Ибраев Е.Е.,
Костанайский государственный университет, Казахстан
Since
the 1990s a new set of approaches to imperial history have developed and these
are often grouped together under the heading of the "new imperial
history". These approaches have been distinguished by two features.
Firstly, they have suggested that the British empire was a cultural project as
well as a set of political and economic relationships. As a result these
historians have stressed the ways in which empire building shaped the cultures
of both colonized peoples and Britons themselves. In particular they have shown
the ways in which British imperialism rested upon ideas about cultural
difference and in turn how British colonialism reshaped understandings of race
and gender in both the colonies and at home in Britain. Mrinalini Sinha's
"Colonial Masculinity" (1995) showed how supposed British manliness
and ideas about the effeminacy of some Indians influenced colonial policy and
Indian nationalist thought.[1] Antoinette Burton has been a key figure and her
"Burdens of History" (1995) showed how white British feminists in the
Victorian period appropriated imperialist rhetoric to claim a role for
themselves in 'saving' native women and thereby strengthened their own claims
to equality in Britain.[2] Historians like Sinha, Burton, and Catherine Hall
have used this approach to argue that British culture at 'home' was profoundly
shaped by the empire during the 19th century.[3]
The
second feature that defines the new imperial history is its stress on the flows
that connected different parts of the empire together. Both Burton and Sinha
stressed the ways in which the politics of gender and race linked Britain and
India. Sinha suggested that these linkages were part of an 'imperial social
formation', an uneven but integrative set of arguments, ideas and institutions
that connected Britain to its colonies.[4] More recent work by scholars like
Alan Lester and Tony Ballantyne (historian) have stressed the importance of the
networks that made up the empire. Lester's 'Imperial Networks' (2001)
reconstructed some of the debates and policies that linked Britain and South
Africa during the 19th century. Ballantyne's "Orientalism and Race"
developed an influential new model for writing about colonialism in
highlighting the 'webs of empire' that he suggested made up the empire. These
webs were made up of the flows of ideas, books, arguments, money, and people
that not only moved between London and Britain's colonies, but also moved
directly from colony to colony, from places like India to New Zealand. Many
historians now focus on these 'networks' and 'webs' and Alison Games has used
this as a model for studying the pattern of early English imperialism as
well.[5]
Australia
marks the beginning of the Second British Empire. It was planned by the
government in London and designed as a replacement for the lost American
colonies. The American Loyalist James Matra in 1783 write "A Proposal for
Establishing a Settlement in New South Wales" proposing the establishment
of a colony composed of American Loyalists, Chinese and South Sea Islanders
(but not convicts). Matra reasoned that the land country was suitable for
plantations of sugar, cotton and tobacco; New Zealand timber and hemp or flax
could prove valuable commodities; it could form a base for Pacific trade; and
it could be a suitable compensation for displaced American Loyalists. At the
suggestion of Secretary of State Lord Sydney, Matra amended his proposal to
include convicts as settlers, considering that this would benefit both
"Economy to the Publick, & Humanity to the Individual". The
government adopted the basics of Matra’s plan in 1784, and funded the
settlement of convicts.
Canadian
historian Carl Berger argues that an influential section of English Canadians
embraced an ideology of imperialism as a way to enhance Canada's own power
position in the international system, as well as for more traditional reasons
of Anglophillia. This was the first book that identified Canadian imperialism
as a distinct ideology, rival to anti-imperial Canadian nationalism or
pro-American continentalism, the other nationalisms in Canada.
Debate
continues about the economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue
was actually raised by conservative British politician Edmund Burke who in the
1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings
and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian
historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this line of attack, saying the new
economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder"
and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India. Ray accuses the
British of depleting the food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that
helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of
Bengal.
Rejecting
the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing
power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, British historian P. J.
Marshall argues that the British were not in full control but instead were
players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power
depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that
much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians. Marshall
argues that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the view that the prosperity
of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty and anarchy. Marshall
argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. The
British largely delegated control to regional Mughal rulers and sustained a generally
prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British
went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax
administrators and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation. Professor Ray agrees
that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took
one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.
Although
American historians have always paid attention to the negative causes of the
revolt by which the 13 colonies broke away from the Empire, around 1900 the
"Imperial School," including Herbert L. Osgood, George Louis Beer,
Charles M. Andrews and Lawrence Gipson took a highly favorable view of the
benefits achieved by the economic integration of the Empire.
References
1. Mrinalini Sinha, "Colonial Masculinity: The 'Manly Englishman' and
the 'Effeminate Bengali' in the Late Nineteenth Century".
2. Antoinette Burton, "Burdens of History: British Feminists, Indian
Women, and Imperial Culture, 1865-1915."
3. Catherine Hall and Sonya Rose eds, At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan
Culture and the Imperial World."
4. Alan Lester, "Imperial Networks: Creating Identities in
Nineteenth-Century South Africa and Britain."
5. Tony Ballantyne, "Orientalism and Race: Aryanism in the British
Empire".
6. Alison Games, "The Web of Empire: English Cosmopolitans in an Age
of Expansion, 1560-1660."