I’ve just finished reading a recently published book by my friend and long-ago boss, the Sydney-based New Zealand author and journalist Robin Bromby.
Tepid Whisky by Paraffin Lamp is subtitled Life and Work in Outposts of the British Empire in the Twentieth Century. It’s a very detailed and substantial piece of work on an aspect of history that most scholars either shy away from or approach in antagonistic terms because it’s considered ideologically beyond the pale.
Robin himself acknowledges that the history of the British Empire is “a subject one addresses now with caution”. From a 21st century perspective, the idea that European imperial powers could claim ownership over foreign territories at will, even when they had no particular purpose for them (as was sometimes the case), is unthinkable. But there was a time in living memory when it was considered entirely natural – in fact a matter of pride – that the sun never set on the British Empire. And as Robin notes, the administrators who ran those distant outposts were often motivated by high ideals.
They needed to be, because the rewards were often scant. Contrary to popular belief, the typical colonial official did not lead a life of luxury and privilege. Conditions were often brutally harsh. Heat (and sometimes cold), disease, primitive housing, inadequate remuneration and unimaginable loneliness were some of the prices colonial officials paid for the privilege of serving the Empire.
Communication with the outside world was chancy and erratic at best, as were visits from supply ships. More often than not, fresh food was unprocurable. In particularly remote locations, the colonial officer could go weeks or even months without seeing another European. Conventional family life was out of the question; officers often had to leave their children behind in England or were forbidden from having a family at all. It certainly wasn’t all polo, pink gins and punkahwallahs waving pandanus fans to keep the sahib cool, as readers of Somerset Maugham might imagine.
Perhaps surprisingly, given Britain's imperial wealth, the Colonial Office in London was a parsimonious employer. Not only did it pay its officers poorly, but they were strictly limited in the creature comforts they could take with them and were only rarely allowed trips home. Long-suffering wives were expected to entertain visiting dignitaries despite not being given the means to do so. Even alcohol allowances were miserly.
Robin reveals that colonial administrators were typically the best and brightest of their era – graduates of Oxford or Cambridge, accomplished at sport and well-connected socially. The demands on them were immense. A district officer in his early 20s was likely to find himself in sole charge of an area the size of Wales or Scotland and responsible for everything from the maintenance of law and order (both as police chiefs and magistrates) to the building of schools and roads, the conduct of inquests, the settling of tribal disputes, the conduct of inquests, the collection of taxes and even the dispatching of marauding wild animals. Some colonial administrators eventually returned home and went into politics but many spent their lives being cycled through postings that could take them to places as scattered as Sierra Leone, Hong Kong, Sudan, Aden, Trinidad, the Solomon Islands, Somaliland, Tristan da Cunha and the Falkland Islands.
Robin doesn’t gloss over the rampant economic exploitation that took place under colonialism or the shameful way Britain took advantage of native manpower from the colonies in wartime, but he points out that British administrators built schools, roads, hospitals, railways and sanitation systems. Much of that infrastructure is still in use today. Tepid Whisky by Paraffin Lamp is not only rigorously researched – a prodigious feat in itself – but presents a nuanced and non-judgmental appraisal of a period in history that generally gets a bad press. The book is available here.
6 comments:
This is another highly recommended book (I'm only partway through it) on the subject: Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning by Nigel Biggar
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60276941-colonialism
Excellent article. The British governors had many hardships to overcome. In the first few years in the colony of NSW there was almost starvation and severe food rationing. The British surgeons helped local aboriginals. The British even shared food with the aboriginals.
History has 2 sides. The legacy of British settlement has endured centuries... because it works. The legal system, the hospitals, freedoms, infrastructure, etc.
Some British officers suffered loneliness and depression in the unfamiliar climate so far from home. Other British officers loved the adventure.
History is complex and interesting. Some regressive woke people are overly zealous to rubbish our past. But such people are shallow and don't appreciate the significant blessings that they have eagerly inherited from British settlement.
I didn't mean to publish that previous comment as 'anonymous'.
Interesting. Must put in a plug for Sommerset Maughhan though. The harsh realities of planter's lives and consequent impact on social relationships background some of Maughan's best stories.
Nigel Biggar's concluding remarks on the British Empire are that, "it was not essentially racist, exploitative or wantonly violent...over time it became increasingly motivated by Christian humanitarianism and intent upon preparing colonised peoples for liberal self-government." (Colonialism, A Moral Reckoning p297).
On New Zealand he notes that at least 20,000 Maori perished in the Musket Wars by the 1830s with some small tribes being totally wiped out, and the population dropping from an estimated 110,000 in 1769 to 70,000 in 1837. He quotes the late Michael King's labelling of this period as a "holocaust". He argues that the extension of British sovereignty over New Zealand was motivated by humanitarianism (pp108-113). I doubt this perspective is taught under Labour's new history curriculum.
This is kind of a cringeworthy take.
The anti-white historians who constantly attack the European empires of the past completely ignore the circumstances which made them possible. The reason a young man aged 20-25 was in charge of such enormous swathes was because they effectively had no real government in most of these regions. Most government then (as it was in feudalism and before) was effectively rule by gang members, whether called the Lord and his retinue or the Patrician.
Europeans did not conquer almost any of Asia by force, with the native peoples also possessing gunpowder, firearms and often higher material standards. They were brought in to established civilisations usually because the wealthy rulers of those places wanted them. The British East India company made almost all of its 'conquests' by acting as Tax Collecting administrators and facilitating extremely profitable oceanic trade to Europe and elsewhere. The local peoples wanted them because they became ridiculous wealthy. Even the few wars waged in these colonial periods were waged because of economic conflicts at the time or disputes on matters of economics.
Even in socially simple states, like the Nigerian Delta farming societies, the lynchpin of power was acting as the man on the ground who could facilitate trade between many different groups. These colonial 'governments' existed almost entirely on paper, with tiny footprints other than maintaining a few fortresses, ports, roads and a government outpost or two.
For a less ridiculous lens of self hatred, examine Islamic colonial history with Omani, Yemeni and Persian trade expeditions which established colonial outposts from Mozambique to Malaysia in almost the exact same way. Leave behind a couple dozen high quality lads in a foreign town with a bunch of goods to sell, set up shop building a fortress as an HQ, then trade with the local peoples. Then your religious sect chaplaincy comes to encourage the local people to convert or use him as a means to settle disputes etc. The reason power concentrates in the hands of the colonial government is always because the local peoples waste their time on domestic disputes and entrench third parties as underwriters and neutral bodies.
Colonial Administrators were 'trusted' figures because they existed outside the local community group and could act as a mediator, judge and influencer, but they often hardly set the law in most colonial adminstrations. Same reason Catholic Monks, Priests, Friars etc were so vital to the immense influence of the Church during the Middle ages; they were an external, highly educated, relatively neutral man who could be trusted to settle disputes.
The reason contemporary historians live in constant terror of this stuff is your career ends if you touch third rail topics the wrong way. There is always another PhD student ready to take your place. Given the replication crisis in social sciences, even in biological sciences and chemistry, as well as the disgusting state of Graduate School; you can expect very little
Post a Comment