Nigel Biggar Hits Out at Bloomsbury Over ‘Cancelled’ Book on Empire

The Times has another disturbing story about the woke takeover of publishing. It seems Nigel Biggar’s book about the British Empire was cancelled for not being sufficiently anti-Empire. Biggar made the mistake of giving a nuanced and fair account based on knowledge, research, and expertise, rather than blind adherence to anti-colonialist dogma. Here’s an excerpt:

One of Britain’s biggest publishers has been accused of cancelling a book on colonialism by an eminent Oxford academic that concluded the British Empire was not all bad.

Bloomsbury, which published the Harry Potter series, chose to pay off Professor Nigel Biggar rather than publish his book despite initially describing it as a work of “major importance”.

The Times has seen emails exchanged between Biggar and Bloomsbury, which show how the publisher went from enthusiastic to unwilling to publish in three months.

In 2018 the company approached Biggar, who was then regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at the University of Oxford, to write a book about colonialism following his research into “ethics and empire”. Terms were agreed and Biggar delivered the book, called Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning, at the end of 2020.

The book argues that despite grave mistakes and moments of gross injustice, the British Empire learnt from its errors and was increasingly propelled by humanitarian and liberal ideals, most notably through the abolition and suppression of slavery. It also examines the work of a number of historians who Biggar claims “overstate” the sins of British colonialism, concluding that they are sustained by contempt for the West.

After reading the manuscript, Biggar’s editor at Bloomsbury emailed him to say he was “speechless” with enthusiasm. He wrote: “Your research is exhaustive. Your argument is conveyed with care and precision. This is such an important book. I am now going to spread the good news around Bloomsbury about this exciting new project.”

However, three months later Biggar received an email from Sarah Broadway, the head of special interest publishing at the company, which said “conditions are not currently favourable to publication” and that she wanted to delay.

Biggar asked her to clarify what she meant but she offered only one sentence of explanation: “We consider that public feeling on the subject does not currently support the publication of the book and will reassess that next year.”

Biggar replied again, pointing out public feeling is “diverse” and asked again for clarification. He wrote: “Therefore, could you clarify for me, please: which public feeling concerns you; in what sense it is ‘unfavourable’ to publication; and what would need to change to make it ‘favourable’ again?”

Broadway wrote back, saying that Bloomsbury had “grappled with giving defined criteria” but found this “difficult to define objectively”. She said: “We have concluded that this subjectivity could lead to your book being in a limbo lasting more than a year or it might not but we don’t wish to put you in that position of uncertainty.” She explained this meant that Bloomsbury would like to release Biggar from his contract.

A publisher who struggles to express things in words, and relies on their subjective perception of the whims of ‘public feeling’. What could possibly go wrong? Biggar, on the other hand, had no trouble naming the problem:

Biggar, who was told by a source at Bloomsbury that senior executives chose not to publish because junior staff disliked his work, replied: “It is quite clear… the public feeling that concerns you is that of — for want of a more scientific term — the ‘woke’ Left.”

He added: “Rather than publish cogent arguments and important truths that would attract the aggression of these illiberals, you chose to align yourselves with them by de-platforming me. In so doing, you have made your own contribution to the expansion of authoritarianism and the shrinking of moral and political diversity.”

Very well put. But then, that’s what one would expect of a serious writer whose work deserves to be published by what used to be our most respected publishers. Luckily, the book is now being published by the apparently more sensible people at William Collins.

Worth reading in full.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DavidJSimpson52
DavidJSimpson52
3 years ago

Good for William Collins

RW
RW
3 years ago

While publication of books certainly shouldn’t be cancelled because they argue points someone doesn’t want to be argued, I don’t think writing something titled Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning is exactly necessary. Colonialism doesn’t exist, at least not in the sense in which it is being used. Human history is largely one of war and conquest and the conquest of large parts of America, Africa an Asia in the 19th century is not the kind of historical special case people with certain 20th century political agendas would like it to make. A moral reckoning with the past is also most useless. So, dead people did things in the past some people living today claim to despise? I have a piece of intelligence for you: You’re doing lots of things people who were living in the past had also despised. Chances are that – 20 years from know – people will despise (or claim to despise) some of the things you’re doing today. If you believe to have morals, apply them to your own life. Insofar they just exist for fingerpointing, you’re nothing but pompous and sanctimonious would-be preachers.

transmissionofflame
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

Very well put.

HicManemus
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

Unfortunately a lot of people seem to be insisting that a moral reckoning is exactly what should be happening and that reparations are in order. At least Nigel Biggar is trying to look at it from an historical perspective (he is an historian after all) rather than just jumping on the modern woke bandwagon of moral outrage at what our forefathers did.

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  HicManemus

Make that Unfortunately, a lot of people really want other people’s money and think calling something a more reckoning proves they’re entitled to it. Reparations are payments the losing party in a war has to make to the winning party. Specifically, in a hitherto unprecedented act of victor cruelty and excess, the Germans ended up paying reparations for the first world war until about 2010[*], ie, for over 90 years. The starting point of the woke hysteria and the end of these payments are suspiciously close to each other. Chances are that the (so-called) left wing ‘muricans who keep coming up with this don’t even know what reparations are. To them, it’s probably just money raining from the sky others somehow owe them because they’re bad people. Since the unfortunate end of the Plundering Germany for four generations!-bonanza, a somewhat frantic search for other funding sources seems to have set in. So, why not plunder Britain? The Brits are rich, too, and surely, they’re also bad people. There was a time when politicians going along with such an agenda to the detriment of the country whose best interests they’re supposed to have at heart would have been called traitors. And… Read more »

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  HicManemus

Alternate/ Afterthought: All of these countries which have supposedly been harmed by the evil British imperialists have received huge sums of money year after year declared as foreign aid. Surely, that should count for something?

varmint
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

No mention ever of the fact that Arabs took slaves and there are not many black people running all over the Arabian Peninsula because they castrated them. ——–That kind of stuff will never ever be mentioned on BBC SKY or by any of the wokery class we now have running the western world.

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  varmint

Slavery has been a fixture in the culture of man for thousands of years. That’s just not part of the viewpoint of people who publish books with titles like (real example, probably not verbatim) 1492 — The Year Our World Began.
People in the USA are entirely entitled to regard everything outside of it as indifferent to them. That’s a bit narrow-minded but people are known to be narrow-minded. It just gets ridiculous when this viewpoint is then force-exported to the rest of the world, preferably unchanged. Eg, there’s BLM in Germany despite no German state ever had colonies in the Caribbean or any other ties to the transatlantic slave trade and Germany also doesn’t have any history of large and oppressed black minority. That’s just USA-LARPing of the so-inclined and ought to be rejected as such.

bfbf334
3 years ago

Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings 
Ben Shapiro.

Espedair
Espedair
3 years ago

One can be a critic of the Britain’s or any empire while also accepting that a multiplicity of perspectives are necessary to reach any conclusion. We used to know this. On that basis (and to stick two fingers up to callow, ill-educated youths like those at Bloomsbury who are degrading our intellectual lives) I’ve ordered a copy of Prof. Biggar’s book and will draw my own conclusions.

Who ARE these people?

Lockdown Sceptic
3 years ago

Maybe someone will write a book say Stalin & Mao were a pair of cool dudes. Not doubt that will get published without question.

This is all happening under a fake conservative Government full non conservatives like Nadhim Zahawi & Sunak, placed there to destroy the Conservative party

Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane 

Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field 
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE

MikeMayUK
3 years ago

Maybe they should have published it anyway but then burned all the copies. We’re probably heading that way …

DevonBlueBoy
DevonBlueBoy
3 years ago

I wonder how much Bloomsbury’s PR agency charged for this wonderful coverage?

varmint
3 years ago

Funny how you are free to say the Nazi’s built some great roads, but on the British Empire nothing was good, and if you say it was, then you must be slapped down by the self-flagellating class of post modern race card playing wimps.

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  varmint

You’re absolutely not free to say that in Germany. This will bring you into closer contact to the interior secret service than one would usually like to be. As I already wrote in another comment: This is really the tried and trusted antifascism recipe applied to Britain (in the wider sense, ie, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia). Swap Nazis for Empire, keep everything else.

varmint
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

I have no idea whether you are allowed to say that the “Nazi’s built good roads in Germany”. ——If you say it isn’t allowed then fine. But the greater point is this idea that saying things that are TRUE should not be allowed by some bunch of people sitting in their little castle on top of the moral high ground. It would be absurd eg not to be allowed to say Hitler looked after his Alsatian dog well. And it is also absurd to not be allowed to say that the Nazi’s built good roads in an attempt to eliminate unemployment and to let Germans better see different parts of their country.

Edumacated eejit
3 years ago

I’ll make a point of buying the book.