OK! Let's talk about empire...

I sat through a dreary and self-indulgent conversation between two writers last week, one of whom has written what I understand to be a best-selling book on the subject of empire. It’s the second he’s written, but the subject of the second is pretty much the same as the first. I came away unenlightened. The essence of his argument seemed to be, “In Britain today we don’t talk about empire enough. If we did [and accepted as correct a series of my bald propositions about the past which places everything about empire as evil] we’d be better people.” The assumptions behind this author’s proposition (he isn’t a historian) were startling to hear elucidated. These include inter alia the argument that the British Empire was the product of bad people doing bad things; that ‘foreign’ rule was forced on subject peoples by force; that colonialism was always rapacious in delivery, and that, because all the foregoing are patently true, we should feel bad about it today (and, of course, buy his book). Although not discussed during the interview, the argument advanced by many of those who accept this author’s propositions/presuppositions is that Britain today must pay reparations for the evils our ancestors perpetrated in the name of a free-wheeling, violent, rapacious programme of imperial aggrandisement.

What amazed me was that the audience clapped! I had trouble closing my mouth, given the brazenness of his assumption that he was right, and anyone who disagreed with him was a dinosaur at best and immoral at worst. His interlocutor, a very well known historian indeed, smiled and nodded his head indulgently. Does he really believe this garbage? It seems so.

OK, so let’s talk about empire, as our author wants us to do. Perhaps if we do so honestly, we might just become better people. Let’s start with the four key propositions this author advanced. How many of them stand up to objective scrutiny? None, I suggest. The basis of his approach, it seems to me, is an ideological argument, not a historical one. There is a difference. Obviously, it would make no sense for me to suggest that colonialism was ‘a good thing’ across the board, when that patently isn’t true (bad things happen all the time, and imperialism wasn’t exempt). But to suggest that all colonialism was bad is equally silly. I’m a historian: I look at the evidence for my judgements, rather than starting with a series of presupposed ideological assumptions. Interestingly, the same approach isn’t the one adopted by ideologues: they don’t seem to think they need evidence to defend their ideas; because they’re better people.

Considerable evidence demonstrates that not all empire, certainly in the British case, was of the same stamp. Not all of it was imposed by force, and not all of it was bad, however that word may be defined. Indeed, in many cases colonial rule was desired and even requested by its subjects. The evidence of mass collusion with others (such as with colonialists) in the construction of new civic and political structures is considerable. How on earth did this happen? It happened because in a whole host of places colonial government meant effective and secure civic society, free from the arbitrary harassment of distant rulers and tax-collectors. Many people living in disintegrated or badly governed societies actually looked to colonialists for better governance, security for their families and ultimately better lives. In other words, given a choice, many people plumped for government by rulers other than their own people, because they consented to it. The colonialists didn’t come to their lands because they wanted to dispense their peculiar version of the law, of course; they came as a result of attempts (usually) to secure trading rights or to remove threats to the prosperity and security of their empire. This contained elements of good and bad, obviously, but the idea that red-coated barbarians marched across the earth to subdue the natives, for the benefit of shareholders in London, or the Crown, is laughable nonsense. Yet that is what the ‘progressive’ view of empire is trying to sell us (and worse, our children). Unlike this popularly propounded misconception (‘lie’ might be a better word for it), the British Empire did not expand because of military rapacity (if this had been the case, lots of places where the British Army fought would, like Portugal, or Crimea, today be part of the Commonwealth), but because (1) commercial interests required security and (2) political (national) and security interests often coalesced.

Bad things sometimes happened across the British Empire, just as lots of bad things happened at home, in British society, at the same time. I always think of the London slums when people criticise the poor of India in the nineteenth century. Both were a product of life as it was, not empire (and they were both bad). We’re much more enlightened now of course, and hate the idea of one people arrogantly subduing another, ‘the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate’, as God himself ordained. Thank goodness that arrogant subjection was not what the British Empire generally did, so we needn’t feel bad about it. What the British Empire did, instead, among all the bad stuff, was to provide people in many different places and at different times with a common civic and political foundation that continues to resonate through the world today, a polity in which the rule of law was/is respected; where the underdog was given the same rights under the law as the ruler and where widows were prevented from being sacrificed live on the funeral pyre of their dead husbands.

I agree; let’s talk about empire. There’s plenty to talk about here.