T.The British Empire was an anti-democratic and poorly governed institution that created some of the world’s worst geopolitical flashpoints. Steeped in public school snobs, there was little unifying ideology.
“Much of the world’s instability is the product of a legacy of individualism and haphazard policymaking,” Kwasi Kwarteng said in a book published months after being elected to Spelthorn’s parliament in 2010. It concludes with Ghosts of Empire: British’s Legacies in the Modern World. Although he claimed to be avoiding “sterile debates” about “whether empires are good or bad,” the book’s conclusions are quietly and resolutely critical.
While there is no controversy in his claims and his story lacks the fury of Satnam Sangela’s Empireland, it is surprising that Conservative MPs reject Neil Ferguson’s claims. The book was still considered controversial by some critics at the time of its publication simply because. Then the recent Booster Revisionists went up against Empire.
Ghosts of Empire has received less scrutiny than Kwarteng’s subsequent publication, Britannia Unchained. It was co-written by Kwarteng with her Liz Truss, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab and other fellow MPs. But now that he is widely expected to be named prime minister within days, the business secretary’s past catalog is being scrutinized for insight into his political worldview.
The Conservative Party’s culture war against Empire continues to rage on. Kwarteng’s rejection of imperial nostalgia is hardly notable, but it makes him an outlier among the senior Tories. “It may be a blot, but it is not a blot on our conscience,” he wrote, adding: I’m in charge now. “
Michael Gove said that too much history education is informed by post-colonial guilt, and that these sentiments are repeated by new ministers. It was a force for the sake of the world,” he said, pointing to “administration, civil servants, infrastructure, ports, railways and roads.” Kemi Badenok said that while “bad things” happened under the empire, there were also “good things” and that “both sides of the story must be told.” agreed that the benefit should be taught, and argued that:
In his book, Kwarteng rejects any attempt to portray the British Empire as an enlightened liberal force promoting democracy around the world. “Rather than being the pioneers of liberal pluralism, the servants of the empire were naturally accustomed to the idea of human inequality, to the concept of hierarchy and status.”
What else does the book reveal about Kwarten? As the new prime minister’s closest colleague, how will this perspective help shape the thinking of the new government?
First, he knows the subject very well. It is sad that this is worth noting, but the accepted ignorance of civil servants and politicians about Britain’s colonial past led the Home Office to devise educational modules to instruct officials. It is important to be in the midst of an imperial legacy.
Embracing a set of recommendations designed to ensure her department avoids a repeat of the Windrush scandal, Patel launches mandatory training sessions on race, empire and colonialism for all staff. I promised to The official recognition that the ignorance of politicians and officials on the issue has led to some of the scandals in which thousands of people who migrated to Britain from former colonies were wrongly classified as being in the country illegally. was.
Perhaps Kwarteng is so ready to confront the empire’s failure that he will become unsympathetic to the patriotism of his fellow cheerleaders.The British Empire relied on a racist ideology to function. rice field. “
Kwarteng’s book details six regions: Iraq, Kashmir, Burma, Sudan, Nigeria, and Hong Kong, where catastrophic mistakes by British colonial administrators left much of the world dangerously unstable. I’m investigating how it continues to be. He describes how the establishment of a puppet Hashemite dynasty in Iraq was a disaster, and how the British settlers’ rash decision to install a Hindu maharajah to rule Muslim-majority Kashmir had dire consequences. explains what brought about
He is particularly interested in analyzing the founding roots of the administrators (we wonder which prep school, public school, Oxbridge College the colonists attended, whether they were into cricket or the Eton Five). You will learn a lot about what was going on).
His chapter on Sudan reveals that of the 56 senior administrators recruited between 1902 and 1914, 27 were from Oxford or Cambridge. They played polo in Darfur, threw lavish balls in Khartoum, and their chaotic administrative decisions had dire consequences.
I hope his knowledge of the fallout from mistakes made by colonial administrators may give him another perspective on Britain’s responsibility to those crossing the Channel to seek asylum in Britain. I’m here.
According to Care4Calais, Calais currently has 1,000 people from Sudan and South Sudan wanting to travel to the UK. The majority of them do not have the money to pay smugglers for the location of their small boats across the Channel and spend more time trying to smuggle into their trucks. Will he be more thoughtful about the wisdom of exposing to and threatening to send people seeking asylum here to a refugee center in Rwanda?
The book is well written and full of memorable details. It turns out that Lord Kitchener’s queer father disliked bed linen, so he forced his family to use newspapers instead of blankets.
We know that General Charles Gordon, delighted to be assigned to Sudan, declared before his departure: If Kwarteng’s budget is written in a similarly lively style, it would be a source of some happiness for the lobby correspondent.
Kwarteng (educated at Eton, Oxford, and Harvard, and born to Ghanaian parents) offers a cutting analysis of the hierarchies and snobbies that shaped empires, and gave Queen Victoria a Christmas card and an albinism. detailing the rank of Indian princes authorized to send tiger skins to Hong Kong and setting a table of priorities in Hong Kong’s colonial administration, with prison wardens ranking seven points below railway administrators It became clear.
He divides the administrators into CADs and Bounders and trusted, unobtrusive and unobtrusive operators. His colleagues should assume he monitors contemporary echoes of bureaucratic absurdity and keeps them for his memoirs.
His most acute criticism of empire is the “anarchic individualism” that runs through it. “Relying on individual administrators to think and implement policy, with little strategic direction from London, has led to contradictory and self-defeating policies that have wreaked havoc on millions,” he said. is writing There are moments when I wonder if the criticism of the incoherent and haphazard way in which Britain’s imperial rule has been imposed applies equally to the Conservative Party’s much-reorganized rule of Britain over the past decade.
Comments
Post a Comment