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.
We do need to have a discussion about our imperial history, all aspects, good and bad. We need to be honest, both sides of the debate. Of course that can never happen. For example The Amritsar massacre. Popular opinion would have you believe Dyer was hailed as a hero, when in fact he was heavily criticised by WSC and Parliament. Slavery, yes we have a shameful history of the transatlantic trade however nobody mentions the extraordinary efforts of the RN to prevent it post abolition. And as you have so well demonstrated the largest volunteer army in our empire knew they could say “we’ve got this, you can leave” knowing we would. A debate yes, on facts.
The best evidence against this ‘the Empire was evil and you’re evil if you disagree with me’ argument is the British Indian Army. Having a quarter of a million Indian men voluntarily serving in a standing army doesn’t quite make sense if that foolish argument were true.
I think I may have been at the same talk, at least for a short time. I left because I am tired of hearing that the British Empire was all bad all of the time. I wonder if they take the same view of other empires. It would have been refreshing and far more worthwhile had you or a similarly qualified historian been part of that discussion so for once we could actually hear a more balanced account .
In the 1970s and 80s there was a cliche’ed view of young Germans wringing their hands and apologising for what their fathers and grandfathers had done during the war. The fact that they’d personally had nothing to do with it didn’t matter - they were supposed to carry this guilt and to be apologetic for it. It seems to me that there is developing a similar attitude to our imperial history: that we should all be utterly ashamed; and that we should apologise to every country which found itself subject to British kings and queens. There are undoubtedly some things we should be sorry for, but there is also much to be proud of, and as you rightly point out, Rob, it’s far from being as simple as ‘colonialism was evil’.
While 'historical context' does not excuse poor behaviour/atrocities, it is also relevant - it was what many European (and other) nations were doing over that period - racing to establish influence, secure trading routes and capitalise on wealth abroad, in all its forms. 'Conquest' directed nationally in and of itself was incidental more often than not...
I have been doing a lot of work on what the British colonial system replaced, as I am producing a book describing the origens of the British local colonial forces in East Africa. The activities and power of Arab slavers in East Africa is not widely understood or widely taught in places of British education. From their firm base in Zanzibar the Arabs, mainly Omanis but supported by local African allies, penetrated westwards until they held a large chunk of what was to become the Belgian Congo. They then plundered the land both for ivory and for villagers who were seized by force and made to carry the ivory to the coast. The carrying parties were then enslaved and shipped to Arabian ports. This trade was stopped by British chartered commercial companies arriving to administer and profit from Protectorates which London had marked on rudimentary maps. The Arab slavers and their allies were fought and defeated, but not easily, by forces that the chartered companies formed; many soldiers fighting for the companies were volunteers from the Indian Army. The net result of all that was that the British government became the owner of Potectorates in Africa that were negotiated away from the Chartered Companies (except in Southern Rhodesia). The Protectorates were administered by Britain, slavery was abolished, belligerent Arabs were removed from the scene and the Protectorates became independent nations. But who knows or ever criticises the Arabs who were in Africa, slaving as fast as their resources allowed, when the British arrived? And who can condemn the British who released hundreds of thousands of Africans from Arab rule, and who administered the Protectorates reasonably fairly?
We do need to have a discussion about our imperial history, all aspects, good and bad. We need to be honest, both sides of the debate. Of course that can never happen. For example The Amritsar massacre. Popular opinion would have you believe Dyer was hailed as a hero, when in fact he was heavily criticised by WSC and Parliament. Slavery, yes we have a shameful history of the transatlantic trade however nobody mentions the extraordinary efforts of the RN to prevent it post abolition. And as you have so well demonstrated the largest volunteer army in our empire knew they could say “we’ve got this, you can leave” knowing we would. A debate yes, on facts.
Exactly
The best evidence against this ‘the Empire was evil and you’re evil if you disagree with me’ argument is the British Indian Army. Having a quarter of a million Indian men voluntarily serving in a standing army doesn’t quite make sense if that foolish argument were true.
True!
I think I may have been at the same talk, at least for a short time. I left because I am tired of hearing that the British Empire was all bad all of the time. I wonder if they take the same view of other empires. It would have been refreshing and far more worthwhile had you or a similarly qualified historian been part of that discussion so for once we could actually hear a more balanced account .
It is wearying, isn’t it? There was no objective analysis presented, merely this continuous drip drip of ‘bad white man’ dialectic
It wouldn’t hurt to mention that India at least was a fit of absent mindlessness. Not unlike in some ways Cortes in Mexico.
https://a.co/fC4ticc
Accident certainly. The creation of an empire had zero part of British policy, ever.
In the 1970s and 80s there was a cliche’ed view of young Germans wringing their hands and apologising for what their fathers and grandfathers had done during the war. The fact that they’d personally had nothing to do with it didn’t matter - they were supposed to carry this guilt and to be apologetic for it. It seems to me that there is developing a similar attitude to our imperial history: that we should all be utterly ashamed; and that we should apologise to every country which found itself subject to British kings and queens. There are undoubtedly some things we should be sorry for, but there is also much to be proud of, and as you rightly point out, Rob, it’s far from being as simple as ‘colonialism was evil’.
Agree!
Good piece.
While 'historical context' does not excuse poor behaviour/atrocities, it is also relevant - it was what many European (and other) nations were doing over that period - racing to establish influence, secure trading routes and capitalise on wealth abroad, in all its forms. 'Conquest' directed nationally in and of itself was incidental more often than not...
Listen you’re white and you’ll never be right in their eyes.
So go back to being as wrong as it takes to get your country back.
I have been doing a lot of work on what the British colonial system replaced, as I am producing a book describing the origens of the British local colonial forces in East Africa. The activities and power of Arab slavers in East Africa is not widely understood or widely taught in places of British education. From their firm base in Zanzibar the Arabs, mainly Omanis but supported by local African allies, penetrated westwards until they held a large chunk of what was to become the Belgian Congo. They then plundered the land both for ivory and for villagers who were seized by force and made to carry the ivory to the coast. The carrying parties were then enslaved and shipped to Arabian ports. This trade was stopped by British chartered commercial companies arriving to administer and profit from Protectorates which London had marked on rudimentary maps. The Arab slavers and their allies were fought and defeated, but not easily, by forces that the chartered companies formed; many soldiers fighting for the companies were volunteers from the Indian Army. The net result of all that was that the British government became the owner of Potectorates in Africa that were negotiated away from the Chartered Companies (except in Southern Rhodesia). The Protectorates were administered by Britain, slavery was abolished, belligerent Arabs were removed from the scene and the Protectorates became independent nations. But who knows or ever criticises the Arabs who were in Africa, slaving as fast as their resources allowed, when the British arrived? And who can condemn the British who released hundreds of thousands of Africans from Arab rule, and who administered the Protectorates reasonably fairly?
So who is the offender?