must deface and tear down his statue". Winston probably was a racist by modern definition. But he also saved Europe from the Nazis. Common sense and truth are rare commodities nowadays and we are all the poorer as a result..

I can believe Nigel is Scottish. He reminds me of my uncle John who hasn't quite got over the fact we do not have the empire anymore. I think he is quite thoughtful and my experience of the Indian community is that they have mixed feelings about the empire - obviously there were benefits to some. 1000 years ago we were very much hanging, drawing and quartering people though,

Yup we all love the costume drama empire and Downtrodden Abbey!

Is there a good case for colonization of Jamaica, Barbados, Ghana and South Africa. My friends in Africa really want to see that video.

The concept of colonialism is overly simplified into one single narrative. But the truth is that European colonialism spanned over 300 years by vastly different powers. British colonies were governed vastly differently from Spanish ones and thus left very different legacies behind. Even the british colonisation of Asia is vastly different from british colonisation of Africa because of time and people involved.

I think part of the problem with Colonial Empires is that there bundled up as a collective, Belgium has a dreadful record, French ,Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese were all very different models run with different levels of conquered peoples individual rights compared to British colonialism. There were horrific tragedies done in all countries, yet there are just as horrible tribal wars within these areas before these areas were colonised. ( areas because in many instances these countries were not recognised countries without names or borders prior to colonialism). One thing we gave many cultures was the ability to read and write to communicate with there own people living in their continent.

British morality, a symphony of contradictions, echoes through time. In Kenya's embrace, concentration camps stood stark, like ominous monuments to power's brutality. The crown's hand, draped in claims of enlightenment, revealed its iron fingers. Famines in India, a stark contrast, summoned suffering, yet the empire's response was a pale whisper of empathy. Amid the grandeur of dominion, the compass of conscience often wavered, casting shadows on the legacy of moral rectitude.

Thank god someone had the courage to take this topic on. It’s much needed. I’ve argued in personal circles for quite a few years that colonialism/imperialism was more often than not a net positive for the third world and you’ll notice how much better off those areas of the world were under colonial governance compared to their pre and especially post colonial existence (there are some excepts to the rule of course). I’m a 33 year old millennial so you can guess how shocked any of my peers were at the suggestion that colonialism/imperialism were anything but equivalent to words like Nazi or White Supremacy.

Pushing the benefits of peace, rule of law, etcetera should be moderated. Why? Because the ruled will claim that they prefer the alternative if by self rule. Therefore weave in ample views reflecting upon human nature. Not "they are even worse" rather "we are all the same now let's improve together".

I've read, in some South Seas missionary biographies from the 19th century, that the British were much more tolerant of the continuance of native languages than the French were.

I'm happy that British Empire didn't undergone the excruciating degradation Russia went through in 1917 and the results of what we're seeing now, continuing in Ukraine

So what Club are they at? Looks a bit like the East India Club, but that is small club, and this one looks bigger.

John, how is this a critical discussion? I am very surprised at the simpleness of this interaction. It would not qualify as critical discussion at any academic level. It was just two people with the same opinion. Which can be ok in closed circles, I guess, but it lacks warmth and character. Who is this community? The dry cynics of brissy?

Excellent - I will definitely be buying a copy of this book. The genocide, and including enslavement of the Moriori by Maori in New Zealand, notably the 1835 massacre, needs to be included in ANY discussion and so narrative about colonialism in this country.

If british going to india and ruling was good for indians...i assume indian going to britain and doing same will be good for britain? So immigration should be free

The case of a materialistic gain to Africa from missionaries or how the West helped Africa wear shoes. This is laughable. Case in point Haiti 🇭🇹

Hi I watched a video by Canadian JJ mcClough on YT about 4D Character it's a term he is coining, we need to keep evolving

Those countries colonised benefitted, look how most have gone now we are not there!

I don’t think Henry Reynolds (re: Tasmania) holds the view that Mr Biggar thinks he does. Perhaps he meant Keith Windschuttle.

Interesting to hear an Anglican recognize that missionaries were not always what they made themselves out to be. I was aware that the East India Company had tried to ban them , but the date of 1830 was new to me. It always seemed more logical that if you have an active Volcano at the bottom of the garden , give that offerings rather then flowers at a Christian Alter piece .

As they say about natural justice, you cannot be the judge in your own case. Neither the justice nor the injustice of colonialism are for the beneficiaries of colonialism to decide.

Well articulated and presented with great integrity, I will order a hardcover to read.

After the British Raj took over India, in 1858, colonizers added a special new twist to the previous "tax-and-buy system". As the East India Company's monopoly broke down, Indian producers were allowed to export their goods directly to other countries. But Britain made sure that the payments for those goods nonetheless ended up in London. How did this work? Anyone who wanted to buy goods from India would do so using special Council Bills -a unique paper currency issued only by the British Crown. And the only way to get those bills was to buy them from London with gold or silver. So, traders would pay London in gold to get the bills, and then use the bills to pay Indian producers. When Indians cashed the bills in at the local colonial office, they were "paid" in rupees out of tax revenues - money that had just been collected from them. So, once again, they were not paid at all; they were defrauded. Meanwhile, London ended up with all the gold and silver that should have gone directly to the Indians in exchange for their exports. This corrupt system meant that even while India was running an impressive trade surplus with the rest of the world - a surplus that lasted for three decades in the early 20th century - it showed up as a deficit in the national accounts because the real income from India's exports was appropriated in its entirety by Britain. India was the goose that supplied golden eggs to the British Banksters. Meanwhile, the induced "deficit" meant that India had no option but to borrow from Britain to finance its imports. So, the entire Indian population was forced into completely unnecessary debt to their colonial overlords, further cementing British control. The "tax-and-buy system" in the context of colonialism refers to a practice used by colonial powers to extract wealth from their colonies. Here's a breakdown of the system: How it worked: Taxation: Colonial authorities imposed various taxes on the colonized population, including land taxes, income taxes, and indirect taxes on goods and services. Forced production: The colonies were often forced to specialize in the production of certain raw materials or cash crops, which benefited the colonizers' economies. Monopoly control: Colonial powers often set up monopolies on the trade of these raw materials, buying them from the colonies at artificially low prices and selling them at high profits in their own markets. Limited exports: Restrictions were placed on the exports from colonies to other countries, forcing them to rely on the colonizers for manufactured goods. Import dependence: The colonies were forced to import manufactured goods from the colonizers at inflated prices, further draining their resources. Consequences of the system: Exploitation of resources: The tax-and-buy system resulted in the depletion of natural resources and the exploitation of labor in the colonies. Economic stagnation: The colonies were unable to develop their own industries and remained dependent on the colonizers for manufactured goods. Poverty and inequality: The system led to widespread poverty and inequality in the colonies, as the vast majority of the wealth generated went to the colonizers. Examples of the system: British India: The British imposed a land tax (zamindari system) on Indian farmers, which they then used to buy Indian goods at low prices and sell them at high profits in Britain. French West Africa: The French forced African colonies to produce cash crops like cotton and peanuts, which were then sold in French markets. Belgian Congo: The Belgians forced Congolese people to work in rubber plantations, under brutal conditions, to meet the high demand for rubber in Europe. Overall, the tax-and-buy system was a key tool used by colonial powers to exploit the resources and labor of their colonies. It had devastating consequences for the economic and social development of many colonized countries.

I've read both.

During Britain's presence in India, the country's economic share declined significantly from 23 percent to below 4 percent. This decline can be attributed to India being governed in a manner that primarily benefited Britain. Britain's economic success during its two-century rise was heavily reliant on the exploitation of India, which facilitated its own industrial revolution. India had a renowned industry of skilled handloom weavers who produced high-quality products, including fine muslin fabric. However, with the arrival of the British, this industry was forcibly disrupted. The British deliberately dismantled the handloom weaving sector by breaking looms, imposing steep tariffs, and exploiting India's raw materials for their own cloth production. Consequently, British-made cloth inundated global markets, originating from the dark and exploitative mills of Victorian England. Regrettably, the policies and actions of the British also led to devastating famines in India, causing the death of an estimated 15-29 million people. One notable example was the Bengal famine during World War II, where approximately 4 million people perished. Shockingly, Winston Churchill, through written policy, diverted essential supplies from Bengal's civilians to prioritize stockpiling for soldiers and Europeans. He callously expressed that the starvation of underfed Bengalis mattered less than that of "sturdy Greeks." This statement by Churchill reveals a disturbing disregard for the suffering of the Bengali population. Furthermore, when British officials raised concerns about the consequences of these decisions, Churchill responded insensitively by questioning why Mahatma Gandhi had not died yet, displaying a lack of empathy and remorse. It is important to recognize and reflect upon the severe impact of colonial policies and practices, including economic exploitation, cultural suppression, and the loss of millions of lives due to famines. Understanding this history is crucial for developing a nuanced understanding of the lasting legacies left behind by colonial powers. Furthermore, it is worth noting that during World War I and World War II, India made significant contributions to Britain's war efforts. Indian soldiers comprised one-sixth of all British forces in World War I, with thousands losing their lives or being wounded. Indian taxpayers also provided substantial financial support, and India supplied vast quantities of ammunition, weapons, garments, and other supplies. The financial debt owed by Britain to India after World War II amounted to a significant sum, which, despite being owed, was never fully paid. These historical facts highlight the deep impact of British colonialism on India, encompassing economic exploitation, military contributions, and financial obligations. Understanding these realities helps shed light on the complex dynamics between Britain and India during this period.

Having listened to the entire interview, I would now add that John Anderson has reinforced my view of his far right politics, especially given his often defensive tone about colonialism. And that’s OK with me because I listen to views across the political spectrum. There is enough in this interview to drive me to read Biggar’s book on colonialism. It is not otherwise persuasive however because much of what the author says is anecdotal, not based on figures, polling, original sources, etc. The most persuasive part of the interview indeed is his struggle to get his book published! By the way, I suspect that the Indians who joined the British army to fight the Japanese were motivated less by their fondness for British authorities and more by the necessity of finding a well-paying job to support their families. One can see the analogy to Third World peoples joining Putin‘s nefarious aggression in Ukraine because they don’t otherwise have job opportunities.