|
|
|
INTRODUCTION TO THE BRITISH EMPIRE: RISE, FALL AND LEGACIESFor general background and preparation, pick up one of the
introductory books for the unit, either the Niall Ferguson or the Bill Nasson,
(or even both) would be recommended in particular, and get reading into the
topic. You will also find a range of useful online resources charting the
history of empire in the orientation section of this site. It would be impossible, of course, to provide a
comprehensive account of the history of the British empire in a single unit, but
over the course of the six seminar sessions we shall discuss various issues that
have been seen as particularly significant by historians of empire, providing an
overview of some of the key themes in imperial history.
Prepare for each session by reading the key texts for each session, some
of which are arranged into separate topics that form the basis of group
presentations/discussions. You
should also endeavour to sample some of the extended reading material that will
allow particular topics to be explored in greater depth and detail.
In addition, do not be afraid to read around the topics based on your own
research in the library. The use of
journal articles, many of which are available online via the university’s
MetaLib gateway, is also strongly encouraged. 1: The Nature of Empire This first seminar is designed as an introduction, centred
on the debate about whether the British empire was a 'good' or a 'bad' thing and
whether Britain should apologise for it. Use
this seminar to begin to orientate yourself, to find your way around the empire,
and to consider its costs and benefits. Look
at the recommended reading below, and the online resources on the topic of
apologies: the accompanying reading and resource list provides lots of links and
ideas. The BBC Radio 4 programme with Andrew Marr and leading historians,
including Ferguson and Hobsbawm, is particularly worth a listen. You will also
gain a great deal from a trip to the British Empire & Commonwealth Museum
and we'd highly recommend this. For the purposes of this seminar you have been split into
two groups (see below). Group A will present the case for an apology. Group B
will present the case against. You can use the group pages, under Communication
on this site, to talk through the issue in advance, and there will also be 5-10
minutes during the seminar itself for you to draw your arguments together. We
hope this seminar will get you thinking, provide you with an opportunity to
think through your own opinions, engage with the issues and orientate yourself.
Do you think your views will change as you move through the unit and learn more
about the history of empire? Introductory Reading Niall Ferguson, Empire: how Britain made the modern
world (London, 2003), esp. Introduction Bill Nasson, Britannia’s empire: a short history of
the British empire (Stroud, 2006), esp. Chapter 6. Online material: ‘Start the Week’, Radio 4 (12 June 2006), with Niall
Ferguson, Eric Hobsbawm, Priya Gopal, Linda Colley & Robert Beckford http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek_20060612.shtml Seumas Milne, ‘Britain: Imperial Notalgia’, in Le
Monde Diplomatique (May 2005), available via http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2005/05ukrom.htm Neil Davidson, ‘No defence for the British Empire’, Socialist
Worker Online (June 2006), available via http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9069 Primary Source Material: John Stuart Mill, ‘On Colonies and Colonisation’,
available via the Internet Modern History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1849jsmill-colonies.html Rudyard Kipling, ‘The White Man’s Burden’, available
via the Internet Modern History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html 2: Theories of Empire One of the key characteristics of the British empire was
its economic nature – an empire of trade or exploitation, of the expanding
benefits of capitalism or rapacious plunder, depending on the outlook of the
observer. The purpose of the
workshop this week is to explore the development of theoretical approaches to
empire, which have tended towards an emphasis on the material forces at play in
the expansion of empire. We shall
focus on three key contributions to such theories of empire.
The first is that of the liberal journalist and critic of empire J.A.
Hobson, whose book Imperialism – A Study was first published in the
wake of the Anglo-Boer war in 1902. It,
together with Lenin’s, Imperialism – the Highest Stage of Capitalism,
provided the basis for what might be broadly referred to as the Marxist theory
of imperialism. The second was
developed in the 1950s and 60s by historians Ronald Robinson and James
Gallagher, initially in a seminal article in the Economic History Review,
and in subsequent work including their Africa and the Victorians. Third,
we shall examine the more recent collaboration by economic historians Peter Cain
and Anthony Hopkins, with its emphasis on the role of finance and ‘gentlemanly
capitalism’. In groups, you will prepare presentations that summarise
the key points of the arguments presented in the three above approaches to
empire. We shall discuss how these
theoretical approaches portray empire as an historical phenomenon – was the
British empire first and foremost an economic entity? Can we discern a ‘unity
of purpose’ in the expansion of empire from the seventeenth to the twentieth
centuries? How important were developments on the imperial ‘periphery’ to
the process of expansion? Key Readings: i. Hobson/Lenin thesis: J.A. Hobson, Imperialism (1902); extracts available via: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1902hobson.html http://www.marxists.org/archive/hobson/1902/imperialism/pt1ch4.htm V.I. Lenin, Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism
(1916); full text available via: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1916lenin-imperialism.html ii. Robinson and Gallagher controversy R. Robinson, J Gallagher, ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’ in Economic History Review VI, 1 (1953); available via JSTOR: < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117%281953%292%3A6%3A1%3C1%3ATIOFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M> R. Robinson, J Gallagher, A. Denny, Africa and the Victorians (London, 1961) Wm. Roger Louis (ed), Imperialism: the Robinson and
Gallagher controversy (New York, 1976) iii. Empire and ‘Gentlemanly capitalism’ P. J. Cain; A. G. Hopkins, ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Expansion Overseas I. The Old Colonial System, 1688-1850’, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 39, No. 4 (1986) pp. 501-525 < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117%28198611%292%3A39%3A4%3C501%3AGCABEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W> P. J. Cain; A. G. Hopkins, ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Expansion Overseas II: New Imperialism, 1850-1945’, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 40, No. 1 (1987), pp. 1-26 < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117%28198702%292%3A40%3A1%3C1%3AGCABEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4> P.J. Cain and A.G. Hopkins, British Imperialism, 1688-2000 (London, 1993) David Cannadine, ‘Review
Article: The Empire Strikes Back’ in Past and Present, No. 147 (1995),
pp. 180-194; http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-2746%28199505%290%3A147%3C180%3ATESB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9 Further Reading: Anthony Brewer, Marxist Theories of Imperialism (London, 1990) Norman Etherington, Theories of Imperialism: War, Conquest and Capital (London, 1984) Norman Etherington, ‘Reconsidering Theories of Imperialism’ in History and Theory, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 1-36; <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2656%28198202%2921%3A1%3C1%3ARTOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I> D.K. Fieldhouse (ed), The Theory of Capitalism Imperialism (London, 1967) D. K. Fieldhouse, ‘ “Imperialism”: An Historiographical Revision’, in The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 14, No. 2. (1961), pp. 187-209; http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117%281961%292%3A14%3A2%3C187%3A%27AHR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K Patrick Wolfe, ‘Review: History and Imperialism: A Century of Theory, from Marx to Postcolonialism’, in The American Historical Review, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 388-420; http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28199704%29102%3A2%3C388%3AHAIACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F Paul M. Kennedy, ‘Review: The Theory and Practice of
Imperialism’ in The Historical Journal , Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1977),
pp. 761-769; http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-246X%28197709%2920%3A3%3C761%3ATTAPOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R 3: Colonial Rule The British empire, at least in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, began to develop a particular vision of the nature and role
of colonial administration. One of
the most compelling stereotypes of British colonialism is that of the
progressive nature of ‘well-run empire of the middle ground’, in which
enlightened colonial officials presided over a civilising mission that was both
benign and adaptable, easily fitted to differing local needs and traditions.
This paternalist vision was evident in both the religious evangelism of
missionary activities and the ideologies of colonial administration.
The focus of this workshop is thus the nature of colonial authority,
which will be explored via an examination of two issues: the nineteenth century
‘civilising mission’ espoused by Christian humanitarians and missionaries,
and the idea of ‘Indirect Rule’, popular among officials in Africa in the
mid-twentieth century. Examine the
documents provided and think about what they say about colonial authority –
how far was the colonial state founded upon cultural chauvinism?
To what extent was ‘tradition’ misrepresented – or even
‘invented’ – in the cause of imperial rule? What were the implications of
the need for officials to identify or create indigenous collaborators in order
to maintain colonial bureaucracies? Key Readings: i. Civilisation, Commerce and Christianity David Livingstone, extracts (see attached file) Brian Stanley, ‘ “Commerce and Christianity”: Providence Theory, the Missionary Movement, and the Imperialism of Free Trade, 1842-1860’ in The Historical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 71-94; <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-246X%28198303%2926%3A1%3C71%3A%27ACPTT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M> Andrew Porter, ‘ “Commerce and Christianity”: The Rise and Fall of a Nineteenth-Century Missionary Slogan’ in The Historical Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sep., 1985), pp. 597-621; <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-246X%28198509%2928%3A3%3C597%3A%27ACTRA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V> Jean Comaroff; John Comaroff, ‘Christianity and
Colonialism in South Africa’ in American Ethnologist, Vol. 13, No. 1
(Feb., 1986), pp. 1-22; <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094-0496%28198602%2913%3A1%3C1%3ACACISA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X> ii. Indirect Rule in Africa Frederick Lugard, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa (1926), extract available via the Internet Modern History Sourcebook: http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/8bsyllabus/dualmandate.html Z. K. Matthews, ‘An African View of Indirect Rule in Africa’ in Journal of the Royal African Society Vol. 36, No. 145 (Oct., 1937), pp. 433-437; <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0368-4016%28193710%2936%3A145%3C433%3AAAVOIR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W> Terence Ranger, ‘Tradition and Travesty: Chiefs and the Administration in Makoni District, Zimbabwe, 1960-1980’, in Africa: Journal of the International African Institute Vol. 52, No. 3, (1982), pp. 20-41; http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-9720%281982%2952%3A3%3C20%3ATATCAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 L. Vail (ed), The Creation of Tribalism in Southern
Africa (Berkeley, 1991) 4: Gender & Empire Analyses of imperial history have reflected and drawn on
broader historiographical trends in social and cultural studies, adding layers
of sophistication to our understanding of the nature and significance of empire.
Of particular importance is the contribution of gender and women’s
history, which has helped illuminate the ways in which empire and colonialism
were gendered phenomena, experienced differently by men and women and based
ideologically upon presuppositions about gender.
We shall examine four different texts that explore aspects of gender and
empire (details below). In preparation, you will need to engage in a close
reading of the text given to each group and prepare to present – as a group
– an outline of the article or chapter you have read. Think about the following: 1. What is the over-arching argument in the piece? 2. How is that argument constructed? 3. What examples are provided and sources cited by the author? 4. What broader conceptual themes are raised in the text? Texts: 1. Jan
Pieterse, White on Black - Images of Blacks and Africa in Western Popular
Culture (New Have: Yale University Press, 1992); Chap. 12 2. Ann Stoler, 'Sexual Affronts and Racial Frontiers:
European Identities and the Cultural Politics of Exclusion in Colonial Southeast
Asia' in Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 34, No. 3.
(1992), pp. 514-551. This is a key text on race, gender and empire, and played
an important role in laying out a theoretical approach to the relationship
between sexuality and the presevation/disruption of cultural boundaries in the
colonial context. While it obviously does not focus on British colonialism,
Stoler's work has been used effectively by historians of the British empire. 3. Gareth Cornwell,'George Webb Hardy's The Black Peril and
the Social Meaning of 'Black Peril' in Early Twentieth-Century South Africa' in Journal
of Southern African Studies, Vol. 22, No. 3. (1996), pp. 441-453. This article provides a case-study of the interaction
between sexuality, race and gender, in the particularly charged atmosphere of
early-twentieth century South Africa. The wider context is therefore the
beginnigs of the most elaborate system of racial segregation in the British
empire. 4. Pamela Scully, 'Rape, Race, and Colonial Culture: The
Sexual Politics of Identity in the Nineteenth-Century Cape Colony, South Africa'
in The American Historical Review, Vol. 100, No. 2. (1995), pp. 335-359. One more case-study from South Africa, this time from the
nineteenth century. Here, a single rape case in the twon of George in the Cape
Colony is used to highlight the interactions of race and sexuality, and the
development of cultural boundaries in a colonial context. 5: Empire & Violence In discussions of the nature of empire, the more negative
judgements on Britain’s imperial record tend to focus on moments of violence
and a characterisation of empire as a form of brutality.
To what extent was the British empire built on violence?
It is clear that violence did play an important role in the construction
and maintenance of empire, from Atlantic slavery to the military conquest of
Africa, and in the suppression of insurgencies, including the Indian Mutiny of
1857, and the Malayan ‘Emergency’ of the 1950s.
It might also be argued that the everyday life of empire and colonialism
abounded with casual violence justified by racial prejudices. During this
session, we will explore the question of violence in some detail, looking at one
of two issues that have been the subject of controversial debate in recent
times. Students will be given the option of basing the seminar on either one
of the following two options: 1) One option is to address the question of violence in the
process of decolonisation. It is
fair to say that, in comparison with other European empires, the un-making of
the British empire was a relatively bloodless affair.
The major exception was, however, that of Kenya, where the so-called Mau
Mau rebellion of the 1950s saw tens of thousands of Kikuyu incarcerated by the
Kenyan authorities. The official
British view of the time was that Mau Mau represented a return to African
‘savagery’, but two recent books, David Anderson’s Histories of the
Hanged, and Caroline Elkins’ Britain’s Gulag, have sought to
uncover the violence of the colonial authorities in Kenya.
Students will therefore examine the history of Mau Mau, drawing on these
books as well as contemporary accounts of the rebellion. Key Readings: David Anderson, Histories of the Hanged – Britain’s Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire (London, 2005) Caroline Elkins, Britain’s Gulag – The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya (London, 2005) Caroline Elkins, ‘The Struggle for Mau Mau Rehabilitation in Late Colonial Kenya’, in The International Journal of African Historical Studies Vol. 33, No. 1 (2000), pp. 25-57; http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0361-7882%282000%2933%3A1%3C25%3ATSFMMR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 Dane Kennedy, ‘Constructing the Colonial Myth of Mau Mau’ in The International Journal of African Historical Studies Vol. 25, No. 2 (1992), pp. 241-260; < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0361-7882%281992%2925%3A2%3C241%3ACTCMOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P> John Lonsdale, ‘Mau Maus of the Mind: Making Mau Mau and Remaking Kenya’ in The Journal of African History Vol. 31, No. 3 (1990), pp. 393-421 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8537%281990%2931%3A3%3C393%3AMMOTMM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G> Bernard Porter, ‘How Did They Get Away With It?’ – Review of Anderson/Elkins in London Review of Books (3 March 2005); http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n05/port01_.html Daniel Bergner, 'Imperial Reckoning' and 'Histories of the
Hanged': White Man's Bungle – Review of Elkins & Anderson, New York
Times (30 January 2005); http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/30BERGNER.html 2) The second controversy tells us, perhaps, as much about
the ways in which the idea of violence is entwined with present-day debates
around national identities and the legacies of empire. In 2002, Australian
historian Keith Windschuttle published The Fabrication of Aborginal History,
a critique of the accepted view of the violent history of settler-indigenous
relations, in particular whether the decline of indigenous populations amounted
to genocide. Windschuttle’s
argument, and responses such as Whitewash (2003), edited by Robert Manne,
form part of a wider public debate on the nature and meaning of Australian
history known as the ‘History Wars’. Here,
the history of empire forms a key element in debate around contemporary
identities and the role of ideology in historical interpretation.
For this option, students will examine the debate on settler 'genocide'
in Australia, and debate the extent to which the Australian experience
illuminates the nature of British imperialism more generally. Key Readings: Keith Windschuttle, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One (2002) Robert Manne (ed), Whitewash - On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History (2003) Collection of articles relating to the ‘History Wars’, Sydney
Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/specials/historywars/ 6: Empire & Identities As Bill Nasson points out, the post-colonial world that has
emerged since 1945 has forced ‘the old racist metropolis to confront the
changing meaning of nation’. How
have understandings of British national identity shifted in the wake of
decolonisation, and to what extent has the idea of empire continued to shape the
ways in which people think about British society and Britain’s role in the
world? In this final session, we
shall discuss the continuing cultural, social and political significance of
empire. In groups, examine the material on immigration and identity, and on
empire and national identity. What
do these two different, but interlinked issues tell us about the importance of
empire in public debate? Did
post-war immigration engender a new, multi-cultural national identity? Is
‘Britishness’, with its imperial connotations, less important today than
sub-national identities (‘Englishness’, ‘Welshness’)? Key Readings: i. Immigration and Identitiy Paul Gilroy, There ain’t no black in the Union Jack: the cultural politics of race and nation (London, 1987) Harry Goulbourne, Ethnicity and nationalism in post-imperial Britain (1991). Colin Holmes, ‘Immigration’, in Terry Gourvish & Alan O’Day (eds.) Britain since 1945 (1991), pp. 209-31. Colin Holmes, John Bull's Island: Immigration & British Society, 1871-1971 (London, 1988). Tony Kushner, ‘Immigration and ‘race relations’ in postwar British society’, in Paul Johnson (ed.) Twentieth-century Britain (London, 1994), pp. 411-26. Kathleen Paul, ‘From subjects to immigrants: black Britons and national identity, 1948-62’, in Richard Weight & Abigail Beach (eds.) The right to belong: citizenship and national identity in Britain, 1930-60 (1998) Rieko Karatani, Defining British citizenship: empire,
commonwealth and modern Britain (London, 2003) ii. Empire and national identity Helen Brocklehurst & Robert Phillips (eds.), History, nationhood and the question of Britain (Basingstoke, 2004). John Mackenzie, ‘Empire and national identities: the case of Scotland’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 8, 1998, pp. 215-31. David McCrone, ‘Unmasking Britannia: the rise and fall of British national identity’, Nations & Nationalism, 3:4, 1997, pp. 579-96. Krishnan Kumar, The making of English national identity (Cambridge, 2003). Krishnan Kumar, ‘Empire and English nationalism’, Nations & Nationalism, 12:1, 2006, pp. 1-13. Wendy Webster, Englishness and empire, 1939-65 (Oxford, 2005)
Author and Unit Tutor: Dr. Rob Skinner, Department Historical Studies, University of Bristol. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/history/contact/skinner.html |
| ©Duncan Taylor 2009 |