Britain reparations debate: theologian argues case for historic slavery reparations is flawed

A British theologian and former Oxford professor argues that the case for reparations for historic slavery does not stack up, saying the debate rests on distorted assumptions and ignores the broader, centuries-long history of slavery. Nigel Biggar, an Anglican priest and former Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, frames his position as a call for historical nuance rather than blanket guilt. He notes that from about 1650 to the early 1800s, some Britons participated in transporting African slaves across the Atlantic, with conditions described as brutal and inhumane for those aboard ship. He emphasizes that Parliament ultimately led the abolition of slavery in 1833 and that Britain’s abolition is often treated as a footnote in debates about reparations. The discussion has intensified in recent years, including Caricom’s 2013 commission to seek reparations from Britain and other former colonial powers, the £20 trillion debt figure circulated by proponents, and public comments from figures such as actor Lenny Henry about centuries of oppression.

Biggar argues that slavery was a universal institution, existing across different continents and eras. He cites early forms of servitude in Mesopotamia, ancient Greece and Rome, the Islamic world, and sub-Saharan Africa, noting that slave trades and systems persisted for centuries well before and after Britain’s involvement in transatlantic slavery. He points to the Barbary slave trade in North Africa, Viking-era exchanges, and other historical instances to frame slavery as a global phenomenon rather than a uniquely British shame. In his view, the portrayal of Britain as uniquely at fault risks obscuring a much larger moral history and invites simplistic judgments about past peoples who lived in very different ethical frameworks.

On the economic front, Biggar questions the claim that slave-trading profits were a decisive driver of Britain’s industrial revolution. He cites economic historians who estimate that profits from the slave trade contributed little to total domestic investment—roughly one percent around 1790—and that only a small share of British ships were involved in the trade. He argues that while some individuals benefited, the broader contribution to Britain’s long-term wealth is difficult to quantify and likely overstated in some narratives. He acknowledges that profits from slavery helped finance certain technological advances but notes that other forms of historical exploitation, including serfdom and 19th-century urban labor, left their own legacies. The central point, he says, is that history’s moral stains are not easily erased and that inheritance from the past should push societies toward improvement rather than a ritual of collective guilt.

Biggar also challenges the idea that reparations would necessarily address the lingering harms of slavery in the Caribbean or Africa. He argues that descendants of enslaved people in the Caribbean have faced a range of economic and social challenges over generations, but that attributing those outcomes solely to slavery minimizes the role of post-emancipation governance, economic policy, and leadership in shaping modern economies. He contends that if reparations are to be considered, they must be framed within a broad, cross-border accountability that includes African rulers and traders who profited from the slave trade, as well as those in the Arab world who engaged in slavery and its commerce. He warns against compartmentalizing wrongs into a single national narrative and stresses that historical accountability is complicated by shifting power dynamics, evolving moral norms, and the passage of centuries.

The argument extends to contemporary institutions. Biggar criticizes what he views as the Church of England’s approach to reparations, describing the Church Commissioners’ plans as based on contested assumptions about wealth derived from slave trading and a lack of thorough accounting for the church’s own anti-slavery efforts. He also rejects what he sees as a narrow focus on British guilt, arguing that intellectuals and public figures across former imperial states have sometimes led debates in ways that overlook the broader context of global slavery and the networks of complicity that sustained it for centuries. In a broader critique of modern discourse around reparations, he invokes long-standing questions about humility, patriotism, and the moral responsibilities of current generations to learn from the past without surrendering to self-punishing narratives.

Reflecting on the moral dimension, Biggar cautions against what he calls public virtue-signalling rooted in self-righteousness. He quotes historical and literary observations about national guilt and the dangers of reducing complex histories to binary good-versus-evil judgments. His central thesis is that a more constructive path lies in acknowledging past wrongs, recognizing the limits of what can be repaired, and pursuing policies that address enduring injustices while remaining mindful of the broader human story. He concludes that the past cannot be rewritten, but societies can strive to be better by learning from it and ensuring that present and future generations are guided by humility, rather than punitive narratives.

Adapted from Reparations by Nigel Biggar (Swift Press, £20). © Nigel Biggar 2025. To order a copy, visit www.mailshop.co.uk or call 020 3176 2937