Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire by David Cannadine (7-Feb-2002) Paperback

by David Cannadine

For much of the modern era, the British Empire was the largest and greatest in the world, on which, it was truly observed, the sun never set. It encompassed almost every variant of human experience, and for three centuries it shaped the political, social and economic life of much of the globe.The origins of the British Empire, and the reasons for its collapse in the mid twentieth century, have been extensively studied by historians. But very little attention has been paid to how the Empire was actually run. How, during the heyday of its stable existence, did its rulers understand their task? And what, more generally, did Britons think their Empire looked like?In this characteristically entertaining and provocatively original book, David Cannadine investigates the ideologies and social attitudes at the heart of the Empire. One of them was, undoubtedly, race. But even more pervasive was class – a traditional vision of hierarchy and subordination, derived from the sense the British had of their own society, which they exported and analogized to the ends of the earth and back again.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, 19th Century, British Literature, European History, 20th Century, 18th Century

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

Sir David Cannadine FBA FRSL FSA FRHistS is a British author and historian, who specialises in modern history and the history of business and philanthropy.

Reviews

[Lobstergirl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cannadine's title, Ornamentalism, sets the book in opposition to Edward Said's famous work Orientalism, which I haven't read yet (although I've read other Said). Opposition may be too strong a word; rather, Cannadine's book is a counterpoint to Said's. Said based his arguments about colonialism and empire on race, while Cannadine argues that the British Empire was just as much fixated on class and status. It was critically important to the British to replicate their own class structure in their colonies. This meant that every native monarch in every colony was accorded the ceremonial respect and pageantry that a British monarch would get back in Britain. Regardless of the native monarch or aristocrat's skin tone, he would be infinitely better regarded by his British counterparts than a pasty-faced working class or middle class schlub back home.

Cannadine musters a lot of evidence for this. The book is quite short (200 pages of text) with vast endnotes.

There is a nice selection of black and white photographs sprinkled throughout. The paper quality, though, of this OUP edition is terrible.

[alex · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars.

I read this for a university course on the British Empire. As the title of the book suggests, Cannadine discusses the British perspective on the Empire, arguing that the British attitude toward the locals in their respective corners of the Empire was first and foremost influenced by rank and class, not racial(ized) differences.

Cannadine’s writing is fairly engaging, neither convoluted nor drily academical. His ideas in themselves are interesting and thought-provoking, especially in regard to how the Brits, both consciously and subconsciously, sought to re-create the society and hierarchy at home in other "unsullied" parts of the Empire. However, while Cannadine's main argument might pertain to the white Brits who settled elsewhere in the Empire to, for example, develop their career, seek better living conditions, or distance themselves from the life and politics at home, it doesn’t seem as applicable as Cannadine makes it out to be to the BIPOC peoples whose homes were annexed and colonized. Cannadine indulges the British chivalric illusion of maintaining the, to their mind, superior traditional feudal social hierarchy throughout most of the book, often without including opposing perspectives or criticism on his own part, which makes the discussion feel imbalanced. The most illuminating chapter is “Limitations”, in which Cannadine finally shows the dark side of the coin. Evidently, the history of the British Empire is complex and nuanced. Unfortunately, I ultimately found Cannadine’s argumentation lacking and his relative dismissal of racism and the effects of colonization in general in poor taste.

[Edmund O'Connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Handling the history of the British Empire is a daunting task. While some, including Christopher Lee (no, not that one) go for the encyclopedic approach, and even then fail to cover everything, Cannadine whacks out 200 pages that certainly gives the reader an accessible introduction into this always highly controversial subject.

While Cannadine is unable to restrain his lexical tics completely (you will want to scream when he uses the term "appropriately enough" for the umpteenth time), he handles the subject matter confidently and deftly. He is a clear critic of empire and imperialism, but does not fall into the trap of not seeing the attractions of empire, at least for some. In a field where Niall Ferguson takes the 'damn ingrates' tack towards the U.S. declaring independence from the British empire, while on the other side many of the left desperately pretend the empire was an institution forced on the working class, instead of one where many in the working class eagerly participated, Cannadine's approach is to be welcomed.

Express healthy criticism for his rhetorical fireworks, and you'll find an enlightening, pacy read.

[Martin Koenigsberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Ornamentalism, David Cannadine discusses the British empire's Image abroad and at home. He argues that the Empire was a class-based system intent on preserving the status quo, and that it was largely a net of Class and Feudal ideas held together by an almost Roman set of ideals. I can't say that he fully won me over, but he makes a good argument.

The book is filled with stories and anecdotes that Cannadine feels support his thesis, but one man's "Establishment elites" are another man's "legitimate ruling social groups". Of course the Brits tended to back the people they thought were already in power, it was FAR less expensive to rule through proxies than to try and administer/conquer with new leaders and new governmental systems to be imposed. That Cannadine tries to discuss the Imperial methods without paying any particular attention to the spreading and administration of the English Legal systems, puts the whole effort in a weaker context. Sure, the Empire used spectacle, militarism and technology to divide and rule- but it was the English Legal Traditions and their execution in society that were the lasting gift of Empire. Cannadine's book is a fun read, but I was left wanting more.

This is a fun book for the younger reader attempting serious works. A little bit of effort will be rewarded. The Military Enthusiast/Gamer/Modeller will find a lot of good background for their future efforts, but little help with Scenarios/Dioramas as such. A good book- just not a great one on its topic.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Right at the beginning let me say that I don't understand the constant harping on that this book somehow is a response/companion to/answer to/ response to/ argument against etc. to Said's Orientalism - A book I have tried and failed to read in it's entirety but recognize it as a much more serious, ground breaking, challenging, but definitely 'academic' - with all that means to a lack of easy readability - work. I would be surprised if Cannadine saw this small book in any such grandiose comparative light in particular because Said wrote about Orientalism, the operative word is 'orient'. Cannadine is writing about Ornamentalism, the operative word being 'ornament'. I don't know how can confuse the two - probably only if you haven't read either book.

This book is short, and maybe slight but what Cannadine has to say explains, or at least adds an important perspective on the British Empire, how it was ruled, and how it ended - and the way it failed to create sustainable government structures in so many of the colonies they withdrew from. It actually follows on from an observation, almost casually, in his 'Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy' about how the aristocracy withdrew, or were pushed out, of so many positions of influence and power in the 19th century but how a upper class 'culture' and 'style' - that really was a way of thought, dress behavior, etc. - remained and was transmitted through the public schools and particularly Oxbridge to define what an Englishman (even if he was actually from one of the Celtic countries of Britain) was. This group 'think' and 'style' meant that the Empire was run by suburban boys who were unable to cope with the reality of a changing Britain and went off to find a pre-industrial world of grand seigneurs and noble peasants to run - or many cases create. It explains in many ways why - though the ruling British in any colony - would talk of wanting to educate and uplift the poor 'benighted' natives - the colonial British almost invariably hated any native with education and did everything in their power to have nothing to do with them and if forced to have contact treat the educated 'native' with an insufferable contempt. What colonial Britons liked to do was spend time with 'unspoilt' natives and their 'natural 'chiefs'. The consequences in places like Nigeria, post independence, was awful in terms of war and bloodshed.

Of course this doesn't explain everything about Empire and doesn't mean that racism wasn't a huge
influence - but it does help to explain how so many men (and in terms of power it was only men at that time) who weren't superficially monsters or bad ended up doing so much harm when they thought they were doing good. It also helps explain, in part, why so many non Britain's when viewing the Empire saw only monumental hypocrisy.

Of course you need to read other books about the Empire, how it was formed and ended, obviously avoiding the ridiculous pro-western pro-USA tosh that Niall Fergusson has written (such a disappointing writer/historian - his early books were so good) but I recommend this one for all its faults and limitations as it will give you interesting perspectives and much to think mover.

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author makes a very useful contribution to history, and this book serves as a good “reply” to Edward Said’s Orientalism. He explains his purpose clearly and sets about making his case in a thoroughly professional way. The gist of his argument about the nature of class relations in Britain and throughout the empire cannot be lightly dismissed. It’s a powerful argument.

[Gayla Bassham · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating short study of the meaning of the British empire. I do think that the author's argument that Britain saw every country it colonized through the prism of its own social structure, and thus tried to impose a British hierarchy on countries where the hierarchy did not fit at all, is strong. But I would have liked more analysis of the British middle class (the author focuses on British leaders and aristocrats) and more grappling with the complex relationship between race and class, and I wish the author had addressed more what caused the hierarchy, once imposed, to break down in more detail.

[ML Character · Rating 3 out of 5]

I own three academic books entitled Ornamentalism. This is the second of the three that I've read. It's fine. It makes a couple of points that are useful for me, although they could easily have been an article for my purposes. I wish Cannadine were more of a theorist and less of a 'straight' historian, because the notion of 'ornamentalism' is almost entirely implicit in the work which really just collects a bunch of facts about the ceremonies of the British empire rather than fleshing out what 'ornamentalism' even means to the imperial project(s). But still, thanks for doing it. It's handy. It'll be, at most, a footnote for the work I'm actually doing.

[Jake · Rating 3 out of 5]

On the whole, a solid book. Cannadine is an excellent historian and this book is a welcome corrective to the many books that overstate the role of race in British colonial policy. However, I found the conclusion to be a bit hasty and would've liked to see more attention given to Britain's idea of colonization as a civilizing mission. That quibble aside, the bulk of the book is outstanding.

[The Master · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid little book. Distills an empire into less than 200 pages. The opening was very dry and I didn't think I'd finish this one, but it picked up nicely once the author found his groove.

[Shehroze Ameen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I personally thought it was a good book.

For those who want a detailed background of the country, especially in the context of the work that has been done in the empire overall there are definitive better books to read, for sure.

The Pathans: 550 B.C.- A.D. 1957 is one book
The British Empire and the Hajj: 1865–1956 is another
Treaties, Engagements and Sanads Relating to the North West Frontier Province (Entered into between the Government of British India and The Neighbouring States and Territories, Compiled by Mr. C. W. Aithchinson B.C.S, Under Secretary to the Government ... Especially useful for the context of the established implementation strategies in the area
Plain Tales from the British Empire Paperback Jan 01, 2008 CHARLES ALLEN Which is a biased, but still sincere commitment to historical accuracy as far as the empire is concerned.

Not to mention the wealth of District Gazetteers of each District in British India, of British African countries, of the British South East Asian Dominians.

I agree that when compared to all these references, the book may seem tangibly less impressive. And yes, it seems biased.

But that's the thing: it is in the title

Ornamentalism. NOT Orientalism.

As Ornaments are often just trinkets, just visual materialistic embodiments of social status, so too the empire saw their lands as achievements. And those who participated actively in it for their ulterior motives, are complicit in it.

To that end, he has succeeded in emphasizing that yes, it was all a facade to contain power only to the highest rungs of the imperial ladder. And yes, to that end, he is right to emphasize that these senior entities were and still are guilty of the crimes of extracting power at the cost of the people who resided here.

It gives context for us, to emphasize, why the situation in the United Kingdom worsened once their empire fell. And once their ornaments took a life of their own.

Well deserved failure of their system though. They got what was coming to them.

[Paul Warren · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'll start with the fact that I would have preferred his epilogue about framing his personal experience with the Empire into the front of the book as context for the POV the book takes. I'll personally disclose that while I read about these topics on my own time, I have no professional role in history and got this book from a public library scanning the shelves and not from a 100% researched background.

It might be true that the British imperial project was one which sought to homogenize itself along social/political power hierarchy similar to the somewhat monarchial English system (though little is mentioned about parliament, budgets or legal protections arising from these titles). However, what I read is about a world full of honorific titles, broad categorization of peoples, colonies created from different eras, and unifying them.

At the end of the day, while I think the proof of the effort towards Ornamentalism is worthy of the books title and of coining a term but the impacts are not sufficiently contextualized and instead we are left with a great many descriptions and lists of titles and not much about structures or how these princes and hierarchies fed back into the decision making of either the colonies themselves or what the leveraged titles were supposed to achieve for the British crown (as, again, no real look is made other than cursory mention in epilogue that the Indian Raj was the "keystone" of the imperial funding and the rest collapsed without it).

A great deal is told to us, but not shown, it is a worthy thesis but never given weight. I feel like we should know what was achieved by this because despite using the words "tradition" and "history" over and over again it lasted less than 100 years in this form and was unwound rather quickly and completely in short order after WWII - leading me to think it was simply icing and not the cake.

I dont think it is worth the read, other than to understand the premise and the excellent pictures.

[Aidan]

Read for my History Workshop (A class required for my History Major)

If I rated books I read for school Ornamentalism would do poorly. I have read David Cannadine before for this exact same class, and I disagree with his ideas of class. While I completely disagree with Cannadine when it comes to issues of class, I kind of agree with his ideas on Ornamentalism and Empire. I think Cannadine is not incorrect in his portrayal of how the British sought to control their Empire through the use of hierarchy and status, it his dismissal of race as a factor in looking at Empire that I disagree with. I agree more with Edward Said's ideas of Orientalism over Cannadine's Ornamentalism, and I honestly believe if Cannadine brought in parts of Orientalism then that would strengthen his argument. To ignore or to downplay race in the British Empire, to me, is poor history. Cannadine in my opinion at times doesn't even justify his reasons for why race is not critical in the history of the Empire. His reasoning being that Indian princes could get the same medals and honors as a Colonial Governor is almost the same as saying that because Barack Obama was elected President of the United States than racism in the United States has been solved. Cannadine's argument is weak and shows a lack of critical historical analysis that isn't blinded for nostalgia for the Empire. In my history classes I have peers that agree with Cannadine in ways, but still found his argument lacking. Cannadine himself solely focuses in on White men in the Empire which is a great example of race being important to the Empire, who are the major benefactors of Empire? Who are the ones leading the Empire? Those are some questions that Cannadine almost ignores in this book and I think that hurts his argument.

[Fraser Sherman · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5. Cannadine argues that the British ruling class saw the Empire as reinforcing, exporting and expanding England's class hierarchy. Where Imperial possessions had kings or potentates, as in India or Morocco, they allied with them. Where there were no rulers, they appointed some. This was done both in the belief that the British way was best, that these other rulers were people they could do business with and increasingly in reaction to democracy and urbanization at home (if being a baron in England didn't get enough respect, being vice-governor of a colony provided more than enough pomp and circumstance).
The flip side is that the rulers the English relied on were often weak or unpopular, particularly when they'd been British-made. Many colonial cultures were not so hierarchical as they appeared, or impressed by the pomp of British representatives or even royal tours. Ultimately the anti-hierarchical side proved the stronger as Ireland broke away, followed through the 20th century by the rest of the empire.
A very good history.

[A Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb writing

I enjoyed all of this book, but particularly the last part where the author recalls his own experience of empire. I was born in 1948 on shipyard Clydeside, my dad had fought all through North Africa, my Uncle Angus served in India, my Uncle Don was in Singapore, the husband and three sons of the woman upstairs went down with the Hood. The empire was real to us, and we also had a map at school 20 years out of date showing a world where so much was imperial red. I think this book is essential reading for anyone who wants to get inside the story of who we were, and why we are not now.

[Iñaki Tofiño · Rating 5 out of 5]

As brilliant as I remembered it. Although it somehow lacks theoretical anchorage, the arguments is powerful and serves as counterpoint to Edward Said's Orientalism: not everything was about racism or a distorted image of the Other, class and status had a powerful weight in British colonialism; a fact which would set it apart from other colonial systems, such as the French or the Spanish.
I think that the argument is worth taking into account and needs further research, maybe combining it with a Marxist approach on social classes and Bourdieu's idea of symbolic capital.

[Oliver · Rating 4 out of 5]

Got a lot out of this.

Especially appreciated the stuff about Edmund Burke, and how his reflections on the French revolution shaped how the British managed their empire. How they aimed to maintain what their imagined timeless natural order with sheiks and princes, often against the real homegrown secular modernists.

The racial and economic dimensions of the empire were downplayed here, but this book wasn’t supposed to be about them anyway. And I haven't read Orientalism, which this is partly a response to.

There were some nice pictures as well.

[Anthony Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very worthwhile read of the changing ways in which the British Empire was viewed and portrayed itself, both from London and from within the Empire. Cannadine explains the elaborate rituals the Empire used to legitimize itself, and reviews their success and ultimate collapse. It also delves into the issues of race and class, and how differently those issues landed depending on people's positions.

[Maggie Brandes · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ornamentalism: How Some Of The British Saw Their Empire, Sometimes, Maybe, According To A Non-Specialist Who Read A Couple Chapters of Edward Said And Didn’t Like Them

There is a whole section in this book entitled “Generalities” and that is an accurate indication of the level of engagement with history you can expect here

[Philipp · Rating 2 out of 5]

While the topic and the author's points are interesting and well-researched, the book was mostly a pain to read. Never-ending listings, brackets and subclauses, where the point could be made with many words less. I did not find the writing very accessible.

[Tim Chamberlain · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've written a long and rather circuitous review of this book on my blog here: Pomp & Circumstance - Struggling with Empire. (It features Monty Python too).

[Oolalaa · Rating 4 out of 5]

16/20

[Beth · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fun little book about the quirks of Empire.

[Sam Black · Rating 4 out of 5]

7/10

[Alfie Hancox · Rating 3 out of 5]

bends the stick too far vis-a-vis postcolonial and whiteness studies but still a useful and insightful account of how Empire shaped and was shaped by British ideas about status and class

[Liz Polding · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thorough and well researched as far as it goes, this gives some useful insights into a topic which has polarised historians and popular authors alike. The divisions lie between those who see the empire as a malignant canker which spread unchecked through the world for too long and those who regard it as a force for good which came to the end of its time. The latter, of course, very much in the minority now and, arguably, at the time.

Although I enjoyed this, I was surprised to come to the end. It felt as if there was more, much more, to say and the promised analysis had skimmed the surface. Not that it lacks detail. The social structures and the exported honours system made fascinating reading and there were lots of insights into the issues and attitudes of the empire. But all in all, it feels rather as though there are things missing, important things without which the book feels incomplete. I would recommend it, but would have liked more of it!

[Rich · Rating 1 out of 5]

There's hardly any information, no analysis of the little information there is, and the author's ideas aren't interesting or deep in any way. It's very flat.

The only thing I found interesting was twoard the end of the book he talks about status in the British empire being linked to some sort of pedigree, which was used after the empire had receded from certain colonies.

One of the worst history books I've ever read because it contains barely any information.

[Andy Gutierrez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well researched and well written. Definitely written by a British person for a British person. I actually found the epilogue - in which he talks about his adolescence during the end of the empire - to be my favorite part of the book.

[Jess · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good read, some good points, and an absolutely ridiculous argument.

[!Tæmbuŝu]

KOBOBOOKS