Customer Reviews

Unfinished Empire: The Global Expansion of Britain

5 star:		(29)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

All history students are subject sometime to inevitable essay question whether the British Empire was a dynamic benevolent force for good or a monstrous imperial atrocity imposed with a gunboat diplomacy? Anyone reading Jeremy Paxman's recent tome "Empire: What Ruling the World Did to the British" will inevitably fall into the latter camp as he mounts a well written if ill tempered critique of the Empire and its legacy which is explicit in emphasizing how generally awful it was for everyone who came into contact with it. Perhaps a more scholarly if slightly less readable approach comes in this excellent book by John Darwin's "Unfinished Empire" which is revisionist in the sense that it questions the strict dichotomy of British rulers on the one side and colonial victims on the other. Darwin has been treading these boards in previous books. But here he gives full vent to the thesis that it is a myth to speak of "A British Empire" when in fact the governing characteristics was a system that was contradictory, tangled, messy and in one sense very short lived. Therefore to speak of some strategic "Imperial Project" is a complete misnomer. As he points out "even in 1914, the Colonial Office contained only 30 senior officials who were ostensibly in charge of 100 different colonial spaces, not to mention 600 quasi-autonomous Indian princely states that technically owed allegiance to the British crown". In this respect therefore this book could be more accurately subtitled "Empire by hotchpotch" with free trade providing the only really coherent unifying theme. As he states "it was largely a private enterprise empire, the creation of merchants, investors, migrants and missionaries amongst many others"

Studying how the Empire developed in India, Ireland, Africa versus the Americas, Australia and Canada for example shows entirely different models of British rule largely provisional and improvised. Most English speaking Canadians and New Zealander settlers would have seen the process has an empire of partners. In other parts of the global map the wistful cliché that "the sun never set" on the Empire should not disguise the fact that it did witness astonishing levels of violence and cultural racism. Richard Gott has pointed to Britain's use of "terror by example" such as the brutal treatment of sepoy mutineers at Manjee in 1764, where it was ordered that they should be "shot from guns", was a terrible warning to others not to step out of line. Moving into the sorry story of British rule in Ireland would throw up even worse horrors. Darwin is certainly no apologist for any of this but he is is keen to explore why the textures of Empire held together with such resilience and held off challenges from other equally aggressive European nations. This he believes was testimony to a range of "qualities", not least the underpinning foundation of British imperialism which was its "extraordinary versatility in method, outlook and object." In particular, the British excelled at recruiting local elites and interest groups as collaborators without whose consent little would have been possible. This more than all the boastful talk of "enlightened reform and disinterested trusteeship" was at the heart of British rule and more accurately explains its extraordinary grip on countries the sheer size of India, where the resources of Empire were almost deployed by a skeleton staff.

Andrew Roberts the conservative historian in reviewing this book concluded that "Darwin's book might at long last herald the victory of the post-Marxist phase of imperial historiography, and not a moment too soon". This reviewer is not so certain about Roberts schadenfreude not least since Darwin's emphasis on the role of free trade could readily appeal to supporters of Karl M. In the last analysis Darwin's book is a cool, logical and well argued case. Its central thesis that rather than being "constituted by empire" for Britain's Empire was actually "only a phase, an exceptional moment" is neatly provocative. Winston Churchill certainly wouldn't have agreed with that sentiment and for generations of British politicians, particularly in the Victorian age, the "Empire" was a humongous source of national pride which appeared to beguile any rational analysis. Darwin has done a service here putting it into more subtle and sophisticated context and unlike some of the more radical revisionist historians he makes no attempt to take the Empire's fall and dress it up as victory. Recommended

A beautifully written and well researched explanation of the rise and fall of the British Empire. Darwin describes how Britain acquired the largest empire the world has ever known. Then Darwin concludes why in logical argument. The hyperbole that other writers on empire seem to find necessary is refreshingly absent. Darwin is not afraid of condemning the worst excesses, or of praising the success of British rule, but is careful to put them into context. This is a very readable book that should appeal to both academic and interested laymen alike.

I thought that this book might be fairly interesting to read: I was wrong! It is one of the best books that I have read all year.

Like many people. either born in Britain, or with an interest in British history, I had a passing knowledge of the main events affecting the UK from the 17th to 21st centuries: I knew about Suez, the World Wars, Trafalgar, the Battle of the Nile, Invasion of and expulsion from the United States and other incidents that have helped to shape this great country of ours. Where this book is so useful, is that it stitches these historical events into a single fabric.

John Darwin is above turning this story into a political diatribe, either in favour, or against the British Empire; rather, he shows how, through happen-stance, as often as shrewd political calculation, events conspired to allow the creation of an extraordinarily elastic empire. He also gives a plausible, although he is the first to admit, not necessarily a definitive explanation of its decline. So many authors, nowadays, make the fatal mistake of judging the past by the moral codes of today. Mr Darwin avoids this trap by the simple expediency of not judging at all. He merely relates the story, the reader is free to insert his/her own opinion on the rights and wrongs of the situation.

I find this type of history absolutely fascinating: after all, if one does not understand how we got to where we currently stand, how can we make valid decisions as to where we should be heading? I thought that I would enjoy it, I did not expect it to be quite so "unputdownable". Anyone with political aspirations, an interest in British and world history, or indeed anyone able to appreciate a darned well written book NEEDS to read this. Definitely high upon my top ten books of the year!

Nearly 10 years ago, a dear friend of mine was addressing a gathering of Ugandan MPs in the Parliament building in Kampala (around the 40th anniversary of independence). It included those from all shades on the political spectrum, including not a few post-colonial firebrands. My friend is certainly no great apologist for imperialism, but he posed two simple questions.
-- "Which Ugandan regions (of those that the British failed to develop) have we since developed?"
-- "What aspects of public life, government and rule of law have we improved on or done better in than the colonial regime?"

They were not rhetorical questions, but they were telling. Sort of Pythonlike 'whatever have the British done for us?' questions. Answer came there none. For, from a purely pragmatic perspective, there were some (if not many) things that the British got right. But please don't misunderstand. There were plenty of travesties and injustices along the way, not to mention the appalling tribal caricatures and divisions which were inculcated by colonialism. The racist assumptions endemic in the systems they set up are clearly indefensible. So my friend could easily have posed a number of other pointed questions which would have got his audience fulminating at the colonial legacy. The point is that any simple interpretative grid to apply to history is both unfeasible and unhelpful.

That is the beauty of this recent book by John Darwin, Unfinished Empire. He resists any reactionary, Kiplingesque nostalgia for empire and is quite explicit about failures and horrors; but he also rejects a simplistic Marxist critique of imperialism which is blind to any benefits or realities. Instead he charts the extraordinary phenomenon that was the British empire (which arguably lasted almost 500 years, from 1497 when John Cabot landed in Newfoundland to 19997 when Chris Patten left Hong Kong). Its scope, power, wealth and durability, despite everything, were unique in human history.

DIVERSITY OF EMPIRE
Instead of writing a straight chronological narrative, however, Darwin opts for a more intriguing, thematic, arrangement. The book is ordered around the `life pattern' of each colony - so that in the early chapters he compares the discoveries and origins of, say, the American and African colonies, then progressing onto consolidation and infrastructure in subsequent chapters, followed by comparisons of various rebellions, successful (e.g. American) and not so (e.g. the Indian Mutiny). I suppose this entails some degree of understanding of the overarching chronology of the empire before reading, but not much. But the advantage of the structure is that it enables the reader to grasp the experience of the empire, as opposed to a raw succession of dates (although just very occasionally, it can degenerate into lists of e.g. wars fought).

The culmination of all this is the remarkable assessment (only remarkable when the British empire is contrasted with other far more monolithic and normative empires such as the ancient Roman or modern Soviet).
"Far from being the mere handiwork of kings and conquistadors, it was largely a private-enterprise empire." (p xi)
"The hallmark of British imperialism was its extraordinary versatility in method, outlook and object." (p388)

This is evident from the huge range of approaches to pre-British power structures, environments and cultures. A case in point comes from the differences between the Dominions (Canada, Aus, NZ and South Africa), India (the Jewel in the Crown was always a form all its own), the Asian cities (Hong Kong), and the East African or the Caribbean colonies. This is not to mention the soft power of the Empire which extended far beyond the borders of the map's pink countries: South America was never part of the Empire, but British money was heavily invested there:
"Above all, by 1900, the British owned railways from the grand Oeste in Argentina, or the highly profitable San Paulo, to the humbler Bolivar in Venezuela. These British possessions were managed in the City, not from Whitehall. By 1913, they made up nearly one quarter of Britain's huge fund of overseas wealth, part of the secret of imperial survival in two world wars." (p87)

The world really was Britain's oyster - because in large part of its pragmatic willingness to do and use whatever worked, rather than a dogmatic insistence of imperial structures. This had surprising consequences. For instance, the creators of India's National Congress (a generation before Gandhi) were calling for more autonomy and rights for Indians, but within the empire. They sought Dominion status not independence (which after all, many South American countries had won during the 19th Century from Spain and Portugal). This very diversity, then, demands a more nuanced historical analysis, and Darwin offers this with brilliance, concision and insight. It is a truly fascinating read.

CURIOSITIES OF EMPIRE
Along the way, the text is peppered with fascinating details (as one would expect and hope):
-- Compared to other European powers (notably Spain), Britain was late to the party. This included slavery. In a grim irony, the first English ship to transport African slaves to sell to the Spanish in the West Indies (in the 1560s) was captained by a man called Hawkins and was named Jesus. (p41)
-- After the Battle of Waterloo, Britain remained globally dominant on sea and on land (Napoleon had been their only real land threat before). They would be dominant for almost 100 years. So for instance, this meant that when the Mauritius and Sri Lanka were held by Britain, the Indian Ocean became `a British lake'. (p73)
-- It wasn't just military might, but financial might. `By 1913 perhaps half the world's total of foreign investment had been raised in London.' (p184)
-- Because of the unique and almost absurd geopolitics of the British Empire, constant judgment calls were required to determine which pink bits needed most urgent attention. One of the most strategic points was the Egypt and the Suez canal (because it protected the fastest route to India and Asia), which Darwin rather delightfully calls the `Clapham Junction of Empire' (p310)
"At the root of all these was the peculiar geography of British expansion. The shape of Britain's empire reversed every notion of military logic... But if this was the model of designer-imperialism, the British version of empire was a ridiculous parody. Its head and centre lay only twenty-two miles from what had usually been its most dangerous enemy. Its most valuable territories were not compact provinces arrayed close to the centre but lay on the other side of the world, six months away by sail, and at least three weeks by steam. After 1860, nearly half the British army was stationed in British cantonments, many miles and days from the nearest seaport. Much of the empire, with the exception of India and Canada, resembled a vast archipelago strewn round the world from Hong Kong to the Falkland Islands. `The British empire is, for the purpose of a war with any Power except Russia and the United States, equivalent to a number of islands scattered over the oceans,' remarked a Late Victorian expert." (p306)

When Macmillan's `wind of change swept through Africa, decolonisation happened with remarkable speed. Darwin has rather a nice, if perhaps rightly acerbic, description:
"So once the die of decolonisation was cast and the timetable decided, they had every incentive to display an obsequious gratitude for the British `gift' of their freedom. The transfers of power were thus amicable, stately affairs, decorated by royalty. It was a pleasing pantomime in which all could delight." (p373)

MISSIONARIES OF EMPIRE
There is a very interesting section on missionaries (pp 279-290), who have often been derided as imperial stooges. There's little doubt that the relationship between mission and imperialism is complex, fraught and at times detrimental. It would never do today to appropriate David Livingstone's (right) explicit intention to bring `Christianity, commerce and civilisation' to the heathen. (p67) And many contemporaries would now wholeheartedly agree with Lord Salisbury who remarked that a missionary was `a religious Englishman with a mission to offend the religious feelings of the natives' (p279).

Nevertheless, Darwin is surprisingly sympathetic to missionaries, at least in terms of the stresses and challenges of their vocation. He notes (with reference to the likes of William Carey and Hudson Taylor):
"Missionary work, it turned out, had little appeal for the comfortably off. Those who stepped forward came from the artisan class, literate and respectable but not highly educated." (p281)

There are not many renowned exceptions (apart from perhaps CT Studd and the Cambridge Seven). Perhaps as a result, they could never be part of the colonial, officer class, and thus occupied a difficult middle point:
"Far from enjoying unchallenged moral and religious authority, the missionary found himself uneasily poised between those he was meant to convert, the official men on the spot, an often hostile settler opinion, and his sponsors at home, eager for news of his spiritual triumphs. The strain was sometimes unbearable." (p 280)

LIVING AFTER EMPIRE
All in all, this book is simply superb. Fair and careful, scholarly but readable, with a feel for the broad sweep and the individual detail. We can't escape our past - and there's little hint here of a nostalgia or call to turn clocks back. But we are what we have been - and that is something we must come to terms with, not least because of the multicultural Britain of the twenty-first century (with all the glories and challenges that this entails). For if people(s) bear grievances about the past, it is vital to take them seriously by seeking to understand them. Without that, cohesion is impossible.

Books like this will go a long way to informing and contextualising such memories - and therefore need to be read widely.

I found this book one of the best "historical" books I have ever read. I have studied history for many years and so have a fascination in the subject. What a lot of books put across is a political bias that looks at the building of the Empire from either a glorious angle or a exploitative view. This author gives a brilliantly concise treatise that is wholly balanced, looking at the great achievements of the British whilst putting into context the negative aspects of what we did. There is very little waffle and every page is filled with gripping information that makes you want to keep reading it.

Simply put, this is a well written balanced historical treatise on the British Empire that offers a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Highly recommended.

I'm not British, but this book made me wish I was. It gives you such a great over view of British history, I thoroughly enjoyed every moment reading it. The history of Britain and her people came alive for me through John Darwin's writing, this is a magnificent book about a truly remarkable people, please read it, it will make you proud to be British or wish you were!

Most empires have been built by conquering armies. They had to grow or die--rulers were judged by how much new territory they annexed. This was the way things happened when political power was concentrated in the hands of a monarch or emperor.

As Darwin argues, the British empire was created mostly by entrepreneurs in search of profit. Although the Royal Navy enabled ventures to succeed and governments were generally supportive of colonies that increased trade (and hence taxable imports), they weighed up the cost of sending gunboats and soldiers against the strategic and commercial value of a given colonial enterprise.

Darwin writes well, but the thematic format entails jumping around in time from one sentence to the next. As a historian, I could cope well enough, but I suspect that it would prove confusing for readers who can't instinctively place Pitt the Elder with the Seven Years' War, Plassey and Quebec.

Darwin covers a huge subject, and he makes a few questionable judgments. Now, most historians accept Jonathan Israel's contention that the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 was in fact a hostile Dutch invasion. William's fleet was far bigger than the Spanish Armada, and the 'invitations' sent to him by Whig grandees were simply a precautionary measure indulged in by any nobleman who wanted to hedge his bets. One can be sure that these self-same grandees also wrote letters to James II pledging their undying loyalty to the Stuart cause.

Darwin perhaps gives too much weight to the dark side of the Empire. Slavery, killing and exploitation were pretty much the norm throughout the world before and during the Empire. We cannot understand history if we view it through modern sensibilities. We should never forget that the Empire was based upon collaboration with native elites, and respect for native culture and religion. Nor should we forget that the Empire could never have been so successful if our colonies could see no benefit to the arrangements. Our modern obsession with race obscures the fact that outside of the lands settled by white colonists, most colonised people never saw a white face.

John Darwin's book 'Unfinished Empire' is a thoughtful and well written account of the influence and demise of the British Empire. This book gives an insight into its formation and expansion. Darwin writes objectively and does not seek to be judgemental. He leaves the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. So often history books can be rather dull and unimaginative in the way that they present the facts. This is not the case with this book as Darwin writes in an interesting way. He explains the apparent anomalies in the thinking of those behind the Empire- for example being prolific slave traders but then also being foremost in abolishing the trade. I would recommend John Darwin's book to those with an interest in the history of the British Empire and who wish to gain a deeper understanding of it.

Accurately shows how the British Empire was always a work in progress. Particularly liked the chapter on "Ending Empire."
Strongly recommend it .

A glorious and beautiful book, well written and with enormous research, detailing the Rise and Fall of that great mystical creature - the extraordinary British Empire. As a fan of Rudyard Kipling, and have been to school at the "Imperial Service College" [aka Haileybury], I have a great interest in our late, lamented Empire.

The author looks at how Britain, this tiny insignificant island (compared to the French etc.) acquired the largest empire the world has ever seen. This is a well written factual account - without much political intent - a great overview of the Empire.

Well worth reading for anyone intrigued as to how and why we ended up ruling half the World - and why we seem to have mislaid it!