Free Trade, Europe and Empire pre-1914 PDF

Preview

Summary

Free Trade, Europe and Empire pre-Imperial Nation: Britain 1880-1939 Lecture Dr Chris Jeppesen❖ To what extent did experiences of Empire change ideas about nationhood and national identity? ➢ Different answers for different parts of the UK? ❖ Is Britishness an identity solely rooted in the British I...

Description

Free Trade, Europe and Empire pre-1914 Imperial Nation: Britain 1880-1939 Lecture Dr Chris Jeppesen ❖ To what extent did experiences of Empire change ideas about nationhood and national identity? ➢ Different answers for different parts of the UK? ❖ Is Britishness an identity solely rooted in the British Isles, or is it a global identity? ❖ The Expansion of England (1883) - J.R. Seeley ➢ Very influential ➢ Began asking why and how Empire had expanded over the century ➢ Principally interested in settler colonies ➢ “We seem, as it were, to have conquered half the world in a fit of absence of mind” ➢ Was there a coherent plan for expansion? ➢ Seeley argued that there wasn’t a defined plan for expansion empire, according to him, wasn’t a project of power ➢ Began drawing attention to the ways empire, and experiences of it, had started to change understandings of Britishness ➢ These themes have become central to historiographical debates in the last c30 years ❖ Imperial historians of the mid c20th focused on the structures of power and processes that let empire grow ➢ In this section of historiography, empire was treated generally as something that happened elsewhere, separate from Britain’s politics, culture and self-perceptions ➢ This approach began to change in the 1980s ❖ New Imperial History of 1980s ➢ Shift of focus from politics to culture ➢ Questions posed about the ideas, assumptions and ideologies that pushed expansion ➢ Looks at discourses used in popular culture and politics to understand how Britons began understanding themselves as an imperial people ❖ Building on this New Imperial History came Propaganda and Empire: The Manipulation of British Public Opinion by John Mackenzie ➢ Very seminal work from the mid 80s ➢ Can we find evidence of the presence of imperialism in the popular sphere in Britain? ➢ Not using sources of high imperial history - archives and state papers - but instead using things like children’s books, magazines, art, statues ➢ Empire was a constant presence in British culture and dominant in British understandings of their relationship to the world, argues Mackenzie

❖ Mackenzie’s argument has been built upon by other historians, and embodies the maximalist strand of historiography which sees empire everywhere, as opposed to minimalists ❖ Minimalist historiography ➢ The Absent Minded Imperialists, Bernard Porter ➢ Rebuttal to Mackenzie’s thesis ➢ Returned to some of the assumptions of older imperial histories, but used similar sources to Mackenzie ➢ Argued that Mackenzie had only picked out isolated fragments of the evidence, and that put in context these fragments seem far less important and indeed overwhelmed by other cultural trends ❖ This division in historiography between minimalists and maximalists is very dichotomous ❖ Cooper and Stoler, Catherine Hall et al began pushing the argument into more sophisticated territory ➢ Asked what empire meant to different groups of people ➢ British culture and empire weren’t entirely separated - they influenced each other in a symbiotic relationship ➢ Constant exchange of goods, ideas, people mean it is a connected world working in unison ❖ Work on the competing languages of imperialism has been done by Thompson, Potter and Blaxhill ➢ How understandings of empire changed across time by looking at language ➢ Empire never meant just one thing Britain as an Imperial Power ❖ 1900: 11 million square miles, 400 million people in the Empire ➢ Settlers, ‘dependent’ crown colonies, Mandates, informal empire in South America ■ Informal empire influenced through trade, money etc ❖ ‘Imperialism’ vs ‘colonialism’ ❖ Robinson and Gallagher saw formal empire as only the tip of the iceberg in the 1950s ➢ Informal control, according to them, was preferred by all parties and governments in Britain prior to 1914 ➢ Why was there a change to a preference for formal control later? Local crises, geopolitical concerns ❖ John Darwin wrote later, influenced by Robinson and Gallagher ➢ Argues instead of establishing a binary of formal vs informal empire, we should think of empire as a global system that connects distinct parts of the world and peoples to each other ➢ Shaped by exchanges ❖ Must think about both politics and cultural power of empire ❖ Empire of Conquest - power through military prowess ➢ Gsin materials and spread ‘civilisation’ - crucial to understandings of

❖

❖

❖

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

❖

❖

❖

❖

the imperial mission in the c19th ➢ Force of progress and modernity - this view could be utilised by missionaries, commercial interest and the government to convince people that the Empire was altruistic ➢ Communications improve, trade improves = improves world Empire of Family - loyalty and allegiance to the Crown and belief in the good its could do ➢ Very hard to sustain this celebratory narrative in current historiography, BUT for many audiences this positive narrative of empire had traction Pears Soap advert ➢ Pears had an interest in empire for economic reasons - needed resources - but presented it in the advert as helping to progress civilisation ➢ Civilisation sold to British consumers C19th sees huge numbers moving across the world ➢ Often out of Europe, to seek opportunities ➢ Also involuntary movement thanks to slavery ➢ C19th as a period of globalisation Most British emigrants went to the USA - so is Empire the most useful framework to think about movements from? Ideas of the Anglo-World were built upon the movement of people, but also shared language and culture and history and family and race Britishness was a “composite identity” according to Dubow - local, national and global End of c19th: historians and writers begin focusing on global community and “Greater Britain” ➢ “As much of it were not Empire but an ordinary state” - Seeley Structures of exclusion came with this global community ➢ Assumed that those in this global community of Greater Britain, Britons, are white Idea of empty spaces waiting to be colonised very powerful ➢ Ignores indigenous peoples and helps justify brutal coercion against these peoples in the pursuit of ‘progress’ and ‘civilisation’ Cecil Rhodes, 1877: ➢ “I contend that we are the finest race in the world” and the more of “the world [Britons] inhabit the better it is for the human race” ➢ Community rooted in racial identity Community also rooted in trade ➢ ‘Cultural bonds’ underpinned by material benefits ➢ New institutional and business networks ➢ Expansion created new opportunities for investment eg in railways ➢ “Trust networks” underpin commercial networks ■ British consumers should buy Imperial goods because they have a common connection to their brethren across the empire

The New Imperialism, c1870-1914 ❖ Expansion in late c19th accelerates dramatically after 1870 ❖ ‘Scramble for Africa’ ➢ Characterised by european rivalries in land grabbing across Africa ➢ Driven by desire for resources, access to new natural resources to underpin emerging consumer products, having a larger empire and the power that comes with it, evangelising missions, awareness of new forms of geopolitics - rivalries on a global scale, not just a continental one ❖ Many wars fought by Britain in this period - this was not a peaceful transition ➢ Ashanti wars 1870s-1902 ➢ Second Anglo-Afghan War 1878-80 ➢ Anglo-Zulu War 1879 ➢ First Boer War 1881 ➢ Occupation of Egypt 1882 ➢ Mahdist War 1881-1899 ➢ Nandi Resistance 1890-1906 ➢ First Matabele War 1893-4 ➢ Second Matabele War 1896-7 ➢ Nigerian Pacification Campaigns 1890s-1900s ➢ Second Boer War 1899-1902 ❖ Local peoples aren’t passive in this European expansion: much armed resistance ‘The Official Mind’: Imperial Strategy 1870-1900 ❖ Much continuity in liberal and conservative governments approach imperial policy ➢ Supported by civil service in Whitehall ❖ Robinson and Gallagher famously termed this shared outlook the ‘official mind’ ➢ Emphasised key strategic objectives ■ Protecting route to India: control territory around Suez and South Africa ■ ‘Great Game’: protect Indian frontier by stopping Russian advance into central Asia ■ Blue water defence strategy: protection of trade routes and investments through naval dominance ■ Balance of power: focuses on how Britain needs to stay out of alliances in Europe, making war more likely ● Splendid Isolation: britain keeps a free hand, strong enough in Empire so it doesn’t have to get involved in Europe

VIctorian Optimism to Edwardian Pessimism ❖ Official mind strategies stayed pretty much the same until the turn of the century, when fragmentation began to occur ❖ Seeming spread of British power - larger empire means more power ➢ BUT British policymakers wanted to expand because there was a growing perception of weakness in relation to European and global rivals ■ US, Russia, new industrial powers of Germany and Japan, etc ❖ This time sees the emergence of new theories of geopolitics, Social Darwinism and Halford Mackinder’s ‘Heartland Theory’ (1904) ➢ Mackinder argued land empires and access to resources would be key determinant of success in new c20th ➢ Britain not seen as very strong, and so needed alliances in Europe in order to have access to key resources ❖ This led to divisions in Salisbury’s government between older and younger members ➢ Characterised by Otte as ‘Victorian optimists’ and ‘Edwardian pessimists’ ■ Former believed in security of Britain’s position and its ability to protect itself without the need for permanent alliances ■ Latter were more sceptical of Britain's security, believing only way Britain could survive in changed international environment was by creating new alliances The Politics of Empire in Britain: Party Politics ❖ Vast majority of voices in politics and elite culture see empire as a positive thing before 1914 ❖ May have different visions of empire and imperial policy still ➢ Liberal Home Rulers vs Unionists ➢ Liberal Imperialists (Asquith, Grey - basis of British power rooted in imperial position, advocate expansionism) vs Liberal Pro-Boers and Little Englanders (argue that expansion of Empire shows Britain at its worst - jingoistic, opportunistic, leading to destabilizing forces) ➢ Conservative Tariff Reformers vs Free Traders ➢ Labour Fabians (empire’s resources can be used to improve inequality at home) vs Anti-Imperial Socialists (see empire as another form of capitalist exploitation) Elections ❖ Assessing empire’s significance in elections prior to 1939 is tricky for a number of reasons ➢ Importance of constituency context and politics of place ➢ Incomplete data, and thus reliance on detailed constituency case studies/speeches by leading figures leading to narrow and

unrepresentative picture ➢ Lack of sources documenting reception of particular themes ❖ Despite these challenges, it is clear that politicians from all sides were aware of the significance of Empire as an electoral issue from at least the 1870s - Readman, 2001 ❖ Recent work by Luke Blaxill has used a digital, big data approach to analyse thousands of late c19th/early c20th election speeches and pamphlets - has shown that there is a more textured picture about the place of empire as an electoral issue ➢ HIstorians have argued that empire was a constant electoral issue by focusing on a number of key moments ■ 1879 Beaconsfield and Midlothian Campaigns ■ 1900 Khaki Election ■ 1906 election ➢ Blaxill argues that if we look at other elections outside these, empire tends to recede from view ■ Electorate not consistently interested ➢ Argues that there is an Important need to distinguish between patriotism and imperialism ■ Battle between tories and liberals over the language of patriotism rather than the language of imperialism ■ Liberals: contest idea that only way to be patriotic is to be an ardent imperialist Popular Participation ❖ Popular participation in pressure groups concerned with a number of empire issues was widespread by 1939 ➢ By 1920s, imperial associations had nearly 2 million members, eg ■ Navy League ■ Anti-Slavery Society ■ Women’s Guild of Empire ■ Society for Overseas Settlement of British Women ■ Primrose League ■ Tariff Reform League ➢ Crucially, these organisations cut across lines of class, gender and party politics to suggest a broader basis for interest in imperial politics ■ Not just for empire too: also anti empire Voices of Criticism ❖ Anti imperial activism was a prominent strand of British politics pre-1914 ➢ However, it tended to be demands for reform of imperial and racialised structures of power rather than arguments for a wholesale end to empire ❖ Emily Hobhouse, Dadabhai Naoroji, Liberal MP

❖ Critical voices were found across Liberals, with focus on humanitarian failures of imperial rule ➢ Also On the left of British politics and across colonial territories ❖ London as meeting point for new networks of resistance ➢ Eg first Pan-African conference, London, 1900 The British Empire at War, 1914-25 ❖ Empire critical to success in WWI ➢ Was a global war in every possible sense ❖ Britain appealed to its colonial territories from the outset ➢ Seen as central from the beginning ➢ “The empire needs men!” ❖ Assumptions of race: war in Western Europe a white man’s war, with Indian troops being used in ME to fight the Turks, African theatres using African soldiers as auxiliaries, etc ➢ This policy didn’t stay the case throughout, but soldiers from white dominions treated very differently to those from West Indians and Indians ➢ Still largely in auxiliary roles, not in victory parades in 1918, paid less ❖ Colonial troops became aware of ways race was used to exclude them from privileges enjoyed by white soldiers ➢ Indians expected support in war would be rewarded by political reform, but this was disappointed - growth of nationalism ❖ After the War, British Empire at its biggest point ever - but also many fears it is at its most vulnerable ➢ “Self-determination is not a mere philosophical but a principle of actions which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril. We cannot have general peace for the asking, or by the mere arrangements of a peace conference. It cannot be pieced together out of individual understandings between powerful states. All the parties to this war must join the settlement of every issue anywhere involved in it; because what we are seeing is a peace that we can all unite to guarantee and maintain and every item of it must be submitted to the common judgement whether it be right and fair, an act of justice, rather than a bargain between sovereigns” Woodrow Wilson, speech to Congress, February 1918 ➢ Universalistic language encouraged those in colonial territories Interwar: A Crisis of Empire? ❖ Edwin Montagu, Sec of State for India, 1920: “the concessions which look likely to be necessary in Ireland harden public opinion against any new concessions in Egypt. Anything that is done as to complete the independence in Egypt might appear to encourage indian extremists” ➢ Resistance across empire informed by other areas - global link

❖ Reform or domino affect across Empire ❖ “We are spread all over the world, strong nowhere, weak everywhere…” Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of Imperial General Staff ❖ Imperial crises in the interwar period ➢ Non cooperation in India, 1919-22 ➢ Irish War of Independence, 1919-22 ➢ Egyptian Revolution, 1919-22 ➢ Iraqi revolt, 1920 ➢ Sudan Uprising, 1924 ➢ Dominions: ■ Imperial conferences, 1921 and 1923 ■ Balfour Declaration, 1926 ■ Statue of Westminster, 1931 ➢ Civil disobedience in India, 1930-31 ➢ Labour rebellions in the British West Indies, 1934-39 ➢ Arab Revolt, Palestine, 1936-39 ❖ Start of interwar period: resistance in empire looking for reforms, end of interwar period: looking for end to empire London in the 1920s and 1930s - a Global City ❖ Empire as a network with constant exchanges of ideas, transmission of people etc etc ❖ By 1920s, London was a centre of radical black thought and activism, much of which challenged Britain’s claims to imperial legitimacy (Matera, 2015) ➢ West african and West Indian Christian Union, 1917 ➢ Africa Progress Union, 1919 ➢ National Congress of British West Africa delegation to London, 1920 ➢ League of Coloured Peoples, 1931 ➢ International African Service Bureau, 1937 ❖ Sessions of Pan African Congress were held in London 1919, 1921, and 1923 ➢ Bring together those who wanted reform of racialised structures of power ❖ Many of leading figures of post-1945 decolonisation, eg Jomo Kenyatta, were present in London during the interwar period Economics and Popular Culture ❖ Before 1914, Empire imagined in culture and society focused on martial prowess, celebrations of soldiers as core vehicle of imperial glory ❖ interwar : focus on development schemes, progress etc ➢ Empire Marketing Board Poster campaign ‘Colonial Progress Brings Home Prosperity’ ❖ Trusteeship and development ➢ Colonial nations being helped to become independent nation states

that could stand by themselves in the modern world ➢ Empire as an act of altruism ➢ Films: Sanders of the River ■ Africans as primitive, superstitious, etc in comparison to reasonable and rational colonial officials Britannia Overruled David Reynolds Historiography ❖ In the 1870s, Britain possessed more battleships than the rest of the world combined ➢ ⅕ of Earth’s surface covered by the Empire, the world’s biggest economy, c1/4 world’s manufacturing output and world trade ❖ “Britain’s erstwhile greatness has been misunderstood” ➢ “Power is a more complex phenomenon than the possession of large navies or vast empires” ➢ Power is relative - not just that Britain changed, but the world around it did too ❖ Course of events not predetermined, especially not by economic events alone - as has been posited by determinists like Bernard Porter and Paul Kennedy ➢ Other European powers went through similar things, but reacted differently ❖ Conventional interpretations show Britain as going from “primacy” in the late c19th to having only ‘delusions of grandeur’ by WWII ➢ This view “exaggerates Britain’s nineteenth century strength” and overstates its weakness for much of the c20th ❖ Common argument sees British as “reluctant imperialists”, with much of the empire being acquired as a by-product of imperial expansion ➢ Similarly, the purely economic considerations for gaining colonies “should not be exaggerated” ■ There was also an unmistakably “authoritarian and ideological” strand of imperialism that has been recently highlighted by historians - shows racist nationalism ideas etc ● Eg Scramble for Africa, Middle East territories post-WWI ❖ Some argue that the defence of the empire was was a “significant net burden” for Britain ➢ Colonies were subsidised ➢ 1860-1912 the average Briton paid 10x more for defence than their counterpart in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa did, and 11x as much as an indian ➢ In comparison to other European empires, Britons paid 2x more than Frenchmen and Germans ➢ This has, however, been a “subject of lively debate”

Relativities of Power ❖ Meaning of power is “difficult to pin down” ➢ Common parlance: judged by size of forces and number of missiles ❖ Better to think of power as a relationship rather than a possession ➢ War is obviously the most extreme manifestation but there is also coercion, manipulation, inducements and influence ❖ Sources of power are diverse ➢ “Customary to focus on those that translate easily into military might” - ie natural resources, population, economic strength ➢ However, there are also intangible sources of power - national unity, morale, coherence of government system, diplomatic skill ➢ Al these factor interact - eg a country is not set up for instant victory even if it has a strong economy if its forces are unprepared for war, etc ❖ Reputation of being powerful may create influence after military/economic strength has faded ❖ There is a danger in classifying countries as small or great powers ➢ We must avoid a “static understanding of power as a permanent possession” ➢ Power may vary from situation to situation and across time Britannia Rules ❖ Island - principal advantage as didn’t share land borders with hostile neighbours ➢ Thus didn’t need a large standing army ❖ The navy was “popular and necessary” ❖ 2% of the world...