What do you think?
Rate this book
Empire and Jihad: The Anglo-Arab Wars of 1870-1920
A panoramic, provocative account of the clash between British imperialism and Arab jihadism in Africa between 1870 and 1920
"An epic account of the British Empire’s activities in Africa and the Middle East. . . . An important, indeed tremendous, contribution."—John Newsinger, author of The Blood Never A People’s History of the British Empire
The Ottoman Sultan called for a "Great Jihad" against the Entente powers at the start of the First World War. He was building on half a century of conflict between British colonialism and the people of the Middle East and North Africa. Resistance to Western violence increasingly took the form of radical Islamic insurgency.
Ranging from the forests of Central Africa to the deserts of Egypt, Sudan, and Somaliland, Neil Faulkner explores a fatal collision between two forms of oppression, one rooted in the ancient slave trade, the other in modern "coolie" capitalism. He reveals the complex interactions between anti-slavery humanitarianism, British hostility to embryonic Arab nationalism, "war on terror" moral panics, and Islamist revolt. Far from being an enduring remnant of the medieval past, or an essential expression of Muslim identity, Faulkner argues that "Holy War" was a reactionary response to the violence of modern imperialism.
"An epic account of the British Empire’s activities in Africa and the Middle East. . . . An important, indeed tremendous, contribution."—John Newsinger, author of The Blood Never A People’s History of the British Empire
The Ottoman Sultan called for a "Great Jihad" against the Entente powers at the start of the First World War. He was building on half a century of conflict between British colonialism and the people of the Middle East and North Africa. Resistance to Western violence increasingly took the form of radical Islamic insurgency.
Ranging from the forests of Central Africa to the deserts of Egypt, Sudan, and Somaliland, Neil Faulkner explores a fatal collision between two forms of oppression, one rooted in the ancient slave trade, the other in modern "coolie" capitalism. He reveals the complex interactions between anti-slavery humanitarianism, British hostility to embryonic Arab nationalism, "war on terror" moral panics, and Islamist revolt. Far from being an enduring remnant of the medieval past, or an essential expression of Muslim identity, Faulkner argues that "Holy War" was a reactionary response to the violence of modern imperialism.
440 pages, Hardcover
First published September 28, 2021
11 people are currently reading
298 people want to read
About the author
Neil Faulkner
33 books52 followersNeil Faulkner FSA was a British archaeologist, historian, writer, lecturer, broadcaster, and political activist. Educated at King’s College, Cambridge and the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Faulkner was a school teacher before becoming an archaeologist.
He was currently a Research Fellow at the University of Bristol, Editor of Military History Monthly, and Co-director of the Great Arab Revolt Project (in Jordan) and the Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project (in Norfolk, England). On 22 May 2008, he was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London
He was currently a Research Fellow at the University of Bristol, Editor of Military History Monthly, and Co-director of the Great Arab Revolt Project (in Jordan) and the Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project (in Norfolk, England). On 22 May 2008, he was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
September 16, 2021
Self-assured British hubris versus Arab fanaticism is at the center of this very captivating account of the Anglo-Arab relationships and their many bloody and useless conflicts from the early 1870s to the cursed Versailles treaty of 1919 and the inevitable collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
An engrossing journey through the political and religious shenanigans that continually plagued British imperialism on the African continent and the useless wars that were fought and never really won by either side. Neil Faulkner knows how to hook the reader from the start and take him or her through 50 years of failed actions and disastrous policies.
A rollicking and truculent tapestry of late 19th and early 20th century failed colonialism versus utterly misplaced religious fervor.
And as we can so easily see one hundred years later with the mess in the Sahel and the utter failure of the West in Afghanistan, these ideological and political conflicts are far from being resolved....
Highly recommended to anyone interested in European colonialism studies and modern African history and to be enjoyed without any moderation whatsoever!
Many thanks to Netgalley and Yale University for this fascinating ARC
An engrossing journey through the political and religious shenanigans that continually plagued British imperialism on the African continent and the useless wars that were fought and never really won by either side. Neil Faulkner knows how to hook the reader from the start and take him or her through 50 years of failed actions and disastrous policies.
A rollicking and truculent tapestry of late 19th and early 20th century failed colonialism versus utterly misplaced religious fervor.
And as we can so easily see one hundred years later with the mess in the Sahel and the utter failure of the West in Afghanistan, these ideological and political conflicts are far from being resolved....
Highly recommended to anyone interested in European colonialism studies and modern African history and to be enjoyed without any moderation whatsoever!
Many thanks to Netgalley and Yale University for this fascinating ARC
November 14, 2021
The book starts with David Livingstone who was convinced of the virtues of reform, improvement, and progress. He thought he could be abolish slavery but because he was blinded by capitalism he failed. Later it talks about John Hanning Speke and Samuel Baker.
Neil Faulkner say they were not pioneers of empire but were nationalists and colonialists who had pure motives. since they wholeheartedly believed Britain was the embodiment of the Victorian ideals of improvement, progress and civilization. They were adventurers imbued with moral purpose not the ruthless exploiters and mass killers of the age of empire to come.
We do them an injustice if we misinterpret them and visist upon them the guilt of men like Cecil Rhodes, Fredrick Lugard and Evelyn Baring.
Also he says Charles George Gordon was a repressed homosexual who suffered from bipolar disorder and religious mania. A white Christian warrior bearing the banner of abolitionism - facing the dark heathen hordes. Through him, the racism and militarism of late-victorian jingoism could be sublimated as a civilizing mission. He was a symbol of white man's burden before the poet could coin the term.
The demand for slaves in North Africa and Middle Asia on plantations, in domestic service, as concubines was increasing only because sheiks, pashas, merchants, and landlords of these regions were growing rich on on the profits of trade.
And trade was good because Britian had turned itself into the workshop of the world and a maritime empire.
A frenetic process of capital accumulation was transforming the global economy .
The Slave trade was booming because of globalization. As central Africa was integrated into the global market it was penetrated by longs arms of mercantile capitalism reaching in for its ivory and it's labor. The imperatives of capital accumulation were predominant. Even when in the last Quarter of the century, European colonialism displaced Arab slavers, the plundering of the continent for primary commodities meant no end to forced labor. The Europeans abolished the slave trade but still constipated Africans to work in mines, on the plantations and as porters. Making free use of lash as they did so and the gun when they did so.
The slave’s trades pivot to africa was a global phenomenon from the sixteenth century onwards. But whereas it peaked in the western hemisphere in the eighteen century and was virtually extinct by middle of nineteenth, it was still growing in the Eastern hemisphere as late as the 1860s. This had nothing to do with the intrinsic character of Arab society or the Islamic faith. It reflected the law of combined and uneven development. The advanced industrial capitalism of the West was based on free labor, the traditional mercantile capitalism of the east was not.
Neil Faulkner say they were not pioneers of empire but were nationalists and colonialists who had pure motives. since they wholeheartedly believed Britain was the embodiment of the Victorian ideals of improvement, progress and civilization. They were adventurers imbued with moral purpose not the ruthless exploiters and mass killers of the age of empire to come.
We do them an injustice if we misinterpret them and visist upon them the guilt of men like Cecil Rhodes, Fredrick Lugard and Evelyn Baring.
Also he says Charles George Gordon was a repressed homosexual who suffered from bipolar disorder and religious mania. A white Christian warrior bearing the banner of abolitionism - facing the dark heathen hordes. Through him, the racism and militarism of late-victorian jingoism could be sublimated as a civilizing mission. He was a symbol of white man's burden before the poet could coin the term.
The demand for slaves in North Africa and Middle Asia on plantations, in domestic service, as concubines was increasing only because sheiks, pashas, merchants, and landlords of these regions were growing rich on on the profits of trade.
And trade was good because Britian had turned itself into the workshop of the world and a maritime empire.
A frenetic process of capital accumulation was transforming the global economy .
The Slave trade was booming because of globalization. As central Africa was integrated into the global market it was penetrated by longs arms of mercantile capitalism reaching in for its ivory and it's labor. The imperatives of capital accumulation were predominant. Even when in the last Quarter of the century, European colonialism displaced Arab slavers, the plundering of the continent for primary commodities meant no end to forced labor. The Europeans abolished the slave trade but still constipated Africans to work in mines, on the plantations and as porters. Making free use of lash as they did so and the gun when they did so.
The slave’s trades pivot to africa was a global phenomenon from the sixteenth century onwards. But whereas it peaked in the western hemisphere in the eighteen century and was virtually extinct by middle of nineteenth, it was still growing in the Eastern hemisphere as late as the 1860s. This had nothing to do with the intrinsic character of Arab society or the Islamic faith. It reflected the law of combined and uneven development. The advanced industrial capitalism of the West was based on free labor, the traditional mercantile capitalism of the east was not.
January 26, 2022
Decent book about somewhat overlooked historical events. There is an emphasis on military campaign details with a bit of geopolitical analysis. At the end there is a comparison with recent events which is rather simplistic and amounts to little more than a childish vent against capitalism, but don't let that put you off... the book makes for an enjoyable read. You could in fact just skip this concluding chapter and read "Black Wave" instead, which offers a much more sophisticated and nuanced account of the trajectory of the Middle East post WWII.
October 8, 2021
An informative read with a lot of detailed history of the expansion of British colonialism into Africa and Muslim forces of opposition to that conquest. The major flaw of this book is Neil Faulkner is a Marxist ideologue with a disdain for any form of Muslim resistance and politics and this colors his analysis. Faulkner is dismissive of all Muslim resistance leaders and of the motivations of all participating in them. The politics, ideology, and military exploits of the British are much more thoroughly documented in this book (and of course that's where the research material is largely available) and, while this book is informative and accurately details the atrocities of both sides, it can largely be looked at as a think piece for modern British political arguments bolstering Faulkner's personal politics.
May 24, 2022
From 1870-1920, how did Britain’s imperialist adventures impact Egypt, Sudan, Zanzibar, and Somalia? Author Neil Faulkner's well-researched and fascinating history book, "Empire and Jihad" answers this question and more. This is my first book by the author and I was surprised to learn that he is a Marxist (and recently passed away from cancer), but regardless of his political views, the scholarship was appropriate. The only notable bias I detected was the book's rambling final chapter (more below).
Some highlights:
- Slavery in this region was still enormously profitable with the Trans-Saharan and Swahili-Arab slave trade going strong. The Ottoman Empire still had a huge demand for slaves and slaves were key porters of ivory which was all the rage (ivory pianos, billiard balls, combs, etc.). Interestingly, the British played an enormous role in enforcing an international ban on the slave trade. They fought on the high seas and in Africa. It was a costly fight, but it succeeded in places like Zanzibar. We also are introduced to infamous slave traders during the era (Tippu Tip of Zanzibar being a memorable one).
- Pre-colonial African societies. In short, they were brutal. Most were heavily involved with the slave trade and slavery, they were patriarchal, autocratic, etc. (pg. 53). Faulkner points out that many Africans were victims of not only European imperialism but of Arab-Swahili slavers and African local chiefs and warlords.
- The failed 1880s nationalist revolution in Egypt. Egypt was poised to break free from nominal Ottoman rule as well as from owing lots of money to Europeans. However, Egypt was conquered by the British in 1882 in part to secure the Suez Canal’s commerce. Faulkner despises Prime Minister Gladstone (too much?) and gives a lot of credit (too much?) to Egypt’s failed nationalist leader, Ahmed Arabi. It is a great "what if" question if Egypt's independence succeeded during this time.
- The military history portions are extensive. One amazing tale involved the religious-crazed Islamic soldiers of the Mahdi Rebellion. They fearlessly ran into machine gun fire and were willing to die to the last man. The Mahdi society was one based on jihad (Islamic Holy War) and was an oppressive, medieval state like ISIS or the Taliban.
- The wars in Somaliland (Somalia) were brutal. The biggest enemies were the sun, expanses of wasteland, and not running out of water. This harsh environment (as well as in Sudan) was a huge challenge for Europeans to overcome, and it showed how building railroads helped conquest.
- The German/Ottoman plan for World War I was for the Ottomans to declare a jihad, thus creating chaos within the British and French empires, which contained many Muslims. It was close to working and caused limited harm, but the idea (and the Central Powers) failed in the end.
- The worst chapter in my opinion was the last one, titled, “Conclusion”. Faulkner attempts to forge a direct connection from this era to the present (War on Terror/post 9/11). Not only is it forced, but he also makes some sweeping claims that I would disagree with. For example, Faulkner claims that the historical record of Islam is “no worse or better than other religions” (the idea of jihad and some of Islam’s ideas are not in other religions?), that the Russian Revolution sparked a huge wave of revolt (the Marxist worldwide revolution never happened and the Cold War failed?), etc. This last chapter could have been left out, but most everything else felt like an honest, well-researched, history book.
Some highlights:
- Slavery in this region was still enormously profitable with the Trans-Saharan and Swahili-Arab slave trade going strong. The Ottoman Empire still had a huge demand for slaves and slaves were key porters of ivory which was all the rage (ivory pianos, billiard balls, combs, etc.). Interestingly, the British played an enormous role in enforcing an international ban on the slave trade. They fought on the high seas and in Africa. It was a costly fight, but it succeeded in places like Zanzibar. We also are introduced to infamous slave traders during the era (Tippu Tip of Zanzibar being a memorable one).
- Pre-colonial African societies. In short, they were brutal. Most were heavily involved with the slave trade and slavery, they were patriarchal, autocratic, etc. (pg. 53). Faulkner points out that many Africans were victims of not only European imperialism but of Arab-Swahili slavers and African local chiefs and warlords.
- The failed 1880s nationalist revolution in Egypt. Egypt was poised to break free from nominal Ottoman rule as well as from owing lots of money to Europeans. However, Egypt was conquered by the British in 1882 in part to secure the Suez Canal’s commerce. Faulkner despises Prime Minister Gladstone (too much?) and gives a lot of credit (too much?) to Egypt’s failed nationalist leader, Ahmed Arabi. It is a great "what if" question if Egypt's independence succeeded during this time.
- The military history portions are extensive. One amazing tale involved the religious-crazed Islamic soldiers of the Mahdi Rebellion. They fearlessly ran into machine gun fire and were willing to die to the last man. The Mahdi society was one based on jihad (Islamic Holy War) and was an oppressive, medieval state like ISIS or the Taliban.
- The wars in Somaliland (Somalia) were brutal. The biggest enemies were the sun, expanses of wasteland, and not running out of water. This harsh environment (as well as in Sudan) was a huge challenge for Europeans to overcome, and it showed how building railroads helped conquest.
- The German/Ottoman plan for World War I was for the Ottomans to declare a jihad, thus creating chaos within the British and French empires, which contained many Muslims. It was close to working and caused limited harm, but the idea (and the Central Powers) failed in the end.
- The worst chapter in my opinion was the last one, titled, “Conclusion”. Faulkner attempts to forge a direct connection from this era to the present (War on Terror/post 9/11). Not only is it forced, but he also makes some sweeping claims that I would disagree with. For example, Faulkner claims that the historical record of Islam is “no worse or better than other religions” (the idea of jihad and some of Islam’s ideas are not in other religions?), that the Russian Revolution sparked a huge wave of revolt (the Marxist worldwide revolution never happened and the Cold War failed?), etc. This last chapter could have been left out, but most everything else felt like an honest, well-researched, history book.
September 14, 2024
A work where the body is great for knowledge and analysis of a somewhat less-studied part of history, but the totality is wrecked by a needlessly preachy and didactic conclusion. At one point, the study of the British conflicts in Northern Africa in the late 1800s elicited a good deal of study, even if most of that was biased towards the view of the British Empire. Yet, the history of the region is far more nuanced and difficult to call. He starts the work with the British Empire's efforts to explore and colonize Central Africa, with the exploits/adventures of David Livingston, Stanley, et al. Yet, through that exploration, the seeds of future conflict emerge. Maybe not surprisingly, slavery was at the root cause of another series of 19th century conflicts, only it was British's conflicted role in shutting down the Africa to Middle East slave trade. The Muslim slave traders found themselves in conflict with British forces meant to halt the trade, or at least those Brits that didn't profit by it themselves. Throw in the Great Game to claim territory of Africa ala Risk, and you have the makings of conflict. A Muslim/Christian conflict emerges, with the Muslim-led forces initially successful in beating England (Gordon and the fall of Khartoum). Yet, with the Mahdi's death, the Muslim movement faltered, and eventual British reinforcements returned to subdue the fighting in Sudan. The author does discuss Somalia and to a smaller extent Syria, but the bulk of the analysis is Sudan. He does offer good balance of military and cultural in the text.
Yet the conclusion really hurts the analysis. He attempts to link the fighting of the late-1800s with the counterterrorism wars of the first two decades of the 21st century. He is not particular sympathetic to the Al-Qaida/Saddam-led forces, but to outright call the fighting an imperialist war is too simplistic a conclusion and is devoid of the analysis which he used in the body of the work. The preachiness really diminishes what the reader would get out of the book. Could he have linked then to the present and offered some insight? Sure, a good conclusion would do that. You don't even come close to getting that here. Probably best to read the book without reading the conclusion. You will be better for it.
Yet the conclusion really hurts the analysis. He attempts to link the fighting of the late-1800s with the counterterrorism wars of the first two decades of the 21st century. He is not particular sympathetic to the Al-Qaida/Saddam-led forces, but to outright call the fighting an imperialist war is too simplistic a conclusion and is devoid of the analysis which he used in the body of the work. The preachiness really diminishes what the reader would get out of the book. Could he have linked then to the present and offered some insight? Sure, a good conclusion would do that. You don't even come close to getting that here. Probably best to read the book without reading the conclusion. You will be better for it.
December 2, 2024
I read this on the Audible version, which was clearly delivered.
This is a fine book and a worthy tribute to a good historian who died too soon. Neil Faulkner was an avowed Marxist but only rarely do his beliefs cut through in this largely narrative account of the engagement of the British state and empire with Islamic states and movements in Africa and the Middle East at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Much of the story is familiar such as the story of Livingstone, Gordon and the reconquest of the Sudan. But the author also shines a light on lesser known events such as the conflicts in Somaliland and Libya (against the Senussi). The various battles are clearly described and the tone is largely dispassionate. The book is beautifully written.
Although here and there, Neil Faulkner's political stance is obvious, he only really breaks cover in the concluding chapter, which interestingly links the British reaction to the Arabi Pasha revolt in Egypt in 1881 and 1882 to the Bush-Blair war on terror in the 2000s. Some may challenge this but the point is well argued.
I strongly recommend this book.
This is a fine book and a worthy tribute to a good historian who died too soon. Neil Faulkner was an avowed Marxist but only rarely do his beliefs cut through in this largely narrative account of the engagement of the British state and empire with Islamic states and movements in Africa and the Middle East at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Much of the story is familiar such as the story of Livingstone, Gordon and the reconquest of the Sudan. But the author also shines a light on lesser known events such as the conflicts in Somaliland and Libya (against the Senussi). The various battles are clearly described and the tone is largely dispassionate. The book is beautifully written.
Although here and there, Neil Faulkner's political stance is obvious, he only really breaks cover in the concluding chapter, which interestingly links the British reaction to the Arabi Pasha revolt in Egypt in 1881 and 1882 to the Bush-Blair war on terror in the 2000s. Some may challenge this but the point is well argued.
I strongly recommend this book.
August 8, 2024
This was actually quite compelling, the author's left leaning analysis of both British Imperialism and Jihadist-reaction was quite refreshing after reading some less ideological writing this year. While I can't say I buy the entire argument about the significance of Islamist 'liberal' reformers in the 1880s, I found the through line from the anti-slavery campaigns of the mid 19th century to the 'small wars' of the Age of Imperialism to be quite compelling. This book is chiefly about East Africa and Sudan, which was a bit of a curve-ball given the title but one I enjoyed never-the-less.
October 8, 2021
A well researched look into the British Empire’s ambitions in Africa and the Middle East and the consequences that it brought to the modern world we live in today.
Though interesting it drifted between being fast paced and meandering despite the pace it is a timely reminder of the contested legacy of colonialism and imperialism
Though interesting it drifted between being fast paced and meandering despite the pace it is a timely reminder of the contested legacy of colonialism and imperialism
September 27, 2022
Extremely riveting initially. I learned a tremendous amount overall. However, by midway it was weighted down with tedious details of battle after battle. I finally gave up a skimmed the last couple of chapters.
January 7, 2023
This is a solid and very detailed analysis of a lesser known and focused upon part of the Scramble for Africa. The author does a nice job avoiding the jingoism and pitfalls of previous authors. At times the minute level of detail tends to blend together.
May 5, 2022
I could not give this book 5-stars, even though the history is well presented. The progression was cleared linked. However, the author insisted on inserting his ideology into the work.
October 29, 2024
DNFd at about three quarters of the way through because I simply didn't care enough to keep going.
August 20, 2025
The period and history this book covers has fascinated me for many years. I have had the incredible fortune to visit many of the historical sites from this period that still exist. I have read every book I can get my hands on about Colonial African history. I have multiple graduate degrees on Middle East and African History.
I offer this preface for a rather harsh review. This is the worst book I have read on this period. I don't mind a preachy text but, this one includes many inaccuracies or omissions.
The author goes out of his way to attack Sir Samuel Baker as a Jingo and Victorian imperialist. At one stage were even told about his Elephant hunting head count (translation good guys don't shoot elephants). However, that take seems to ignore that Baker in his later years had a change of heart and became a critic of imperialism. He led several Egyptian anti-slavery missions into what is now Uganda. Today, the ruins of Fort Partiko (little more than a laager around a natural Kopi fortress can be visited). A large turtle is said to live under one of the rocks who emerges from time to time to be fed. Locals say was first kept in the fort by Sir Samuel Baker. On my own visit, I grew impatient of waiting for the turtle an left.
I feel impatience with the sources is also in play with this book from Faulkner.
In the book the author tells us that Baker's second wife was from Hungary and he leaves it there. In doing so he down plays the fact that Florence Baker was an enslaved person who Sir Samuel Baker purchased while on trip to the region with a Sikh noble. Also while she was born in what was then Hungary today it is Romania. Given that slavery in the Islamic world is such a huge part of his story this omission seems odd. Also worth noting that Florence traveled across much of Africa with her devoted husband and was thus one of the most accomplished woman travelers in that age and a very interesting person in her own right. Surely, a book on imperialism which makes Karl Marx a character in the story would have more time for such an interesting woman.
In other passage regarding Napoleon's time in Egypt he uses the term Medieval and describes the battle of the Pyramids in a way in which he implies that Mamelukes had no firearms (in fact they deployed their albeit antique cannons in a fashion keeping with the tactics of the period). Its almost as if he gets confused with the Mamluk Sultanate?
There were a couple interesting insights about how 19th century industrialization drove the slave trade in the Indian Ocean because local traders were putting their new money into slaves. He also reminded me of how Stanley's mission to Africa was seen in the context of the American Civil War as furtherment of global abolition.
That said sloppy history though is always going to get low points from me.
I offer this preface for a rather harsh review. This is the worst book I have read on this period. I don't mind a preachy text but, this one includes many inaccuracies or omissions.
The author goes out of his way to attack Sir Samuel Baker as a Jingo and Victorian imperialist. At one stage were even told about his Elephant hunting head count (translation good guys don't shoot elephants). However, that take seems to ignore that Baker in his later years had a change of heart and became a critic of imperialism. He led several Egyptian anti-slavery missions into what is now Uganda. Today, the ruins of Fort Partiko (little more than a laager around a natural Kopi fortress can be visited). A large turtle is said to live under one of the rocks who emerges from time to time to be fed. Locals say was first kept in the fort by Sir Samuel Baker. On my own visit, I grew impatient of waiting for the turtle an left.
I feel impatience with the sources is also in play with this book from Faulkner.
In the book the author tells us that Baker's second wife was from Hungary and he leaves it there. In doing so he down plays the fact that Florence Baker was an enslaved person who Sir Samuel Baker purchased while on trip to the region with a Sikh noble. Also while she was born in what was then Hungary today it is Romania. Given that slavery in the Islamic world is such a huge part of his story this omission seems odd. Also worth noting that Florence traveled across much of Africa with her devoted husband and was thus one of the most accomplished woman travelers in that age and a very interesting person in her own right. Surely, a book on imperialism which makes Karl Marx a character in the story would have more time for such an interesting woman.
In other passage regarding Napoleon's time in Egypt he uses the term Medieval and describes the battle of the Pyramids in a way in which he implies that Mamelukes had no firearms (in fact they deployed their albeit antique cannons in a fashion keeping with the tactics of the period). Its almost as if he gets confused with the Mamluk Sultanate?
There were a couple interesting insights about how 19th century industrialization drove the slave trade in the Indian Ocean because local traders were putting their new money into slaves. He also reminded me of how Stanley's mission to Africa was seen in the context of the American Civil War as furtherment of global abolition.
That said sloppy history though is always going to get low points from me.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews