Colonial period not beyond reproach

The Times of Malta published an opinion piece by Albert Cilia Vincenti under the title ‘Inaccurate accounts of British Malta’ (July 16). My problems with the article, from a historical standpoint, are numerous.

Firstly, I would like to address the issue of beginning the article with “A well-known detractor” in reference to an author, whose name will be omitted here, as in the original article, who has been outspoken about his criticism of the British colonial period.

The article mounts a defence of the British colonial period trying to position this period as part of a cultural heritage and, by some trick of mental gymnastics, therefore, beyond the scope of historical criticism or reproach and labelling such critics as detractors.

Addressing every historiographical issue with the article would exhaust any reader in today’s rapidly moving life, so I will keep my criticisms brief and to the point.

The author makes a sly reference to an interview I was a part of wherein I discussed the political and economic issues faced by dockyard workers between the years 1945 and 1980. One of the points I brought up was the wage discrepancy between Maltese and British personnel working at Her Majesty’s dockyard complex, although this was only a small part of my argument.

My arguments, barely expanded on or explained in the article, are shooed away by a reference to an expat wage allowance that the British granted to expatriates and which, according to the author, could also be granted to a Maltese doctor who was working in England, ignoring the fact that I spoke about economic injustice, not simply wage discrepancies.

Luckily, the author’s own example can disprove his own point about his lack of a perceptible injustice towards Maltese workers: The class dimension is never considered by the author in his ‘analysis’.

Putting the matter simply, my interview, along with most of my work, deals with the Maltese working class. The same working class whose first attempts at unionisation was actually inspired by British workmen who saw the unfair treatment that Maltese workers suffered under the British colonial administration and who helped the Maltese to begin to organise; not discounting, of course, the influence of homebred union organisers such as Manwel Dimech.

Additionally, my reference to a wage discrepancy was in reference to a flat wage; not an allowance, a bonus or any other such notion but, on a per hour basis, English personnel were paid more for the same job.

Maltese workers in the dockyard were also barred from ascending the socio-economic ladder as rigid restrictions were placed on how much a Maltese worker could be promoted compared to a British one.

This is to speak nothing of the numerous Maltese workers at the dockyard who were simply left to die from grievous injuries without receiving medical assistance or their last rites, stories that are easily verified both through oral history as well as archived documents proving the facts.

Such treatment also meant that the expatriate bonus could never apply to the Maltese working class as it was never an opportunity afforded to them by the British colonial administration, the same administration that Maltese politicians, in some way, shape or form, tried to break free from ever since Malta became an official crown colony in 1813 and establish self-government.

Neither does the article mention that, despite the author’s valorisation of the British period, the economic injustice I referenced was also caused by British measures of austerity, which left the country so grossly underdeveloped that most of the jobs to be found were either with the British administration or the admiralty. The often-touted position by fraternisers of the British period that they “provided jobs” was nothing more than the opportunity to be grateful to be able to taste the master’s boot on your neck.

The article is further indicative of a problem within our perception of Maltese history, also something I have been personally told by a number of British expatriates: that it was the British that turned us into a civilised nation, as if we were some jungle beasts without our wits about us, and the divine hand of the British blessed us with human sentience.

A benevolence is attributed to the British administration, exemplified in the article by the reference of the expat wage bonus as indicative of a fair system, which is quickly dispelled once you take a serious look at the political and economic systems that the British maintained in Malta as part of their wider colonial network.

I urge any reader, before they are so dismissive of the injustice faced by dockyard workers and lower-class Maltese during the British period, to read reputable authors rather than fall into the age-old narrative of a benevolent British patriarch lovingly looking out for the Maltese.

Kluivert Galea completed his Bachelor of Arts (Honours) degree in history and English in 2023 with a thesis focusing on the blue-collar experiences of Maltese dockyard workers between 1945 and 1980. He is currently reading for an MA in Mediterranean Studies with the University of Malta’s Mediterranean Institute.