Reparations: Slavery and the Tyranny of Imaginary Guilt

by Nigel Biggar

Many people and countries now claim that the West should pay reparations to its former colonies for the economic damages they say they caused. To what extent is the argument about damage correct in the first place? And, if it is correct, what should we now do about it?

Reparations is the sequel to Nigel Biggar's bestselling and widely acclaimed Colonialism. It is as a book of significant importance – not least as a study of the psychology of guilt.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Economics, Sociology, Race

226 pages, Paperback

First published September 25, 2025

About the author

Nigel Biggar CBE is Emeritus Regius Professor of Moral Theology at the University of Oxford and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Pusey House, Oxford. He holds a B.A. in Modern History from Oxford and a Ph.D. in Christian Theology & Ethics from the University of Chicago. He was appointed C.B.E. “for services to Higher Education” in the 2021 Queen’s Birthday Honours list. His most recent books are Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (2023), What’s Wrong with Rights? (2020), In Defence of War (2013), and Between Kin and Cosmopolis: An Ethic of the Nation (2014). In the press he has written articles for the Financial Times, the (London) Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Spectator, the (Glasgow} Herald, the Irish Times, Standpoint, The Critic, The Article, Unherd and Quillette. He served on the Committee on Ethical Issues in Medicine at the Royal College of Physicians (London) from 2000 to 2014, the Royal Society’s Working Group on People and the Planet from 2010 to 2012, and the Pontifical Academy for Life from 2017 to 2022. He now chairs the board of trustees of the Free Speech Union.

He has lectured at the Royal College of Defence Studies, London; the UK Defence Academy, Shrivenham; the Führungsakademie der Bundeswehr, Hamburg; the US Military Academy, West Point; and the National Defense University, Washington, DC. His hobbies include visiting battlefields. In 1973 he drove from Scotland via Iran and Afghanistan to India. And in 2015 and 2017 he trekked across the mountains of central Crete in the footsteps of Patrick Leigh-Fermor and his comrades, when they abducted General Kreipe in April-May 1944.

Reviews

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many people in the modern West, especially those on the left, have zealously condemned the West’s past. They exhibit what the late Sir Roger Scruton called “oikophobia” - the hatred of one’s own culture, civilization, or country. When they cast their gaze upon history, they see more darkness than light, more oppression than emancipation, a long, long litany of injustice. They extol the social reforms that have garnered more freedom for ethnic minorities, women, and the queer community (many of these reforms, such as universal suffrage and the campaign for equal pay for equal work genuinely being laudatory accomplishments). But while there has been renewed and vigorous contemporary debate around some of these issues in the West (should immigration be more restrictive? has feminism been beneficial and what of the flailing status of men? now that same-sex marriage is largely legal throughout the West, has the gay rights movement achieved enough and should the transgender movement be subject to more scrutiny?), virtually everyone, whether left, right, or centrist, believes that slavery is deeply immoral. Conservatives in the West may want illegal aliens sent back home, more restrictions on abortion, and may still seek the repeal of same-sex marriage, but beyond the radical, deplorable fringe, those on the right obviously don’t want slavery reinstituted. But does our moral condemnation of slavery require us to make amends to the descendants of slaves today? That is quandary Nigel Biggar addresses in Reparations: Slavery and the Tyranny of Imaginary Guilt.

Biggar is one of the world’s leading Christian ethicists but his recent work on colonialism has provoked an uproar. In many respects, Reparations reads like a more focused sequel, as Biggar hones in on slavery. Being a sequel, at times it repeats points made earlier in Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (indeed, my review of this later book also repeats critiques I have made of the previous one). Biggar is bold (and at times, too brash), but I think he is a valuable contrarian voice in the public sphere. He stirs up debate most are too demure to broach.

Just as with Colonialism, Biggar marshals an impressive array of facts and counterpoints in this book. He showcases how slavery has been universal and practiced since time immemorial but that it has also varied in its form. Not all forms of slavery were as horrific as the Atlantic slave trade; “Sometimes masters regarded [slaves] with a certain benevolence as members of their extended household, taking a kindly interest in their lives. Sometimes slaves were manumitted, usually by paying an agreed price, less often by getting baptised or being granted freedom in their master’s last will and testament” (p. 42).

Muslims, First Nations, and Africans (to name but some) have also practiced slavery, with many Africans abetting the slave trade by supplying their fellow Africans to European slave traders (and even before that, to Romans and Muslims, p. 106). At times, slavery was the alternative towards slaughtering enemy combatants or prisoners of war (the Geneva Convention isn’t exactly as old as Hammurabi’s Code). Some Africans practiced human sacrifice and Biggar wonders if slavery may not have been a better alternative to these ritualistic killings (p. 58). Historically, astoundingly, some slaves owned fellow slaves and some forms of slavery were for fixed terms. Biggar mentions the remarkable Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, a slave who served as Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire for almost 15 years and who himself amassed a vast fortune.

There is a movement today (again, largely on the radical left) that wants to atone for historical injustices. It is seen in efforts like the “land back” movement and, most relevant to this book, the call for reparations to be paid for the descendants of the enslaved. The call for reparations has advocates among Christians; Duke L. Kwon and Gregory Thompson wrote a 2022 book promoting it and Biggar addresses the Church of England’s mission to ultimately pay hundreds of millions towards reparations in chapter 12 of this book.

But Biggar questions why slavery is singled out as an issue requiring redress today, nearly two centuries after it was definitively stamped out throughout the British Empire in 1834. Firstly, everyone alive today had no direct involvement with the Atlantic slave trade and so none of us were complicit in it. To force those who are not morally culpable of enslaving others to pay restitution for an atrocity we took no part in is itself a grossly unjust act. Biggar notes that some descendants of slaves insist that despite being entirely free, never having worn shackles, they suffer from trauma that has passed down through the generations; Biggar acknowledges that trauma may have lingering effects down through time but also cites scholars Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman who have critically analyzed the development of trauma as a way of attaining high moral ground that cannot under any circumstances be questioned or debated. With the widespread proliferation of mental healthcare, some might take Biggar, Fassin, and Rechtman to task for being too cynical and insensitive, but I do think those who have begun to interrogate “victimhood” culture have compelling points to make; as Rene Girard has observed, “Victimism uses the ideology of concern for victims to gain political or economic or spiritual power” (and on this point too, those who call for reparations often don’t offer realistic proposals for how governments are to pay the millions of dollars purportedly owed). Those calling for reparations also tend to downplay or neglect how former colonies were mismanaged and/or administered by corrupt rulers after gaining independence and that this incompetence and corruption have largely contributed to present suffering.

Biggar doesn’t reject reparations wholesale; he approves of “the German government’s ‘repentance’ of the Nazi regime’s theft of Jewish property, in the form of restitution or compensation, after the Second World War. In that case, the identities of the Jewish wronged and the Nazi wrongdoers, and the close relationship between original victims and surviving family members, were all clear enough. And the harm done was definite and quantifiable. In these circumstances, reparation and compensation made good sense” (p. 120). But Biggar asserts that the far longer passage of time has complicated what is owed to the descendants of slaves.

Biggar also makes the case that whole classes of people who were not slaves still toiled in burdensome and exploitative work. It is only relatively recently that employees enjoy benefits, vacation, protection from employers, and reasonable work week (4oish hours). Medieval serfs had no such security. Do the descendants of royalty or the feudal nobility owe the descendants of serfs compensation? Do the descendants of factory owners owe reparations to the descendants of factory workers who conducted their labour in unsafe, exploitative conditions (p. 122)? Even if one wants to maintain that slavery is the exclusive victim group entitled to compensation, why do advocates for reparations not also forcefully demand that the descendants of whites enslaved by Muslim raiders also deserve payments? And what of human beings brought into the world through the (admittedly, forced) sexual union of a white master and a black female slave?

Biggar accuses reparations advocates of neglecting to take into account the large sums of money the British Empire spent in suppressing the slave trade while other nations continued the practice. Portugal was responsible for a far larger proportion of the total number of Africans enslaved - 5,841,468 or 46.7 percent (p. 39). “Approximately 12.5 million Africans were enslaved by Europeans from 1501 to 1875” compared to “a conjectured 17 million enslaved first by Africans and then sold to Arabs from” roughly between 700 - 1900; the African/Arab totals are greater, being a much longer time period, but this does showcase how rampant African slavery was throughout history (p. 44). Consideration must also be given that states during the time of the Atlantic slave trade were much smaller in the scope of their power and in their overall finances; it was only in the mid-twentieth century that the administrative state ballooned the size of governments, their tendrils more rapacious for control (pp. 89-90).

Biggar offers astute guidance in how we are to judge the past, noting that obvious truths to us today may not have been quite so obvious to our ancestors (and that what we take for granted as moral today may be condemned as evil by our descendants). And yet, Biggar also acknowledges he is a Christian and that this shapes his ethics, declaring, “My Christian ethical viewpoint involves the belief that there is an objective moral reality that precedes, frames and dignifies with significance all human choices: there are universal moral principles” (p. 18). Biggar calls himself a moral realist; this stance allows him to acknowledge human limitations and failings, unlike many of his critics who too unfairly expect humans to be perfect paragons of virtue.

But for a Christian ethicist, I sometimes wonder if Biggar isn’t Christocentric enough in his ethics. Since the time of St. Paul, the Church has possessed a canonical text - the Book of Philemon - which is all about slavery. If Biggar truly believes there is an “objective moral reality,” shouldn’t the injustice of slavery have been as obvious to Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin as it was to John Wesley and us today (even admitting that some forms of slavery were more tolerable than others, surely oppressive, exploitative slavery has also existed throughout time)? What of the Old Testament’s command to free slaves after seven years (Jeremiah 34:14-15)? It does seem as if there was slavery in the Middle Ages (though how often is this ever discussed?), but given that Biggar is keen to point out that some forms of slavery were more tolerable than chattel slavery, I wish he actually spent time explaining the evolution of slavery in the West. Some of his arguments seem quite flimsy indeed; again, he claims that the losers in war were often enslaved rather than killed or imprisoned, but were African peoples like the Mali launching invasions of Europe? Hardly, and given that Biggar is focused primarily on British slavery, he can’t use such an argument. OK, so Africans were enslaving their fellow Africans and offering them for sale to Europeans; no one was forcing the Europeans to buy Africans and treat them like mere property.

There is a war for the soul of the West today. With Biggar, I agree that those on the left tend to be guilty of oikophobia and are too dismissive and ignorant of the past. By continually condemning our past, we virtue-signal to our peers that we are obviously not like our benighted, barbarous ancestors. As Biggar stresses, we may indeed find the views and ethics of our forebears reprehensible and deserving of censure, but we must also take into account the context in which they lived and in which their beliefs and practices were shaped.

But at times I think Biggar lets our ancestors off the hook too easily. This is largely because as a Christian I don’t believe I can easily separate myself off from the past - again, that’s what many on the left want to do when they want to “cancel” certain historical figures. If the Church is the household of God then it includes John Wesley and William Wilberforce the abolitionists and it includes the “precious Puritans” like Jonathan Edwards who owned slaves. Biggar can keep insisting that Muslims and indigenous peoples owned slaves, but as a Christian theologian and ethicist, surely he agrees that followers of Jesus are to live to a higher standard; and that is as true today as it was during the peak of the British slave trade. If there is an objective moral reality as Biggar claims, then surely chattel slavery should have been denounced and rejected from its very inception in the British Empire. He writes:

slaves remained radically dependent on their master’s will and accordingly vulnerable. Because slavery had not had any legal status in England for centuries, the common law was completely silent on the status and treatment of slaves. Thus, the colonies were left free to formulate their own codes, which typically gave owners almost complete control over the movements of their slaves, whose company they kept and how they behaved. Unlike indentured servants, they “effectively had no legal redress against maltreatment (p. 42).

Shouldn’t the nation that produced such prodigious legal minds like Thomas More and Richard Hooker have ensured there were firm codes that protected the rights and well-being of those God created (even if not ensuring slavery was entirely illegal, at least some measure of security)?

Biggar complains that the economic historians Maxine Berg and Pat Hudson “stray far beyond their professional expertise into the sociology of race and inequality in contemporary Britain and into the ethics of ‘restorative justice’ but it’s quite common for academics to address topics beyond their niche specialty; hasn’t Biggar the theologian and ethicist delved more into history in his most recent work (p. 170, n. 40)?

Reparations is a more tightly-argued book than Colonialism and, despite my critiques, I am entirely in agreement with Biggar that reparations and the quest for righting historical injustices are flawed and should not be pursued. I note with much irony that if the radical (and largely irreligious) left is guilty of a secularized Augustinianism that deplores our ancestors as hopelessly immoral and unjust without allowing the charity of historical circumstance to temper their condemnations, at times I think that Biggar is prone to covering up Britain’s past wrongs with a “cheap grace.”

[Christian Jenkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a present to me, and I wasn't sure what to expect, however I found it a very informative and interesting book.

When we think of 'Reparations' in our modern world, we tend to think of crowds of angry demonstrators marching through streets, emotive adverts of the current situation in former colonial territories, and judgemental comments from those who are perhaps more privileged than others.

But that's just it - it's emotion. Not looking at things in their proper context or historical setting creates misconceptions and falsehoods which we then truly believe without questioning.

The book not only looks at the context, but also who was behind the wider context, e.g. the large slavery enterprise on the African east coast, not to mention elsewhere in the world. The facts are displayed, sourced, and argued calmly. It also seeks to correct errors found elsewhere which helps to clear the 'emotive air' around the topic.

I'd thoroughly recommend to those who aren't versed in the subject, but have 'heard things' through the media and would like to broaden their understanding of the topic.

"Advocates of British reparations for slavery invariably downplay African complicity in slave-trading. But Africans had been enslaving and selling other Africans since Roman times. Europeans merely furnished them with a new, if larger, market."p.54

"One estimate has it that raiders from Tunis, Algiers and Tripoli along enslaved between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans from the beginning of the sixteenth century to the middle of the eighteenth century. Another estimate reckons that the Muslim slave trade as a whole, which lasted until 1920, transported about 17 million slaves, mostly African, exceeding by a considerable margin the approximately 11 million shipped by Europeans across the Atlantic." p.36

[Ken Sampson · Rating 4 out of 5]

[30 Oct 2025] A detailed, thoughtful and analytical response to recent demands for reparations - paid by the UK to Caribbean nations, previously British colonies, who were involved in the slave-trade. He has done his research and provides evidence that contradicts many of the assertions made. Britain certainly participated in the transatlantic slave trade, but was a relatively late comer to it and was possibly in context only a minor player. He tells the shocking tale of historical slavery from across the world, including those Britons, particularly the Cornish, hundreds of whom were kidnapped into African slavery in the 17th century. The manner that slaves were treated in all places was abominable, but extreme savagery occurred elsewhere. The universal nature of African slaves being sold by other africans is described. Then he analyses the economy and concludes that contrary to the trope of Britain engorging itself with unbelievable wealth and riches - the wealth was focused on a very small group of people and its contribution to the UK economy was minimum. The fact that Britain - unique among nations - realised early that Slavery was morally wrong and outlawed it and then spent what in todays terms would be billions of pounds and many lives trying to stamp it out all over the world is told.

He looks at the assertion that Caribbean nations have suffered in their development as a direct consequence of slavery. He compares and contrasts the different nations and concludes that post independence governance has had a much more significant impact on their social and economic progress. He looks at the links between modern British racism and slavery and concludes that the link is tenuous when contrasted to much more significant racism in other countries with no history of involvement in slavery.

He looks at how the left-wing of British politics enthusiastically embraces the 'guilty as charged' theory and how this fits with their nationalist, colonial and historical revisionism. He is incredulous that the Church of England has accepted 'their guilt' without question and is committed to impoverish the ordinary parish to pay for their part in historical investments in the trade - investment that made then no money.

This short book is well written and clear and succeeds in presenting an alternative view on the reparation debate. What is less well covered and not explored is the rights of descendants to hold emotions about the experiences of their ancestors or their ethnic groups - of course, they are entitled to be angry and to express their anger, and of course, likewise the descendants of the perpetrators of crimes should be able, if they wish, to apologise for their ancestors actions, but demanding trillions of pounds as a method of correcting an historical wrong seems to be unproven by the author of this book.

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked up this book on a whim whilst browsing Waterstones, and given my ignorance of slavery throughout the 15th to 17th centuries, I considered this an interesting read for personal education. Before the first page, I assumed this would take a left-leaning approach to Britain’s participation in the slave trade, and argue that Britain should pay reparations to African nations. How wrong I was.

This book is the complete antithesis of what I expected. Reparations argues the opposite. Recent reports in June 2023 calculated that the debt owed to African nations was upwards of $100 trillion, with Britain’s share over $23 trillion - calculated as a result of economic activities sparked by this system, and how the BLM movement across the West reignited public memory of these times.

The author argues that, for a variety of reasons, reparations should not be (or already have been) paid. These include the fact that nobody alive today was directly inflicted by slavery, Britain’s role in abolishing slavery globally, and the point that, at the time, slavery was considered (somehow) “normal”. Overall, he argues that reparations have, in some way, already been paid.

One of my favourite quotes comes early in the book: “We should forgive our ancestors for not perceiving some moral truths quite as clearly as we do, just as we shall surely need forgiveness from our grandchildren for our own moral dullness”, and “those of us privileged to live in present times and places of unprecedented health, wealth and security are much more fortunate than most of our ancestors.”

The first aligns with the idea that future generations may look back on our present times and question our own morality - what we currently deem “normal” and “acceptable”. The second brings perspective to the quality of life we live today, although it is not perceived that way by many.

At what point did slavery become recognised as morally and institutionally “wrong”?

For me, the most thought-provoking point is: how far back do we go to seek reparations? Where do we draw the line? The modern world is built on colonialism, with countless invasions spanning back to the Greeks and Romans. If, therefore, Britain and the West are liable to pay reparations to African nations, are we as Brits not due reparations from the Romans?

Overall, this is a clearly articulated argument against paying reparations. Some arguments are stronger than others, but I think Bigger does a good job of slowly picking apart most of the opposing claims. Presentation of argument: 3.5 stars.

[Ajay · Rating 1 out of 5]

The case against reparations is not frivolous. I opened this book genuinely ready to engage with well-reasoned objections. How do we measure the lasting damage done to countries where slavery was practiced? What is Britain's culpability given the near-historic universality of the institution? Are reparations a symbolic gesture for reconciliation, a practical measure to rectify structural legacies, or an unfair punishment for the descendants of the guilty? These are serious questions worth discussing.

Nigel Biggar does not provide serious answers.

I agree with Biggar on one specific point: living British citizens bear no personal guilt for the historical sins of slavery. Framing reparations as a debate of personal guilt is a clever rhetorical trick, but it misrepresents the argument. This is about institutional continuity, and here Biggar applies a blatant double standard. When Britain abolished slavery in 1834, the government took out a massive £20 million loan to compensate the slave owners, not the enslaved. A debt British taxpayers, including the descendants of the enslaved, kept paying until 2015. Biggar treats that 1834 arrangement as a neutral, binding state obligation, honored across two centuries without complaint. He treats reparations, the mirror-image claim, as an unfair imposition.

In Biggar's view Britain, far from being history's villain, was uniquely virtuous because it eventually abolished the slave trade and suppressed it globally. But he can't quite settle on whether slavery was simply the unremarkable order of its age or a great evil that Britain deserves credit for ending. The book throws every defense it can imagine, and not a single one sticks — the contradictions just get ignored as we move on to the next piece of whataboutism: slavery was everywhere, Britain wasn't even the worst offender, and if descendants of slaves are owed compensation, Biggar approvingly quotes a former diplomat's retort — "just as soon as we get ours from the Romans."

This is Biggar's preferred move throughout: rather than engaging in a well-reasoned argument on its merits, he name-drops someone who disagrees with it and treats the disagreement itself as rebuttal, as though citing dissent were the same as defeating a claim. It's the same rhetorical trick climate misinformation runs on: ninety-nine scientists agree, but here's the one paid by the oil industry, so who's to say?

It's precisely this tactic that Biggar deploys when exploring slavery's role in driving the British Industrial Revolution. Eric Williams famously argued in his 1944 classic, Capitalism and Slavery, that the profits from the transatlantic trade financed Britain's industrialization. Biggar cites the work of David Eltis, who is skeptical of slavery’s relative economic significance compared to other factors, as a total "refutation" of the Williams thesis. In reality, Biggar conflates ongoing academic debate and qualification with defeat. He conveniently leaves out that Eltis himself writes that Atlantic slavery was a unique cruelty that continues to fuel deep modern inequities. Biggar similarly minimizes economic historian Klas Rönnbäck’s estimates that the slavery-linked economy accounted for 11% of Britain’s eighteenth-century GDP. More critically, this narrow focus ignores how economists view the links between industries: demand from the slave economy directly stimulated vital British industries like textiles, iron metallurgy, banking, and insurance. The historical consensus is clear: one cannot honestly conceive of a British Industrial Revolution without the fuel of slavery. Plantations in the American colonies were twice as valuable as Ireland and roughly equivalent to industrializing Lancashire and Yorkshire combined. Economic historian Joseph Inikori estimated that by 1770, the broader plantation economy furnished over half of Britain’s capital investment. Industrialization was undoubtedly complex. However, Biggar selectively cites nuanced academic debates to mislead readers.

Worse is what happens when Biggar moves from rhetoric to reach for "evidence", because that's where the cherry-picking becomes egregious. Take his defense against the charge that Britain forced industrial dependency on its colonies. He points to the success of the Indian Tata business empire. What he leaves out is that Tata Iron and Steel succeeded in 1907 in spite of British colonial policy, not because of it. It was funded entirely by Indian wealth as an act of anti-colonial resistance after London banks refused financing out of racial prejudice and fear of competing with Sheffield steel. Meanwhile Westminster was slapping tariffs of up to 80% on Indian textiles while flooding India with British goods at near-zero tariffs, and building a railway system to run raw materials from the interior straight to export ports. Tata isn't evidence of colonial benevolence. It's evidence of what Indian industry accomplished against it.

The same sleight of hand shows up in his comparison of slaving nations. Biggar notes triumphantly that Portugal enslaved far more Africans than Britain did, yet by 1800 Britain was industrializing while Portugal stagnated. He does this to imply that slavery isn't what built British wealth. Even A-level maths teaches that correlation isn't causation. Just follow the money a little closer and the story is clear. Portugal had no domestic manufacturing base, so the wealth it extracted from Brazil via slave labor didn't stay in Lisbon; it flowed straight to London and Amsterdam to pay for manufactured goods and settle debts. A wealthy Portuguese citizen of the era wore and consumed goods that were roughly 80% imported from England and Flanders. Portugal's economy, in other words, was structurally feeding British industry and finance.

That same evasiveness reappears in his handling of Jamaica, which he blames for its own lower GDP and higher crime rates relative to Barbados, pinning it entirely on post-independence governance. Left out is what British rule did first. When freed Jamaicans fled to the island's mountainous interior after 1834 to farm independently, colonial administrators and white planters crippled that emerging Black peasantry with vagrancy laws, restricted credit, and heavy taxes on local food production. After the Morant Bay Rebellion of 1865, Britain answered with mass executions, dissolved the local assembly, and placed Jamaica under direct authoritarian rule for nearly a century. That's the structural legacy that Biggar minimizes when he blames post-independence leadership.

Add it up, and this isn't a rigorous critique of reparations. It is a defensive, deeply flawed piece of empire-apology that substitutes rigorous economic history with cheap rhetoric and deliberate omission.

[Clint Coffey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another thought-provoking and myth-busting book from Nigel Biggar, and a good one. It is a breath of fresh air to read a book about this subject that is reasoned and reasonable. Authors like Biggar and Douglas Murray help many of us make sense of the world full of outrageous claims and nonsensical conclusions. Yes, there is such a thing as common sense, and Biggar uses that (and scholarly knowledge of historical facts) and applies it to claims that many of us need to cough up bajillions in cash to pay for the alleged sins of our distant ancestors.
It is a short, punchy book that clears the air, and very skillfully.
As an devout atheist I will even forgive Biggar for his suggestion, at the very end of the book, that religion can help make the world a better place....god help us.

[LitziG · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. Well constructed. Sensible, rational defence.
I know who I believe (I’m from an Irish background - if there’s reparations for slavery then we need to include reparations from every society that has exploited another), so to let’s be sensible that means no reparations. Forgiveness and looking forward is all.

[Word Muncher · Rating 4 out of 5]

All the reasons Britain doesn't have to pay reparations. I love the way this is written factually - like a thesis that has to clarify. I always think the British are so logical, so I'm not going to kiss ass, but we should all read this. Just to clear the air, misconceptions and to know the facts.

[Lottie C · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5⭐️

Not sure if I agree, but very thought provoking and insightful

[J.A. Ironside · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought provoking, well researched and balanced.

[Yuvraj Shah]

Very interesting, well researched