What do you think?
Rate this book


568 pages, Paperback
First published March 4, 1996
During the nineteenth century and in the early years of the twentieth century, opposition to British imperialism and militarism had been freely and sometimes powerfully articulated. The mid-Victorians had expressed at the very least ambivalence over the need to expand the formal Empire. Richard Cobden and the free traders of the Manchester School had argued that colonies were expensive to maintain, and thus a burden to the taxpayer, especially since trade with them would flourish whether or not they were ruled by Britain, as had been cleary demonstrated by the booming Anglo-American trade after the loss of the Old Thirteen Colonies. Cobden also maintained that one of the main reasons why colonies were retained was in order to find protiable employment for the younger sons of the English aristocracy in the imperial administration and in the army.
The Vcitorians, especially once the ideology of the the free trade market was firmly established, became proccupied with a policy that they called "Retrenchment." A large number of politicians and statesmen believed that it was their duty to cut down on wasteful expenditure, to keep the role of the state to the minimum and as a consequence to save as much of the taxpayers' money as possible. It thus followed that existing colonies must be financially independent and must pay for their own administration out of their resources. p.231
The creation of what became the black-ruled Republic of Haiti during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars provided abundant evidence for white reactionaries and conservatives. Lord Elgin described the Republic of Haiti thus during the 1840s:
As respect moral and intellectual culture, stagnation: in all that concerns material development, a fatal retrogression... a miserable parody of European and American institutions, without the spirit that animates either: the tinsel of French sentiment on the ground of negro ignorance.
The British writer and historian Thomas Carlyle, in his vituperative essay "Discourse on the Nigger Question," published in 1849, addressed the issue of slave emancipation in crude and vivid prose: "Our beautiful black darlings are at least happy; with little labour except to the teeth, which surely, in those excellent horse-jaws of theirs, will not fail!" Sensitive to accusations of prejudice, Carlyle went on to deny his hostility: "Do I, then, hate the negro? No; except when the soul is killed out of him, I decidedly like poor Quashee; and find him a pretty kind of man. With a penny worth of oil you can make a handsome glossy thing of Quashee." p.87
Between 1840 and the Jamaica Rebellion of 1865, however there was a significant shift in perception. Or, at least, racist views gained currency and popularity. One of the main reasons for this was that, in various ways, indigenous people as well as emancipated slaves were causing trouble. In New Zealand the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840 had predictably not established a lasting peace between Maoris and land-hungry British settlers, and in 1860 a decade of serious conflict, known by contemporaries as the Maori Wars, had begun; there had been a lengthy sequence of violent frontier clashes over territory and cattle in Cape Colony, coveniently dismissed as "The Kaffir Wars"; finally, there had been the bloody and embarassing Indian uprising of 1857 to 1858. Each of these confrontations had thrown down a threatening challenge to white supremacy and had, in the process, given full rein to destructive European fantasies. p.86
The catalogue of such upsets during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ran from the Zulu victory at Isandlhwana in 1879 to the disturbances led by the "Mad Mullah" in Somaliland from 1908 to 1920. There were revolts in Uganda in 1896 and 1900. There were revolts in Uganda in 1896 and 1900, in Rhodesia in 1896, the "Boxer" uprising in China in 1898, chronic problems with the tribesmen on the north-west frontiers of India, and, for good measure, the 1906 Zulu revolt in Natal which sent white settlers scuttling in terror to the security of Durban.
These disturbances could be dismissed as "little local difficulties", part and parcel of the responsibility of imperial rule. But they were also uncomfortable reminders that only a small percentage of the Empire's citizens were European, let alone British. The British Empire, at the beginning of the twentieth century, was still by far the biggest and the most varied among the world's imperial systems. It was not, however, unchallenged. Would rival imperial systems eventually gain the upper hand? Was the British Empire in fact in terminal decline? In 1905 an anonymous pamphlet, "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire", caused a considerable stir. Purporting to be a Japanese publication from the year 2005, it listed eight reasons for British decline during the twentieth century. Baden-Powell, if he had read it, would have vigorously agreed with the pamphlet's diagnosis of the nation's ills, which included the growth of luxury, the decline of taste, the debilitation of the people's health and physique, the enfeeblement of religious and intellectual life, the prevalence of urban over country life, a weakening interest in the sea, the failure adequately to defend the country and the Empire, and the damage caused by excessive taxation and municipal extravagance. In 1914, H.G. Wells asked his readers the awkward question "Will the Empire live?" p.207