The Cambridge History of the British Empire. General Editors, J. Holland Rose, A. P. Newton, E. A. Benians. Vol. II: The Growth of the New Empire, 1783–1870. Cambridge: The University Press, 1940. Pp. xii, 1068. $10.50.

1941 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-233
Author(s):  
Howard Robinson
1993 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 313-319
Author(s):  
John A. Rowe

An 85-year-old villager named Erieza Kintu died at Kabubu in the county of Bulemezi, kingdom of Buganda, sometime in 1965. His passing was virtually unnoticed, except by relatives and a few neighbors. Through my research trips between 1962 and 1964 had on several occasions brought me to within a few miles of his house, I never met Kintu. Yet he is one of my best sources for the history of Buganda in the 1890s. Indeed, his memory of the so called “rebellion” by Kabaka Mwanga against the British in 1897 is the single best source I know, particularly valuable as an “insider” eyewitness participant. Even more importantly, unlike the earlier “official” histories of Mwanga's uprising, Kintu's view is from the point of the losers in the conflict—those who had resisted the new order of Christianity, private land tenure, and protectorate status within the British empire.As so often happens with the vanquished, their history was suppressed by the victors, who—through the control of schooling and the printing press— ensured that only their own version of the conflict would become history. Yet somehow, at the age of almost seventy years the non-literate Erieza Kintu managed to dictate his oral memoirs to the manager of the Baganda Cooperative Society Press, and the result was Sulutani Anatoloka, a printed pamphlet that went on sale in Kampala priced one shilling a copy. After a few days no doubt the small edition was sold out and disappeared from view. Fortunately, one copy wound up in the hands of a prominent anthropologist from the University of Chicago, Lloyd Fallers, who was director of the East African Institute of Social Research at Makerere University in the early 1950s. Years later, when Fallers returned to Chicago, he brought back the pamphlet and offered me a photocopy, which I translated from Luganda into English in 1964. At that time I knew nothing about the author, except what was printed in his memoir covering the years from 1892 to 1899, nor did I know the circumstances surrounding the publication, or even the date when it had been printed. So here was a mysterious, unique, and potentially invaluable historical source—if only one could investigate its provenance.


1977 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred D. Schneider

“Imperialism,” like “empire,” is a word with many connotations; briefly, it describes an attitude of mind to the possession and use of dependent territories by the metropolitan power and the effect of colonization on the society and polity of the colonized. Despite attempts to discover a common basis to imperialist thinking at all times in history, most historians perceive differences, both in degree and kind, between different empires and at various times in the history of a single empire. They approach their task either with a definition of “imperialism” or a theory about the phenomenon it is meant to describe, and are concerned primarily with the effects of policies rather than how and why they were made; or they ask why something happened when it did, in the way it did, and are concerned primarily with the making of policy and the motives of the policy-makers.Following the second approach, this paper explores one of the most crucial and continuous questions that imperial administrators had to resolve: the problem of self-government in colonies of European settlement, leading to the ultimate transfer of power; and by looking at the “University Question” in Upper Canada during the half-century after 1791, it examines how the perpetual adjustment that was “policy-making” actually happened. More specifically, in answering the question, “Who ran the British Empire?”, it is concerned not so much with the effects of Britain's control over subject peoples as with the method by which it exercised that control.


2006 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTHONY SWEETING ◽  
EDWARD VICKERS

Judith Brown, in her Epilogue to Volume IV of The Oxford History of the British Empire (OHBE), states that of the legacies of the British Empire, the ‘most significant of all is the legacy of the school and the university’, and in particular the role of English as an international language. Brown's acknowledgement of the importance of colonial education renders all the more striking the lack of attention given to this subject in the OHBE as a whole. For example, while Volume IV contains chapters on ‘Gender in the British Empire’, ‘Critics of Empire in Britain’, ‘The Popular Culture of Empire in Britain’, and ‘The British Empire and the Muslim World’, education receives barely two dozen references, buried in the text of other chapters. These offer glimpses into the development of literacy in parts of Africa, the expansion of state educational provision in Ceylon, and the concern of Nigeria's colonial authorities regarding the socially and politically destabilizing effects of the spread of Western education; but taken together they provide no overall analysis of colonial education policies, systems of schooling or curricula. Notwithstanding what some have criticised as its ultra-orthodox overall approach, with regard to this particular field the OHBE more-or-less accurately represents the current state of research. Despite a number of interesting forays on the periphery, the history of colonial education remains a vast and largely unexplored field of enquiry: the dark continent of imperial historiography.


1911 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Percy Ashley

A quarter of a century has now elapsed since the foundation of Toynbee Hall in the east of London inaugurated the “University Settlement” movement in the vast and then almost inchoate capital of the British Empire; and the present time seems therefore appropriate for an attempt to form some estimate of the past results and future possibilities of the movement, which soon spread to other towns of England and Scotland. Yet such an undertaking is beset with serious difficulties. Throughout the whole history of the settlements there is indeed apparent an essential identity of purpose, an underlying uniformity of motive; but the individual institutions have been the outcome of the action of various bodies of persons whose aims, as formally expressed, seem often very diverse; different groups have laid the main emphasis on different objects and methods, and what has been counted as triumphant success by one group has been deemed of relatively small importance by another. Further, the wide range of the activities of the settlements, the multifarious nature of their interests and work, render it practically impossible for any one observer to comprehend the whole in his single survey; and the selection which he must needs make tends almost inevitably to be determined, and it may be even unfairly biassed, by his own personal predilections. Within this narrower range, moreover, there is no certain standard by which to measure success or failure; the value of the work accomplished by a settlement is not to be judged solely, or even chiefly, by the statistics of its classes and clubs. If it has realized its objects, however imperfectly, it has exercised upon the surrounding community, in conjunction with all other institutions that in any way and by any means make for good, a subtle and permeating influence which has resulted in a progressive amelioration of social life; but, for the very reason that this achievement is the result of a number of co-operating forces, the share of the settlement therein cannot be isolated or defined with any exactitude.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document