For the most part, European imperialism, outside of notable exceptions, did in fact look like this. Bringing order and modern conveniences to previously chaotic parts of the world usually had a significant positive effect. The only way you can ignore this is by refusing to ask the question "What does the alternative look like?" which is what most modern retrospectives of colonialism do.
Delve into the British Colonial Office's archives. Vast stores of deep local knowledge and sociological statistics gathered by dedicated expatriates under very trying circumstances (the "mad dogs and Englishmen" of lore). Of course, afternoon gin and tonics eased the arduous task somewhat...
I do not understand why so much of the Right continues to attempt to relitigate the Second World War. A fair portrayal of World War 1, and particularly the unfair treaties at its conclusion would be far more effective at providing balance to the historical record. The Weimar era might not have been nearly as disastrous if not for the loss of German colonies and the unreasonable demands of the French President Georges Clemenceau. Unlike the atrocities of World War II, closer investigation does not reveal any compelling moral justification for the dismemberment of Kaiser Wilhelm's empire.
One can have measured and even slightly positive opinion on German colonialism, overall. As for Herrero campaign specifically, arguments presented against it being genocide are weak. So, "order was rescinded" (on paper) and "intertribal warfare was also very cruel"? Both claims may be true- and yet, driving large numbers of Herrero non combatants into desert and denying them access to food and water, resulting in large casualties, is in my opinion, genocide and very reprehensible deed.
The review of Bruce Gilley’s In Defense of German Colonialism foregrounds the less discussed aspects of German colonial administration—most important among them, its solid infrastructure, administrative reforms, and stated commitment to anti-slavery. These points are valid. The German Empire was not all bad; this should be acknowledged, but typically is not.
To its credit, the review does not present a caricature. It avoids triumphalism and makes no claim that German rule was ideal. It also notes the brutality of the Herero and Nama War and concedes that colonialism was coercive.
Where the review falters most is in its silences. It does not mention the Maji Maji Rebellion, for example. This was an event of importance in the history of German East Africa. Death toll estimates reach up to 300,000. But such cruelties do not emerge in a vacuum.
A review should do more than restate an author’s thesis; it should place that thesis within its appropriate historical and historiographical context. This review, while composed and sincere, misses that mark. It seems to have been written by someone who has read exactly one work on this issue: Gilley's. That is not enough.
The comments here show a moral tone that might be ignored: they think that European colonialists brought good things to their subjects. That view seems detached from reality if it requires overlooking mass murder and the goals of empire. Gilley supposedly claims that the goal was the installation of liberal governance in Africa. If he or the readers really believe that this was what empires wanted to do, I do not know what to say other than: read more history. And: you need more experience of the world. Then you can judge again.
I don’t know if Africa was better before Germany. I doubt it. But I do not know much. And: not a lot is known about African society before these events. Anthropology barely existed. That is a large gap that will never be filled. What we can say is that African governance post departure has largely been a disaster. That does not make German rule good or an appropriate object to be defended.
Sean, please read the book (or my review where I discuss Gilley's treatment of the Herrero Genocide.) You will see that Gilley does not ignore the negatives of German colonialism but provides context that has been largely omitted in a moralistic approach to colonialism.
A courteous reply. I did read Gilley's first book. I thought his case was cherry-picked. Provocative, which is fine, but basically intended to provoke, not to shed light, not delve deeply into scholarship on this very important issue. Reading another volume of his seems unlikely to pay off.
Therefore I did not. I criticized your review. I repeatedly stated that.
"The review does not present a caricature."
"Where the review falters most is in its silences."
"A review should do more than restate an author’s thesis; it should place that thesis within its appropriate historical and historiographical context."
Where I mentioned Gilley, I distanced myself: "Gilley supposedly claims that the goal was the installation of liberal governance in Africa."
If your review is accurate, the critique stands. If it is not, well, that is on you. Is you review accurate in that respect?
For the most part, European imperialism, outside of notable exceptions, did in fact look like this. Bringing order and modern conveniences to previously chaotic parts of the world usually had a significant positive effect. The only way you can ignore this is by refusing to ask the question "What does the alternative look like?" which is what most modern retrospectives of colonialism do.
Delve into the British Colonial Office's archives. Vast stores of deep local knowledge and sociological statistics gathered by dedicated expatriates under very trying circumstances (the "mad dogs and Englishmen" of lore). Of course, afternoon gin and tonics eased the arduous task somewhat...
I do not understand why so much of the Right continues to attempt to relitigate the Second World War. A fair portrayal of World War 1, and particularly the unfair treaties at its conclusion would be far more effective at providing balance to the historical record. The Weimar era might not have been nearly as disastrous if not for the loss of German colonies and the unreasonable demands of the French President Georges Clemenceau. Unlike the atrocities of World War II, closer investigation does not reveal any compelling moral justification for the dismemberment of Kaiser Wilhelm's empire.
One can have measured and even slightly positive opinion on German colonialism, overall. As for Herrero campaign specifically, arguments presented against it being genocide are weak. So, "order was rescinded" (on paper) and "intertribal warfare was also very cruel"? Both claims may be true- and yet, driving large numbers of Herrero non combatants into desert and denying them access to food and water, resulting in large casualties, is in my opinion, genocide and very reprehensible deed.
This is a great review of an engaging book. Gilley's arguments are backed by encyclopedic information
Here is my humble review of the book - https://petersbradley.substack.com/p/history-matters-two-cheers-for-german
Thanks. I looked at your review and posted it on twitter
the competition is remakably straightforward - there are scholars like Bruce Gilley and on the other hand, brain dead ideologues.
The review of Bruce Gilley’s In Defense of German Colonialism foregrounds the less discussed aspects of German colonial administration—most important among them, its solid infrastructure, administrative reforms, and stated commitment to anti-slavery. These points are valid. The German Empire was not all bad; this should be acknowledged, but typically is not.
To its credit, the review does not present a caricature. It avoids triumphalism and makes no claim that German rule was ideal. It also notes the brutality of the Herero and Nama War and concedes that colonialism was coercive.
Where the review falters most is in its silences. It does not mention the Maji Maji Rebellion, for example. This was an event of importance in the history of German East Africa. Death toll estimates reach up to 300,000. But such cruelties do not emerge in a vacuum.
A review should do more than restate an author’s thesis; it should place that thesis within its appropriate historical and historiographical context. This review, while composed and sincere, misses that mark. It seems to have been written by someone who has read exactly one work on this issue: Gilley's. That is not enough.
The comments here show a moral tone that might be ignored: they think that European colonialists brought good things to their subjects. That view seems detached from reality if it requires overlooking mass murder and the goals of empire. Gilley supposedly claims that the goal was the installation of liberal governance in Africa. If he or the readers really believe that this was what empires wanted to do, I do not know what to say other than: read more history. And: you need more experience of the world. Then you can judge again.
I don’t know if Africa was better before Germany. I doubt it. But I do not know much. And: not a lot is known about African society before these events. Anthropology barely existed. That is a large gap that will never be filled. What we can say is that African governance post departure has largely been a disaster. That does not make German rule good or an appropriate object to be defended.
Sean, please read the book (or my review where I discuss Gilley's treatment of the Herrero Genocide.) You will see that Gilley does not ignore the negatives of German colonialism but provides context that has been largely omitted in a moralistic approach to colonialism.
A courteous reply. I did read Gilley's first book. I thought his case was cherry-picked. Provocative, which is fine, but basically intended to provoke, not to shed light, not delve deeply into scholarship on this very important issue. Reading another volume of his seems unlikely to pay off.
A courteous response: I didn't read the first book, but it doesn't seem kosher to critique a book you haven't read.
Therefore I did not. I criticized your review. I repeatedly stated that.
"The review does not present a caricature."
"Where the review falters most is in its silences."
"A review should do more than restate an author’s thesis; it should place that thesis within its appropriate historical and historiographical context."
Where I mentioned Gilley, I distanced myself: "Gilley supposedly claims that the goal was the installation of liberal governance in Africa."
If your review is accurate, the critique stands. If it is not, well, that is on you. Is you review accurate in that respect?
An email I would like to email your question
lo_matthews@yahoo.com