What do you think?
Rate this book
Imperialism: The Robinson and Gallagher controversy
Gallagher, John, -- 1919-1980.
- GenresHistory
252 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1976
27 people want to read
About the author
William Roger Louis
56 books6 followersWilliam Roger Louis CBE FBA, also known as Wm. Roger Louis, or Roger Louis, informally, is an American historian, currently distinguished historian at the University of Texas at Austin. Louis is the Editor-in-Chief of The Oxford History of the British Empire, the former President of the American Historical Association, the former Chairman of the Department of State Historical Advisory Committee, and the Founding Director of the American Historical Association's National History Center in Washington, D.C.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Read
August 12, 2016Historian Wm. Roger Louis edits the compendium Imperialism: The Robinson Gallagher Controversy. His prose brings clarity to an academic debate that seems at once breathtakingly wide and hair-splittingly narrow.
Robinson and Gallagher proffer the hypothesis that the British Empire expanded in a continuous and practically inexorable manner throughout the Victorian era. The empire was driven not by cupidity but as a response to proto-nationalist movements that threatened its link to its prize possession, India. France, Germany, and other European powers naturally respond in kind as they see Britain formalize its holdings in Egypt and South Africa, and so the Scramble for Africa begins. Louis includes Robinson and Gallagher’s three seminal essays from the mid-20th century, which define this hypothesis and assert the universality of its implications: that Britain ruled its Empire informally when possible and formally only when necessary, and that it depended on the cooperation of local political actors, and that it aimed primarily to protect existing networks of hegemony and trade than to create new ones in the Victorian era.
It flies in the face of established theory, and Louis gives a fair treatment to the duo’s critics. Can capitalist exploitation really be written off so completely, asks V.G. Kiernan? Geoffrey Barraclough challenges the universality of the theory, and W.M. Mathew finds it lacking in a case study of British Empire in Peru between 1820 and 1870. Colin Newbury questions whether Egypt can even explain the Scramble for Africa, let alone global imperialism, considering that French policy towards acquiring the Congo and West Africa became decidedly more imperialistic three years before Britain raised her flag in Cairo.
But Louis insists that Robinson and Gallagher made real contributions to the study of Imperial history. They compelled historians to recognize the potency of indirect rule and its accomplice, indigenous collaboration. And in bringing these forms of command to the limelight, Louis presents a valuable challenge to the reader’s understanding of history and morality that is just as relevant to an analysis of imperialism today, especially in the Middle East, as it is to one of imperialism in the Victorian era.
Robinson and Gallagher proffer the hypothesis that the British Empire expanded in a continuous and practically inexorable manner throughout the Victorian era. The empire was driven not by cupidity but as a response to proto-nationalist movements that threatened its link to its prize possession, India. France, Germany, and other European powers naturally respond in kind as they see Britain formalize its holdings in Egypt and South Africa, and so the Scramble for Africa begins. Louis includes Robinson and Gallagher’s three seminal essays from the mid-20th century, which define this hypothesis and assert the universality of its implications: that Britain ruled its Empire informally when possible and formally only when necessary, and that it depended on the cooperation of local political actors, and that it aimed primarily to protect existing networks of hegemony and trade than to create new ones in the Victorian era.
It flies in the face of established theory, and Louis gives a fair treatment to the duo’s critics. Can capitalist exploitation really be written off so completely, asks V.G. Kiernan? Geoffrey Barraclough challenges the universality of the theory, and W.M. Mathew finds it lacking in a case study of British Empire in Peru between 1820 and 1870. Colin Newbury questions whether Egypt can even explain the Scramble for Africa, let alone global imperialism, considering that French policy towards acquiring the Congo and West Africa became decidedly more imperialistic three years before Britain raised her flag in Cairo.
But Louis insists that Robinson and Gallagher made real contributions to the study of Imperial history. They compelled historians to recognize the potency of indirect rule and its accomplice, indigenous collaboration. And in bringing these forms of command to the limelight, Louis presents a valuable challenge to the reader’s understanding of history and morality that is just as relevant to an analysis of imperialism today, especially in the Middle East, as it is to one of imperialism in the Victorian era.
October 2, 2013
When Frederick Jackson Turner presented his essay he could not anticipate his very name would be synonymous with the Frontier Thesis. John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson were more cognizant of the effect their seminal work Africa and the Victorian: The Official Mind of Imperialism would have on the field. They were intent on challenging the prevelant historiography of British Imperialism. That successfully changed the argument is unquestioned and certainly editor Wm Roger Louis pays them their due respect in the title and dedication of Imperialism: The Robinson and Gallagher Controversy. .
Louis begins the book with a comprehensive introductory essay that maps out a summary of the titular historians’ main ideas. Essentially, they contend that Britain was continuing a pro Imperialist agenda into second half of the 19th century. The importance of the informal empire outweighed the formal Imperial iceberg. Indeed the British used the cooperation of local leaders whenever possible and only followed up with force when all other avenues were exhausted. Louis followed this with several selections from their work in 1953, 1962 and a chapter of Robinson’s from 1972. This gives the reader an overview of their ideas as well as an evolution and refinement of their theory. Three critical responses in Part III from Platt, Shepperson and Stokes and a range of viewpoints in the comments section of Part IV give the reader a vista from which to examine the rebuttals and treatments of Imperialism that have followed. Indeed while the elevated ideas of Africa and the Victorian: The Official Mind of Imperialism are complex, this highly sophisticated analysis makes the core contentious concepts of formal and informal empire and collaboration and resistance clearer.
Louis begins the book with a comprehensive introductory essay that maps out a summary of the titular historians’ main ideas. Essentially, they contend that Britain was continuing a pro Imperialist agenda into second half of the 19th century. The importance of the informal empire outweighed the formal Imperial iceberg. Indeed the British used the cooperation of local leaders whenever possible and only followed up with force when all other avenues were exhausted. Louis followed this with several selections from their work in 1953, 1962 and a chapter of Robinson’s from 1972. This gives the reader an overview of their ideas as well as an evolution and refinement of their theory. Three critical responses in Part III from Platt, Shepperson and Stokes and a range of viewpoints in the comments section of Part IV give the reader a vista from which to examine the rebuttals and treatments of Imperialism that have followed. Indeed while the elevated ideas of Africa and the Victorian: The Official Mind of Imperialism are complex, this highly sophisticated analysis makes the core contentious concepts of formal and informal empire and collaboration and resistance clearer.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews