Three Views of Empire

THREE VIEWS OF EMPIRE

I: Decline and fall... must empires always self-destruct?

August 1, 2004

SECTION: Observer News Pages, Pg. 25

LENGTH: 863 words

HEADLINE/TITLE: Comment: Decline and fall... must empires always self-destruct?

BYLINE/Author: Tristram Hunt

WHY ROME? Why, some 2,000 years after the Roman Empire embarked upon its decline and fall, do we remain bewitched by its ruin? From Russell Crowe's Gladiator to Niall Ferguson's histories to Washington thinktanks, the spectre of a crumbling Coliseum still haunts our popular and political culture. The story of the collapse of Rome speaks to something fundamental within the Western imagination.

Meditating on its fall is as old as the city itself. In the first century AD, as centurions stamped across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, commentators were already predicting Rome's demise. Critics mourned the lost virtue of the Republic and lamented the Empire's bread-and-circuses decadence. Yet it took another 400 years for Rome to succumb to the Goths and a further 1,000 years before the Byzantine or the Eastern Roman Empire followed suit.

But by then the narrative of collapse was clear. To medieval and Renaissance historians it was a morality tale of hubris and nemesis, testifying to the unrelenting cycle of history. What rose had to fall.

It was the ambition of the Enlightenment historian Edward Gibbon to provide a more scientific answer. In 1764 he travelled to Rome and, 'as I sat musing amidst the ruins of the Capitol, while the barefooted fryars were singing Vespers in the temple of Jupiter, the idea of writing the decline and fall of the City first started to my mind.' What resulted was an epic six-volume account of Rome's collapse which set the standard for every subsequent history.

Gibbon the rationalist soon uncovered the hidden causes of decay: 'The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness.' With this otiose power came unhealthy prosperity, the descent of soldiers into mercenaries, a failure to appreciate the strength of enemies, and the loss of martial virtue thanks to the arrival of Christianity. Indeed, 'instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long'.

Gibbon lauded the wonders of the Republic, the moral depravity of Empire, and the terrible legacy of what we have come to call 'the Dark Ages'. Romantically, he concluded his history at the ruins of the Forum urging his readers to contemplate 'from that commanding spot the wide and various prospect of desolation'.

This was the fate Gibbon's readership was determined to avoid. As the British Empire expanded, Benjamin Disraeli voiced the gnawing fear, 'and where is Rome? All nations rose and flourished only to swell her splendour, and I now stand amid her ruins.' Learning nothing from this parable, Disraeli went on to anoint Queen Victoria the 'Empress of India'.

By the early 1900s, the parallels between Britain and Rome were eerily uncomfortable. Imperial collapse looked imminent as fin de siecle London degenerated into luxurious indolence, puny British soldiers were routed by muscular Boers, and overcrowded cities threatened the racial health of the Anglo-Saxons. Some blamed democracy, others homosexuality and hot baths (in contrast to the cold English plunge), while Baden-Powell warned his Scouts: 'Don't be disgraced like the young Romans, who lost the Empire of their forefathers by being wishy-washy slackers without any go or patriotism in them.'

ONE YOUNG man who took the history of Rome seriously was Winston Churchill. Stationed as an officer in Bangalore, he spent the lazy Raj afternoons 'devouring Gibbon'. Churchill was adamant that a liberal Empire committed to peace, trade and civilization could avoid the inevitable collapse. However, the emergence of another empire, the Nazi Reich, offered Churchill a different imperial parallel as he imagined a Roman soldier transplanted to the 1930s experiencing 'the same gathering fears of some sudden onslaught by barbarian forces'. And when in 1940 he spoke of Britain's finest hour, it was in a consciously Roman context of the struggle for civilization against 'a new Dark Age'.

But the brutal consequence of the Second World War was the swift decline and fall of the British Empire. We were the Greeks to the American's Romans. Whereas Edward Gibbon had meditated on the nature of empire at the Coliseum, the Americans contemplated their imperial destiny at the big screen. From the 1964 epic The Fall of Rome to Bob Guccione's pornographic rendition of Caligula to Gladiator itself, the immorality, corruption and vanity of Rome proved a beguiling cultural spectacle.

Today, in a unipolar world with the American Senate as powerful as its predecessor, we continue to be entranced by the fatal romance of Rome's collapse. Books, TV programmes, and policy papers abound with analogies to the classical colossus. For, in the human failings of the Roman story we can trace elements of ourselves, while in the mystery of the city-state's rise and fall there seems an egalitarian justice to the rhythms of power. What we all want to know is where we stand on the cycle: at the dawn of a millennial empire, or on the precipice of a new Dark Age? And how will we know which is which?

Tristram Hunt's Radio 4 series, Past Presence , continues tomorrow at 8pm

LOAD-DATE: August 2, 2004

II. We should all sing the praises of an Anglosphere empire

May 3, 2003 Saturday Final Edition

SECTION: News; Robert Sibley; Pg. B6

LENGTH: 767 words

HEADLINE/TITLE: We should all sing the praises of an Anglosphere empire

SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen

BYLINE/AUTHOR: Robert Sibley

Empire is the hot-button political idea nowadays. Anti-war celebrities denounce the United States as an evil empire. Scholars such as Michael Ignatieff say "empire" is the only word to describe "the awesome thing America is becoming." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer declares that "people are now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire.'"

Actually, the idea of empire should not be all that controversial. Empires are the historical norm. Sumeria and Assyria, Persia and Rome, the Carolingian and the Holy Roman empires, the Spanish, Portuguese, British, French, Dutch and Soviet empires: World history is imperial history. Compared with empire, the nation-state is an historical anomaly.

The essence of empire is control, and there's certainly no doubt that, given its preponderant military and economic power, the American "control" of the world compares favourably with that of the Roman and British Empires. Yet, even in the case of Iraq, where the Bush administration has assumed political responsibility for rebuilding the country, the U.S. has no intention of ruling in the same way that, say, Britain tried to rule India when it was an imperial power.

What the U.S. wants is Iraq (and the rest of the world) to have free markets, stability and democracy. If this is imperialist, it is the "imperium of liberty," to use Thomas Jefferson's phrase. We can reasonably take President George W. Bush at his word when he says "America has no empire to extend."

Nonetheless, we are seeing the emergence of an empire. With the contrasting political philosophies of "Old Europe" and the U.S. starkly highlighted, there's little doubt the traditional western alliance is crumbling. But as every good Hegelian knows, even as things fall apart, they also come together. The Iraq war also saw in the "coalition of the willing" -- the U.S., Britain and Australia -- the latest phase in the coming-to-be of the "Anglosphere" empire.

The term Anglosphere has been popularized by American journalist James Bennett. Essentially, it can best be described as an "voluntary empire," an "association" of countries that share the traditions of common law and democratic institutions. This "political civilization," as historian Robert Conquest calls it, includes primarily, although not exclusively, English-speaking countries -- the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and Canada, along with the Caribbean and India, both of which still adhere to western institutions. The Anglospherists argue that closer integration of these countries would create a power bloc that would serve as a bulwark against the forces of disorder.

This empire should appeal to Canadians. To be sure, Canada's no-show in the Iraq war and the anti-Americanism of its political elites might suggest otherwise. But, presumably, our emulation of "Old Europe" will end with the departure of Jean Chretien as prime minister. And so it should. Historically, Canadians have been ardent promoters of "Anglo-Saxon unity." In the late 19th century, many Canadians thought Canada's role in the world was to help foster a union between the United States and the British Empire. "That is the work that Canada is appointed by its position and history to do," wrote George Monro Grant, the one-time principal of Queen's University. "We are to build up a North American Dominion ... to be the living link, the permanent bond of union, between Britain and the United States."

John Watson, the pre-eminent philosophical mind in early 20th-century Canada, offered moral justifications for empire. In his 1919 book, The State in Peace and War, Watson argued that imperialism is justified if it is a force for civilization and the development of moral consciousness. "Political rule over others is only justified if the rulers exercise their authority for a good that transcends their own desires."

This idealist notion of empire has been refurbished by British historian Niall Ferguson, who argues in his new book, Empire, that the British Empire was, by and large, a force for good. But Watson's ideal also fits the prescriptions of Anglosphere proponents. "What is needed is a new kind of imperialism," says political theorist Robert Cooper, "one compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values: an imperialism which aims to bring order and organization but which rests on the voluntary principle."

In other words, an Anglosphere empire would be an empire of freedom. Surely that is not the kind of imperialism any rational person would denounce.

Robert Sibley is a member of the Citizen's editorial board.

LOAD-DATE: May 3, 2003

III. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

July 12, 2004

LENGTH: 909 words

HEADLINE/TITLE: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

BYLINE/AUTHOR: ByTryst Williams

Schools should spend more time teaching children about the British Empire, the Government's education watchdog said last night.

The warning to schools in England by Ofsted came after inspectors found teaching the Empire's history amounted to just a few lessons between the ages of 11 and 16.

But educationalists in Wales were yesterday split on the value of teaching the subject to the nation's students.

Gethin Lewis, secretary of teacher's union NUT Cymru, said, 'It just shows how important it is that we have our own curriculum in Wales and our own inspectorate.

'The British Empire is one of those things that's not seen as a priority, quite rightly in my view, and not all children need to study it.

'It's not important to us in any patriotic sense to learn about 'the Empire on which the sun never sets'.

'I'm pleased that in Wales we're looking at Wales in a global and European setting and not looking back to when Britain was seen to be so powerful and everyone learned English so that everyone in the British Empire spoke the same language.

'Personally I think it's a nonsense that we still talk about honours such as the Order of the British Empire.'

Over the past couple of generations, teaching about the British Empire has become mired in controversy.

In particular, critics point to the legacy of brutal and bloody subjugation of native peoples in British colonies and of the role of slavery in buoying the wealth of the Empire.

But Professor Chris Williams, a history lecturer at the University of Glamorgan, believes there is merit in teaching about the period - as long as it is taught well.

Prof Williams, who has just edited A Companion to 19th Century Britain, said, 'There's nothing wrong with teaching more about the British Empire; as long as one has balance in one's handling of the history of the Empire then that's fine.'

He explained there had been renewed interest in the subject recently, fuelled by the work of critical post-colonial thinkers such as Edward Said as well as TV programmes by controversial historian Niall Ferguson.

'There are negative and positive aspects and I don't see why teaching it should be problematic, in the same way as teaching about Nazi Germany in schools.

'Just because it's bad doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.

'The British Empire affected Wales very substantially.

'One could argue Wales was at one time a colony - although not in the modern period.

'But Welsh emigrants went to the dominions and the United States, and our economy was heavily bound up with imperial expansion.

'For instance, the Royal Navy was a critical market for our coal.'

And according to workers at one Welsh museum, Wales played a vital part in two of the 'top 10' key moments in the history of the Empire - historical episodes they believe should be an integral part of every child's education.

'Rorke's Drift was the greatest defence and had greatest number of Victoria Crosses in one battle, while Isandhlwana represented the greatest defeat of the imperial army,' said Arfon Williams, of the South Wales Borderers Museum in Brecon.

Both battles took place during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 and mainly involved Welshmen fighting with the regiment that would later become the South Wales Borderers.

The Rorke's Drift battle was immortalised in the film Zulu starring Stanley Baker and Sir Michael Caine.

Mr Williams added, 'Events such as this are important because it shows human courage - on both sides.'

A spokeswoman for Ofsted said the British Empire was an example of a significant subject that does not receive enough teaching time in schools.

'Pupils should know about the Empire, and that it has been interpreted by historians and others in different ways,' she added.

The regulator's intervention pleased education traditionalists.

Nick Seaton, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education said, 'It is a very important period of British history, which all youngsters should have some knowledge of.

'The key point is that the Empire was very beneficial to indigenous populations in many ways, even though it had its faults.

'The nice thing is that a lot of ex-colonial populations still think quite well of the British.' A brief history of the British Empire: It lasted more than three-and-a-half centuries, almost as long as the Roman Empire;

At its peak - at the end of the First World War - the Empire encompassed 25% of the world's population;

There had been colonies in the Americas, large parts of Africa and Middle East, India, Australia, New Zealand and a cluster of Pacific islands.

The 19th Century saw the largest expansion of the Empire as the British took many former French possessions in the West Indies, began to settle in large numbers in Australia and later competed fiercely with other European powers for territory in Africa;

At the same time, there was serious expansion in Asia, Singapore (1824), Hong Kong (1841), and Burma (1886), and the South Pacific, particularly the settlement of New Zealand (1840);

The only serious loss of territory was the loss of the 13 American colonies in the American Revolution of 1776;

The British Crown and Parliament made the first serious attempt to consolidate colonisation in Ireland after the rebellion of 1798 was suppressed;

From the 1930s Empire transformed gradually into the Commonwealth as, one by one, former British colonies gained independence.

JOURNAL-CODE: WESM

LOAD-DATE: July 12, 2004

June 7, 2004, Monday

SECTION: First Edition; COMMENT; Pg. 27

LENGTH: 1216 words

HEADLINE: THE NEW DEFENDERS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE;
THE CHIC RETRO-HISTORIANS CLAIM THE BRITISH WERE BETTER THAN HOME-

BYLINE: YASMIN ALIBHAI-BROWN

BODY:
Imperial revisionism is the new black, although its zealots would not care for the cliche. On the lecture circuits and the media, at literary festival hotspots, you see them, always supercilious, absolutely convinced that the British Empire was a damn good thing for all concerned. These ideological crusaders who claim and re-work history are elatedly received and handsomely paid. This is their moment.

In an exhausting debate last week at the Royal Geographical Society in London, I argued (incompetently and fruitlessly) with some of these star apologists: the historians Andrew Roberts, Niall Ferguson and Lawrence James. On my side were Richard Drayton and David Washbrook, academic experts on the other side of the story of empire - the devastation, the cruelties, the appalling polices that seriously disabled the future for so many countries. We lost the vote, and of course I am sulking.

Oh, the flair and buoyancy of the young establishmentarian pack - I described them as the Master Race, men who believe they are born to dominate the world. The smug Roberts accused me of being a racist for using the term "Nazi". Doubtless, British colonialism was more benign than German colonialism and much good came out of it. But then apartheid, communism, fascism all produced some good - all three kept down crime and could boast certain efficiencies. Those who claim Britain brought democratic values to their subjects need to name one colonised country where there was a credible democratic system during colonialism.

This long historical encounter corrupted both sides. Inestimable damage was done to generations of the colonised who were infantilised and left with a lingering sense of inferiority. (Millions of South Asians still prefer a white doctor to a brown one and believe anything made in England is superior to home-grown products.) Many white Britons have come to think they can behave as badly as they wish anywhere in the world.

White "supremacy" was continually replenished by racist imperial narratives and the immense power in the hands of this island. The white dominions were always treated with respect and they still are. One example: In Conan Doyle's novel The Poison Belt, the races succumb to a mysterious lethal poison engulfing the globe. Africans, Aboriginals, then Indians and Persians are quickly extinguished, long before white northern stock.

Empire builders cleverly used stooges and pliant, greedy indigenous leaders and merchants but never regarded them as equal partners. The British Empire could not have survived and grown without these traitors and they are as much to blame for what we, the colonised, suffered.

The chic retro historians claim the British were better than the home- grown despots and that they paved the way for modernism in India and elsewhere? What bunkum. Nobody (not even the Master Race) can predict what might have happened without this exploitative episode. As for the sad fact that most non-white Commonwealth countries are miserable failures, who can say for sure if this was due to the empire, in spite of its good influence, or nothing to do with either?

That great statesman Dadabhai Naoroji, the first Indian MP in this country, said in a speech in 1902: "One of the arguments for the system is that the British prevented the different peoples of India from plundering each other. That was only a half truth. They prevented this in order that they might themselves plunder all. It is monstrous for the British to keep Indians under their heels and then claim gratitude."

There were essential services and administration that the British exported - yes, flushing lavatories, trains and upright civil servants are very useful, as are the values of civil and fair societies - but the Romans brought great systems and structures and more to this country and that did not stop the natives resenting their presence. Autonomy cannot be traded in easily.

How do we understand this resurgent intellectual bragging, this modern- day colonial nationalism? Who does it speak to? It must reassure Britons who feel bewildered in this globalised, devolved world with dissolving national boundaries. That was the time that was. As Commonwealth immigrants take their place as real equals, the only happy place for some is in a falsified and glorified history.

But they can't be the only constituents. Is this a generation seeking something they felt was denied to them? We have had this said of the writers and others who are obsessed with the First and then the Second World Wars: they never got the chance to experience those ultimate experiences; their lives are soft and predictable, give or take a suicide bomber, and so they look back with shock and awe and perhaps unhealthy relish. Now the nostalgia has moved further back and there is a rising regret that the Baby Boomers never got to be the bwanas and memsahibs out there kicking ass, bossing the natives.

Maybe Commonwealth immigration is a factor. Instead of asking what Britain did that thousands had to go abroad from their countries seeking a livelihood, too many Britons think we are here because we couldn't bear to let go of the fabulous Empire.

This revisionism has been helped enormously by the empire-friendly media, the bland school curriculum and anti-racists demanding a history of empire that only blames whites. The BBC, together with Channel 4, and the media in general, have cynically nurtured mostly pro-colonial storytellers because it makes them feel radical. There is no balance.

Other than intermittent stuff on slavery, it has been years since A Passage to India, The Jewel in the Crown and the monumental feature film, Gandhi. If you are white and grew up in the colonies, especially Zimbabwe, you are considered exceptionally interesting by Radio 4 and others. The people who went through institutionalised mortification are invisible and inaudible. There isn't a single post- colonial historian today who has been given the media limelight.

Discourse on the empire in schools is so safe it may as well be a blank sheet. And today's left is muddled - focused mostly on Marxist class analyses and not enough on the injustice and arrogance of the adventure. Past anti-colonial white Britons, such as Annie Besant and Keir Hardie, understood this clearly. We need to get back to basics; to describe the Empire through the voices of the conquered, to stop this spinning, now. As Saul Bellow wrote: "It is sometimes necessary to repeat what we all know. All mapmakers should place the Mississippi in the same location, and avoid originality."

And the US had better be cautious too. It had been hesitant, until now, of naked, full-blown imperious ambitions, having once itself been a subject nation. But a new affair between neo-con Americans and neo-imperialist British intellectuals is changing that. If Americans learn nothing else from the disaster in Iraq, one hopes they understand that replacing despots with an occupation brings no jubilation, only double the humiliation.

If Ferguson et al were right, Iraq would be begging for a return to the glorious rule by the mother country. As far as I know, no such petition has been received by Her Majesty.

y.alibhai-brown@independent.co.uk

LOAD-DATE: June 7, 2004