The Rise And Fall Of The British Empire (1997) - Plot & Excerpts
Lawrence puts together a well written book covering a comprehensive range of the British Empire and the imperialism, colonialsm, and early phases of international capital during the reign of the Empire. Areas of historical interest covered in this book are mercantilism, the economic value of exploiting colonies in order to build the British Navy to the most powerful force on the international sea, the trans-Atalntic slave trade, and an in-depth focus on the East India Company and India. I especially found areas of great interest concerning references to slavery in Jamaica, the North American colonies, the stockholders of the East India Company (earliest form of capitalism), and the India Acts as Britain turned to the value of India after losing the North American colonies after the American Revoultion. The book also briefly mentioned the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the acquisition of Palestine by Britain (which is part of the history leading into the creation of the modern nation-state of Israel). The British in Egypt and the control over the northern flowing Nile River (Fashoda)was also discussed within the book.(Fashoda incident short response paper that I cited Lawerence on)At the end of the 19th century the continent of Africa was already under European colonial siege, a race termed in history as the scramble for Africa. The major European powers in Africa at the turn of the century were the British and the French, with Germany, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Italy also engaged on the continent. The incident of Fashoda (modern Sudan) was not only a ‘diplomatically’ resolved land conflict between Britain and France, it served as a very important evolution point in imperialism.In July 1898, the French established a military presence at Fashoda under the command of Jean-Baptiste Marchand. As a result, British forces based in the Upper Nile region moved military forces under Lord Herbert Kitchener southward into Sudan toward Fashoda. What was the importance of Fashoda? The Importance of Fashoda is its position on the Nile, which is a Northern flowing river. From a British perspective, French forces could put gunboats in the water or even erect a dam to completely cut off the flow of water, which would be disastrous on economic, health, military levels.Kitchener won the battle of Omdurmam against Mahdist forces on the southward movement toward Fashoda. Full scale conflict between British and French forces never erupted over Fashoda because “France stepped down” because “her ally, Russia, refused to become entangled in a dispute over a stretch of sand in the middle of Africa” [1]. The French also understood the naval superiority that the British possessed over them and did not wish to see their own foreign trade decimated again, as it had been in the 18th century, due to conflict with Britain [2].I offer two areas for contemplation and discussion:The fact that Britain “had the Egyptian flag rather than the British flag hoisted over Fashoda” is very interesting. Looking at this period of colonial history, we see Britain using Egypt, basically a British property yet proclaimed as an autonomous protectorate, as a puppet state for military and political actions (to achieve British economic interests). I view this as an evolution in imperialism. Just as the modern imperial actions of the United States and their allies remove regimes such as Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, only to replace them with puppet governments which they can utilize or exploit, we can look back at the British return to Egypt in 1882 and see that Britain controlled the finances, government and military of Egypt.A few weeks back while studying Dr. Said’s orientalism, we reviewed an account of General Gordon’s evacuation mission to Khartoum (north of Fashoda). I have to give consideration to the possibility of ‘under the table’ French support, in military or economic form, to the Mahdists in their opposition against British-Egyptian southern advancement. Any thoughts on this possibility?[1] James, Lawrence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1996), 285. [2] James, Lawrence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1996), 285. (East India Company short response paper that I cited Lawerence on)The East India Company had its origins at the beginning of the 17th century under the royal charter, titled Governor and Company of Merchants of London, by Elizabeth I, in order to compete with Portuguese traders in India and the Far East. By 1708, the original joint-stock company had merged with a competing firm to create the Honorable East India Company. The company amassed wealth in a variety of trade areas that included opium, cotton, tea, indigo, and silk. By 1740, the company “was purely a commercial enterprise, which imported and exported from its factories in India”, and by the middle of the eighteenth century controlled the opium producing regions of Bengal and Bihar [1] As the company expanded its territorial control over Mysire, Hyderabad, Punjab and the Mahratha states through a display of superior technological arms, “other Indian princes chose to preserve their independence by seeking an accommodation with the Company through unequal treaties, in which they agreed to surrender revenues” [ 2] By 1815, the East India Company “owned the most powerful army in India and governed, directly and indirectly, Bengal, much of the upper Ganges basin and extensive areas of eastern and southern India”, and by the turn of the 19th century, became “principally dependent on land taxes collected from the provinces it ruled” [3] The private company found the most colonial success in the decentralization of Indian rule “where the central authority of Mughal emperors was dissolving” [4].War, conquest and expansion also was a lucrative business which generated “profits, most of which found their way into the hands of soldiers” instead of making it “on to the Company’s reckoning sheets”[5] The obvious difference between enlisting in the Royal military and the private Company military in India was that a man could acquire a handsome “nest egg for retirement or to provide an annuity for the families at home” more easily under the enlistment of the private sector. The export profits in Opium were also immense until, in 1799, China, under emperor Kia King, banned the importation and cultivation of opium. Prior to the Chinese ban on opium, it appears that the East India Company attempted to keep their ships out of the direct Opium trade into China by inserting middle men opium agents, who would buy it from company owned producers and processors. [6] After the turn of the century, medical studies showing the benefits of opium became popular and opium exports were shifted toward Europe and the United States.The accumulating wealth and military power of the East India Company was a growing concern within the British government and it appears that some of the Company’s overall profits were utilized in the form of bribes to Parliament and the Bank of England, “The power the East India Company had obtained by bribing the Government, as did also the Bank of England, it was forced to maintain by bribing again, as did the Bank of England. At every epoch when its monopoly was expiring, it could only effect a renewal of its Charter by offering fresh loans and by fresh presents made to the Government.” [7] With the loss of the American colonies after the Revolutionary War, bribes were no longer enough as the British Empire looked to rebound from their lost North American revenues. After all, the British had accumulated a great level of debt from the American Revolution and the Seven Years War before that. The India Bill was introduced in 1783 by Charles Fox and was defeated, but the following year a modified version was passed and from that point forward the British Empire began to slowly take control of the East India Company. The Company finally ended trade in 1873. [1] James, Lawerence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 123.[2] James, Lawerence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 128-29.[3] James, Lawerence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 123.[4] James, Lawerence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 124.[5] James, Lawerence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 130.[6] Opium Throughout History. Frontline. Public Broadcasting System, WGBH, 1998. Accessed on Monday, February 18, 2013 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontli...[7] Marx, Karl. The East India Company-Its History and Results. New-York Herald Tribune, June 24, 1853. Accessed on February 18, 2013 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...“The events of the Seven-Years-War transformed the East India Company from a commercial into a military and territorial power[122]. It was then that the foundation was laid of the present British Empire in the East. Then East India stock rose to £263, and dividends were then paid at the rate of 12 1/2 per cent. But then there appeared a new enemy to the Company, no longer in the shape of rival societies, but in the shape of rival ministers and of a rival people. It was alleged that the Company’s territory had been conquered by the aid of British fleets and’, British armies, and that no British subjects could hold territorial sovereignties independent of the Crown. The ministers of the day and the people of the day claimed their share in the “wonderful treasures” imagined to have been won by the last conquests. The Company only saved its existence by an agreement made in 1767 that it should annually pay £400,000 into the National Exchequer. But the East India Company, instead of fulfilling its agreement, got into financial difficulties, and, instead of paying a tribute to the English people, appealed to Parliament for pecuniary aid. Serious alterations in the Charter were the consequence of this step. The Company’s affairs failing to improve, notwithstanding their new condition, and the English nation having simultaneously lost their colonies in North America, the necessity of elsewhere regaining some great Colonial Empire became more and more universally felt. The illustrious Fox thought the opportune moment had arrived, in 1783, for bringing forward his famous India bill, which proposed to abolish the Courts of Directors and Proprietors, and to vest the whole Indian government in the hands of seven Commissioners appointed by Parliament. By the personal influence of the imbecile King [George III] over the House of Lords, the bill of Mr. Fox was defeated, and made the instrument of breaking down the then Coalition Government of Fox and Lord North, and of placing the famous Pitt at the head of the Government. Pitt carried in 1784 a bill through both Houses, which directed the establishment of the Board of Control, consisting of six members of the Privy Council” – Karl Marx, New York Herald Tribune (June 24, 1854)
This book is truly epic in nature. Lengthy, it guides the reader through the entirety of the British empire. The focus is primarily around the government/business sector, with the social attitudes of British citizens and colonists also getting sufficient treatment. worth noting that what is rarely discussed are royal ongoings.James is splendid on many levels. The research is both thorough and detailed. The social history is beautifully intertwined with the history. The book is broken down first on a chronological level, then into geography, making such an expansive amount of information fit neatly into compartmentalized sections. As far as I can tell, it is a very objective account of the British empire. This perspective was good for me, as my study of WWI & WWII had a definitively Ameri-centric flavor. In many respects, I feel like I have a much better global perspective now that I have digested this history -- particularly in Africa, the middle east and south Asia. And James' telling of the tale is more than adequate. His writing style is very atpical of traditional non-fiction. The vocabulary is wide and does well to express the granular detail intertwined in Britain's history.One point to make: this work is not exactly an easy read. it's not difficult, but the language combined with the length make it "a chore" at times. in chapters where I had a great interest, I moved swiftly. other chapters, not so much. It is definitely not a work of non-fiction, such as those by McCullough or Larsen, that read like a novel. All this said, it was clearly not the author's intent to turn history into a true novel. It is what it is -- an excellent, thorough and detailed treatment of "The Rise and Fall of the British Empire."
What do You think about The Rise And Fall Of The British Empire (1997)?
The writing style is easy enough to read that I want to keep going, but it is also full of information. It's a very good overview of the British empire, going into detail at points, but stays focused.I saw another review that said this book was trying to spin history to make the empire sound less bad than it was. I think that's just a misinterpretation. The book simply doesn't apologize. It tells you what happened, and what forces caused things to happen, and it leaves it up to you to make a judgment. I find this to be a refreshing way of looking at history. A more honest and open way of looking at it.
—Joe
In writing this critique, I must advise any prospective reader to brace him/herself for a long stretch, for this is a weighty and comprehensive book about one of the most extraordinary empires that ever existed. In the case of the British Empire, it did not come into being as part of a deliberate plan from one nation to dominate a large corner of the globe. The Empire's origins are to be found in Elizabethan England, in which a poor nation barely recovered from a prolonged period of internal dissention and external threats from Imperial Spain, began to reach out to both the Americas and India to establish trade and markets. Eventually, over time, as England grew and prospered and gave rise to Great Britain, the trade concessions in India and the growth of its land holdings in the Americas and the West Indies in the 17th & 18th centuries would act as springboards (notwithstanding the occasional setbacks, such as the loss of the American colonies in 1783) to an extensive network of colonies and protectorates that straddled the globe by the 1930s. This book also provides revealing analyses as to why the Empire declined and fell as Britain herself (after 1945) could no longer afford to be a major player on the world stage. This is a book only for the serious student of history. I highly recommend it.
—KOMET
This was a superior one volume work on the British empire. In reading the other reviews of James' work, I have to wonder if we read the same book, as this is a very even-handed look at all aspects of the Empire. What I found especially useful is that within the narrative, James traces the evolving view of empire, until the prevailing view became one of racial differences, beginning by the end of the 19th century, and culminating in the Suez War in 1956 and Rhodesia's attempts to become an independent, white republic in the middle of central Africa. James also closely examines the reasons for the prevailing politically correct national scab picking in Britain, and why the "smart set" is unable to abide national pride. This was a truly enjoyable work, and as I mentioned at the beginning of this review, very even-handed. For those who think this work a paen to the British empire, I suggest they read the entire work.
—Al
