An interesting notion of empire .. reluctant imperialism
In high school I read Africa and the Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism by Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher in preparation for a paper on the Victorian period (our high school had excellent history teachers). The book is hot again (I've seen it on three book lists in the past few months including one just published by the Guardian) as its message seems to resonate with current events.
The book discounts the common view that Victorian England was out after much of the world for raw materials and labor as well as a supply of new markets for an expanding economy. Rather a picture emerges of British cabinet ministers both willing and afraid to extend their forces in a world that always had two of more challenges to their authority as police. The military constantly complained about this over extension, but a fundamental insecurity contributed to what amounted to a creeping expansion of the perimeter of the colonies.
The Victorians always claimed they went into an area to stabilize it and somehow make it decent, promising to withdraw when their job was finished. Guess what ... once they got into a place it was exceedingly difficult to leave. The classic case was Gladstone's little excursion to Egypt to suppress the local Muslim fundamentalists and assist in civilizing the place. Gladstone seems to believe that this would be quick and cheap, but the English finally left seventy years later in the 1950s... Some of Gladstone's speeches sound exactly like those of George W (with the exception that Gladstone probably wrote his own).
I doubt the neo-conservative world view is much different from that of the Victorians. At some point these little excursions exceed their bounds - other connected crises rear their heads, more resources are required and the citizens at home become upset.
12:02:26 AM 
|
