Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Insurgent Empire
Much has been written on the how colonial subjects took up British and European ideas and turned them against empire when making claims to freedom and self-determination. The possibility of reverse influence has been largely overlooked. Insurgent Empire shows how Britain's enslaved and colonial...
www.versobooks.com
Finished the book by Priyamvada Gopal
I was thinking this might be for the Identity politics thread. As I read it as riposte to both over reliance on White Supremacy and the lets just stop apologising for Empire lines about Empire.
What she traces in her work is the links between resistance to Empire in the "Metropole" and the resistance to Empire by the colonised.
That their was an inter relationship between resistance in the colonies and at centre of Empire. Instead of view , still current, that it was a one way street she looks at it differently.
She is not a historian but a academic who specialises in literature. Her work is not an original bit of history. She has however read an enormous amount and synthesised it in this book.
There were events that led to public opposition to Empire. The putting down of the Morant Bay Rebellion in Jamaica of 1865 being one.
Which was brutally put down.
The ending of slavery didn't lead to much change. Freed slaves still worked on plantation system. Many freed slaves and their descendents didn't want to work on plantations. But tried their luck working small plots of land they occupied on unused land.
This did not go down well with the plantation owners who wanted a workforce.
This led to conflict which resulted in some limited violence which the governor brutally put down.
The opposition in this country to the Governors actions led to several years of very public debate and argument.
Gopal traces the dissent to Empire through the next decades. It might have been minority view but in her eyes tracing this history is important to show that their was and still is an alternative discourse on Empire.
To show its still present she quotes Gordon Brown from a few years back with the Liberal Imperialism view
Gary Younge: Cruel and usual
Gary Younge: The outrages at Camp Breadbasket are consistent with British colonial rule - brutal, oppressive and racist.
( I wonder if Brown would say this now. Reminds me of the triumphalism of New Labour back then that they had confidence to say this publicly. Now Brown is back this needs reminding of. )
Which as Gary Younge pointed out back then was said by Brown just before British army violence in Iraq came to light.
These myths in her eyes persist to this day.
The prevalent one is the liberal Imperialist variety. That this country abolished slavery, ended its Empire and whilst mistakes were made its benefits out weighed the negatives.
This kind of talk still slips in to public statements by politicians. and not just of the right,
Press Releases – The Labour Party
labour.org.uk
This from Starmer speech on the Labour party and patriotism. This did not happen in Malaysia for example.
In actual fact Labour government of the time hope to retain Malaysia ( until of course it was ready for self Government at some future point).
She quotes CLR James saying that colonised people never got any concession without a fight.
But still this post Imperial narrative is still mainstream.
The later parts of her work concentrate on lesser known individuals like George Padmore , Fenner Brockway and Cunard.
It does , I think helpfully for the present day, demonstrate how opposition cut across racial lines.
Cunard ( yes related to the shipping family) comes across as a fascinating forgotten character who opposed Imperialism. But did it in a way that meant the colonised had a voice.
Another thing that comes out of the book is that those who opposed Empire in later stages got an awful lot of stick.
Mau Mau rebellion was portrayed as just terrorism. Any who criticised the actions of British putting it down were considered beyond the pale.
Now its difficult to put oneself back into those times. As most people would say it was right for Empire to go.
One thing Starmer could learn from this is not to silence or expel the left of the party. Reading this history and it was the mavericks and left of party ( as well as those outside the Labour party) who for many years , as a minority, opposed Empire.
Fenner Brockway being an outstanding example. As well as Comrade Sak. Excerpt from her book here on him:
Remembering ‘Comrade Sak’
Shapurji Saklatvala, the first MP of colour elected on a Labour ticket, turned his parliamentary seat into a vehicle to fight both capitalism and imperialism.
www.tribunemag.co.uk
Interesting aspect of the book is Gopal looks at the non Gandhi opposition to Indian colonialism.
End of book she looks at nearer to present day. Does a critique of Liberal Multiculturalism. The "tolerant" majority accept minorities as long as they go along with "British values"
Using Said ( who I have not read) she argues for a history that encompasses the relationship between Britain and Empire. Which is all our history. A complex history. Not one that can be seen simplistically as we gave the world the rule of law and ideas of liberty. Made mistakes but gave our Empire away.
She , as a academic of literature, reads the texts she has read closely and traces the change from paternalistic opposition to Empire to seeing people in colonies as political actors in their own right. George Padmore/ CLR James did a lot to make this happen in later stages of Empire.
Reading her work and the importance of Padmore and James comes across.
Third way through another old classic Eric Williams Capitalism and Slavery now
Kind of think a lot of the recent debates about Empire aren't new.
Last edited:
