Fiji: Trade & Colonialism

Hello again dear readers! After a few days on holiday, we are back with the ABC of World History. Today I take you yet to another set of islands in the southern hemisphere: Fiji. I really wanted to bring more attention overall to the area of Oceania as part of this tour of the world moving away from eurocentrism and acknowledging the colonialist issues caused by many European powers throughout history which are in large still palpable today. So, Fiji sort of helped kill 2 birds with one stone. I don’t have enough time or space her today to tell you a lot about the history of this wonderful place, but I hope this will inspire more people to do research regarding these parts of the world as there are not a lot of accessible works out there in English for the public to read.

Quickly and for context: Fiji is in the south Pacific and the archipelago itself has 330 islands and 500 islets. Fiji used to be part of the British Empire and was a colony until 1970 when it gained its independence. But today we will be talking about the changes that happen to Fiji once proper contact with the Western powers is established in the 19th century and why this happened.

‘They Came for Sandalwood’: Western Trade & Fiji

Fiji was first visited in the 17th century by the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman. However, it wasn’t until 1804 that the first proper maintained contact between westerners and Fijians took place. The first people that showed a interest in the lands of Fiji were traders, and they went there for a very precious resource in ever growing demand: sandalwood.

Sandalwood is one of the worlds most expensive types of wood. It is yellowy, has a fine grain and it is an aromatic wood. Even amongst aromatic woods, sandalwood is particularly prominent as its smell can keep for years on end. This fragrance has been valued for centuries, and it was often consumed in the shape of sandalwood oil extract. The type of sandalwood that grows in Fiji is called Santalum Sayi which also appears in Tonga, and the oil extract is often for fragrances and cosmetics. Another cultural aspect to consider about sandalwood overall is that it plays an integral for Hinduism and Jainism practices and considering that part of Fiji’s population comes from the Indian subcontinent, I am sure you can all see why traders would want a piece of Fiji.

Continue reading “Fiji: Trade & Colonialism”

Don’t Mention the Empire!

 

The British Empire holds a strange place in the UK’s national memory; many young people have little knowledge of it while many older people remember it fondly, with 65% of over 65s in a YouGov poll saying the Empire was something to be proud of in 2014.[1] Considering that the British Empire lasted for 500 years, it is rarely talked about, usually only brought up when talking about immigration or invoked as a nostalgic tool to invoke ‘Britannia’ in relation to issues such as Brexit.[2] Actual detail is rarely mentioned, it’s rarely covered in film or TV despite the UK’s love of period drama and the teaching of it in schools is minor, if existent at all.

I was never taught about the British Empire in school. I was never even taught about the slave trade, except for brief mentions during Black History Month – and then only the USA’s role was mentioned. I know some people a little younger than me at least were taught about the slave trade and going back to my parents’ school days of the 1960s and 1970s, the slave trade was mentioned. The British Empire overall though was barely touched upon. While teaching of the British Empire has reportedly been improved upon in recent years, it is still patchy due to a focus on certain aspects or periods of the Empire.

The problem with teaching about the British Empire is that it isn’t easy and it doesn’t make Britain look good. Take the teaching of World War Two in Britain – the Nazis were clearly evil and we fought against them, so we’re the good guys! Great detail is gone into on the Nazi atrocities, quite rightly. However any evil done by the British is glossed over to preserve the dichotomy. No talk of handing over Czechoslovakia to Hitler prior to the war; or the bombing of German civilians; or the British government doing nothing to help victims of Nazi persecution (the famous Kindertransport children were only allowed to enter the country if a non-governmental organisation found them a place to stay and a £50 bond per child was paid); the internment of those who came from countries who were part of the Axis Powers; and the blind eye turned to the rape of women and children, committed by Allied troops, by the Allied leadership to name a few. Acknowledging the atrocities committed by the Allies does not make the Nazis look at any better, nor does it mean disrespecting those who died – they were not the government. Acknowledging these atrocities does however damage the myth of a heroic Britain, of a past we should be proud of. That is exactly why the British Empire is such a touchy subject.

Exact numbers of those who died at the hands of the British Empire will never be known, and no estimation will ever be agreed on but let’s take a look at a couple of generally accepted figures. 3.1 million Africans were transported by the British to its colonies and other countries.[3] 1 million (at least) died in the Irish Potato Famine, while the British government exported food from Ireland and British landlords evicted families.[4] 4.3 million died in the Southern India famine of 1876–78, while the British government exported food from India and refused to provide any charity, instead forcing the starving to work for rations that were not enough to sustain them.[5] At least 28,000 Boer women and children and 20,000 Black people died in one of the earliest examples of concentration camps, created by the British Army during the Second Boer War.[6] These uncomplicated figures are enough to cause horror for any person with something resembling a moral compass. These are indefensible. These were civilians; the excuse of ‘they were attacking us’ just simply doesn’t count for these examples.

Now there are people who claim that the British Empire was a force for good, a highly controversial claim among many historians, but the major problem with the lack of education or thorough discussion of the Empire outside academic circles means that these claims are fed uncritically to the public almost always via newspapers and politicians who are using this argument for their own political means. For example, if we refer back to the atrocities above, the Daily Mail in one article claimed that during the British Empire ‘the occasional massacre was undoubtedly carried out’ but we played a role in ending the slave trade and ‘successfully exported’ democracy to countries that were colonies.[7] This of course shows a rather dismissive attitude to the deaths of millions and conveniently leaves out the British role in beginning the slave trade. This is not exactly unsurprising when you consider even Wikipedia refuses to use the Daily Mail as a source; that such an article makes no attempt to even vaguely consider history properly. It is also understandable in some respects why newspapers like the Daily Mail aggressively pursue such a position; they do not exist to teach history – or even tell the truth – they are there to push a particular opinion onto readers in the hope that readers will support their political aims at the ballot box to financially support their owners. This, of course, is not confined to just right-wing newspapers but to newspapers in general.

The problem is that when many peoples’ knowledge comes from journalists set on achieving political goals the actual debate and evidence of the Empire is not present. While historians cannot escape ideology completely, at least there is some kind of attempt at being critical of their perspectives and examining evidence. If an argument is to be made that the British Empire was ‘good’ then it should be put forward properly evidenced with historical rigour, with an actual chance of experts being able to debate the argument for its historical accuracy rather than political value. This is why it is so important that the British Empire is actually taught in schools so students have a chance to critically engage with the history rather than be fed carefully condensed politicised propaganda. An evidenced debate in schools has been favoured by school leaders and historians over a curriculum based on fostering patriotism.[8] This approach has also been favoured by students themselves.[9]

The lack of knowledge about the British Empire is particularly problematic because of how much of an impact it is having today. The British Empire created Apartheid in South Africa, and continued to resist imposing sanctions on the government till the end. Claims of violence between black and white South Africans has recently been the subject of interest amongst Trump supporters. The British Empire played a large part in the beginnings of the Israel-Palestine conflict, perhaps the most controversial conflict in modern history. After pitting Hindus and Muslims against each other for the British Empire’s own gain, the rushed partition of India helped cause the bloody legacy of the events of the partition that still plagues the relationship between India and Pakistan today. Intervention in Afghanistan began with the British Empire and the volatile state of the country can be linked back to British installed puppet governments. Proper understanding of these current events cannot be achieved without the knowledge of what past events caused them, and in so many cases the British Empire played some part.

It is even still having an impact on government policy as seen with the recent Windrush scandal with those who came to Britain and their descendants from former colonies in the Caribbean being threatened with deportation. The disregard for these people who spent their early lives under colonial control and then came to rebuild the UK due to lack of work available in their own countries because of colonial policy, all while having to cope with racism and poverty when they came to Britain. The recent scandal led to many of these people facing racism and poverty all over again; with many arguing that such behaviour would have never happened to white immigrants and that the decision to destroy records was racially charged. Whether such assertions are true or not, there is certainly an issue that being former colonial subjects that their history was not considered as important as white Britons.

Despite such claims that the British Empire was a good thing, even from politicians in government, there is a strong suggestion that perhaps the British government aren’t quite as proud about it as they claim. In 2011 a group of elderly Kenyans won the right to sue the British government for the torture they allege they suffered in the Mau Mau rebellion against the Empire. As a result of this an official review of colonial government papers, which unlike most government papers had not been passed onto the National Archives, was undertaken. The review found that they had been purposefully hidden, and that also thousands had been disposed of with the expressed intention by the secretary of state for the colonies so that any records that “might embarrass Her Majesty’s government” should be destroyed.[10]

 

[1] https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/26/britain-proud-its-empire/

[2] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/dont-mistake-nostalgia-about-british-empire-scholarship

[3] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/slavery/pdf/britain-and-the-trade.pdf

[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml

[5] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S2EXN8JTwAEC&pg=PA132&dq=famine+british+empire+india&as_brr=3&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=famine%20british%20empire%20india&f=false

[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/boer_wars_01.shtml

[7] https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20180412/281861529084026

[8] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/british-empire-students-should-be-taught-colonialism-not-all-good-say-historians-a6828266.html

[9] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413714/History_for_all.pdf

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes?newsfeed=true

 

The Kite Runner- Using Literature as a source for recent times

The post will look at the historical significance in Khaled Hosseini’s 2003 bestselling novel, The Kite Runner. The novel is a coming of age story focusing on Amir born into a Pashtun family in Afghanistan. Recently, as of Monday 10th July I went to watch the stage adaptation of it with another blogger- lauraljpotter. This got me thinking as there is plenty to right about. Particularly, life in Afghanistan during the 1970s, during the Soviet occupation and the Taliban occupation. I also touch upon Afghans who immigrated to the United States of America during the late 1970s and 1980s, mainly commenting on the accounts in the novel. For starters, I will explain the basic premise of the story and provide a general historical account of the country. Minor spoilers of the plot will be announced to emphasise the historical value of this time period.

The story starts in the mid-seventies focusing on Amir’s friendship with Hassan, who is the son of the family servant and the strained relationship Amir has with his father Baba. The themes Hosseini highlights are the following; friendship, identity, love and redemption, spanning across time from Afghanistan in the mid-seventies towards California in 2001. The modern state of Afghanistan was founded in 1747 by Ahmad Shah Duran but long before this happened the area was conquered numerous times. The earliest account we know was in 330BC, when Alexander the Great conquered it. In the 700s AD, Arab armies invaded the area and the inhabitants of the area converted to Islam. Later in 1218, Genghis Khan’s army penetrated the area. This is interesting to note as it explains the ethnic mix of people that live in Afghanistan and this is still visible today, this will be explained in more thorough detail further on. Conflict did not end there as in the mid-1800s Britain and Russia clashed in order to gain control of Central Asia. There was a power vacuum in Central Asia due to the declining Ottoman Empire, Qajar dynasty and Qing dynasty in the region. This was called “The Great Game” as Britain and Russia vied to occupy these territories. Eventually “The Great Game” led to the First Anglo-Afghan War. By the end of the 1800s, Afghanistan was unwilling to allow British presence in the region and refused a mission to be set up in Kabul. This resulted in the Second Afghan War. At the time Britain acquired an empire that stretched all around the globe, it was coined as “the empire, where the sun never sets”. Before the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, Pakistan was still a part of India and in 1893, the British established an unofficial border to separate Afghanistan and British India. A third war ensued between the Afghans and the British. In 1919 the Third-Anglo War concluded. To summarise, what this short piece does is provide a background account to the complex history of Afghanistan up until when the story starts.

Now we will focus on the country of Afghanistan in the sixties until the seventies. It was a different place to what it became in the early noughties. It was a relatively safe and stable country since 1933 when Zahir Shah quelled unrest by becoming king. Before Zahir Shah, since after the Anglo-Afghan Wars there was always a power struggle in order to establish a long lasting dynasty in Afghanistan. In the twentieth century Emir Amanullah tried to rule and incorporate western influences in Afghanistan, but civil unrest in the country ousted him out. However, from what the background account tells us, this proved to happen throughout the course of history. In particular for those who had money and prominence, life in Afghanistan was very good, full of lavish hill top homes and festivities. Life was full of excitement and opportunities were abundant. This was looked at in Hosseini’s novel. Notably, Baba and Amir’s comfortable home, Amir’s schooling, Amir’s birthday celebrations and the Kite flying competition. This reveals that Amir had a stable and comfortable home life. Expanding on this western travellers often ventured through Afghanistan as a pit stop before moving on to India. This particular route was known as the “hippie trail”.

However, that air of stability soon collapsed when in 1973 King Zahir Shah was overthrown by his cousin. Two ideologies developed during this time in wanting to prevent gradual western ideals that occurred in the royal Afghan court. One ideology supported communism and the Soviets. This group was called the People’s Democratic of Afghanistan. Another ideology advocated for a return of religious values in society. It was the PDPA that ended up being more successful first in 1978, within a year the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, plunging Afghanistan into the Cold War as a potential satellite state. They did this to strength the communist ideology of the PDPA in Afghanistan as well as extending their on sphere of influence in Central Asia. However, war ensured as not everyone was happy with the Soviet invasion, in “The Kite Runner”, Babi, Amir’s father did not want the Soviets to take control of Afghanistan. Using Babi as an example, many affluent families in Afghanistan and those who held close ties to royalty were suspected to be reactionaries and many of them like Babi and Amir had to flee to neighbouring Pakistan and as a result became refugees and wait admitted asylum. It was from there that many families moved on to the United States of America, like what Babi and Amir did. Babi and Amir like many Afghans settled in Fremont, California. A majority of Afghans who fled Afghanistan settled in the San Francisco Bay area of California like Fresno, Los Angeles, Virginia and other major areas like Illinois, Florida and Washington. Many Afghan migrants worked in unskilled professions or in the public sector. Some Afghan professions mentioned in “The Kite Runner” were traders, teachers, policeman and gas station attendants. Life was not always easy for any particular new arrivals to the USA but what Hosseini does draw attention to is the fact that it was perhaps easier for some to assimilate into the new American culture, whereas for others it was more difficult. This was looked at in the form of father and son, Babi and Amir. Babi struggled seeing as he had established himself in Afghanistan it was bound to be difficult to pack up and start again, particularly as he was living in a comfortable hill top home in Afghanistan. In Fremont he was living in an apartment block. For Amir, you could argue that it helped him pursue his dreams of becoming a writer as he improved his English, went to college to major in Creative Writing and found love and married Soraya. In essence embracing his new opportunities and attempting to pursue the “American Dream”.

The Soviets tried their best to capture all of Afghanistan, but this did not happen, they found it difficult to penetrate the countryside and this remained relatively untouched. The Soviets eventually realised that they couldn’t continue funding a conquest they knew they could never win. The geography of Afghanistan is testing as it is a heavily mountainous land-locked country. Again, more civil unrest ensued and much of the country was being taken over by mujahedin groups. The capital, Kabul managed to quell this for three years as Najibullah, an ally from Moscow was able to control the area. Eventually, Kabul fell and Najibullah lost control. Even still these rival mujahedin only managed to control the city until 1996, when they were ousted by much younger jihadis. They were known as the Taliban and controlled everyday life in Afghan society from there on in, including the vibrant capital Kabul. Kabul changed drastically under this leadership. Kabul was once a place where men and women could sit in university together and women weren’t told what to wear. This all changed when the Taliban took control and implemented a strict regime on Afghanistan.

In more recent time, in the noughties Afghanistan garnished much negative connotations and further turmoil. Most notably, the War on Terror, Afghanistan was used as a testing ground by British and American forces. After the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre all attention went on combating Al Qaeda, the Terrorist group responsible for the heinous act and capturing their ringleader, Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban were told in “The Kite Runner” in the form of one character the antagonist, Assef who frequently tormented Amir and Hassan. He constantly made fun out of Hassan’s ethnicity of being a Hazara. Some people like Assef did not like the Hazara people as they held a belief that they were not true Afghans and how they polluted the country. This was ironic in the story as Assef himself had a Pashtun father and a German mother. Many Hazara people as a result faced widespread discrimination in everyday life. This is something that many Hazara people face even today. Harking back to what I mentioned earlier, there were two different ethnic groups mentioned in the story, one were the Pashtuns and the other group was the Hazaras. The Hazaras were said to be descended from inner Asia and more specifically around Mongolia. This makes sense considering how many times different armies came to conquer and/or settle in Afghanistan. However, this theory is not entirely confirmed and we do not know for sure where they actually descended from.

Afghanistan faced much hardship over the years and history seemingly starting to repeat itself in the form of occupation, then reoccupation, then occupation, then reoccupation an endless cycle it seems over the centuries and something that still lays bare in Afghanistan today; whether that be when Alexander the Great first captured the land or as early in 2009 when Obama increased the number of American troops to arrive in Afghanistan.

The Darien Scheme

When you mention the phrase ‘trade with India’ in a historical sense, people automatically think of the British East India Trading Company that dominated English international affairs, trade and politics from the 31st December 1600, yet few would know that this was not the only attempt to trade with the India, the Caribbean or the Americas on the British Isles. Despite being joined under the crown by James I in 1603, upon the death of the last Tudor Elizabeth I, English and Scottish trade and political links were most definitely separate entities that operated within virtually the same sphere of ideology. This was exasperated by many European countries seeking trade from India and the Americas within years of each other. Scotland in the seventeenth century had struggled with famine and continued endurance of continental warfare that had crippled the trade links that were already established. Scotland was not capable of protecting itself against English legislation which was increasingly bringing the Scots under the rule of an English Parliament. The Scottish economic bands were diminishing and Scotland needed to find a quick route back to prosperity. Thus, in the 1690s, the Darien Scheme was born. The founding father of this scheme was a Scottish financial master called William Paterson who had spent several years south in England formulating what would become the formidable Bank of England. Paterson had spent time learning about the East India Trading Company and decided to take a new venture up to Scotland in order to garner trade links across the Pacific Ocean. The basis of the idea allegedly came from Paterson having a conversation with the sailor Lionel Wafer who told tales of paradise populated by friendly Indians in the fertile land of Darien.

Trade was incredibly lucrative in the seventeenth century for those who was capable of exploiting it successfully, and naturally the thought of Darien stuck in the mind of Paterson. It was however enormously expensive. The merchant ships had to travel a hazardous route below the southernmost tip of South America to reach most of the Pacific markets. The trip took months and there was a high risk of shipwreck or becoming at the mercy of piratical theft. Paterson had the forethought to plan for goods to be carried across Panama from the Pacific harbours to Darien which was situated on the east side next to the Atlantic. This meant there was a virtually unimpeded sea route from Scotland to the Americas. Therefore speeding up Pacific trade and making it instantly more accessible. Economically Scotland would gain huge profits. There was a minor problem. The area that Paterson wished to gain control over to create these trade links was owned by Spain, who were going to prove very problematic for the Scots.

When Paterson took his idea back to Scotland it was very popular and in 1965 the Company of Scotland Trade to Africa and India was established. However, the move was distrusted and disliked by both Spain and England who thought the Scots were going to overtake their monopoly on British trade to the Indies. The English investors into the company were forced to withdraw after the English Parliament threatened Scotland with impeachment. The threat did not prevent Paterson and the company from continuing their venture and they appealed to the Scottish people to help. Thousands subscribed and within six months approximately £400,000 was raised, which was used to fit out five ships even with the English attempting to block progress in every corner. Ambassadors were flocking to attempt to embargo any merchants who dared to trade with the new company.

The sailor had given the company an unrealistic vision of what to expect as they thought they were going to be greeted by people living in luxury. The first expedition set out in 1698 with a band of army veterans in order to establish a colony and to govern until a Darien Parliament could be established. The idea was to create a colony on the Isthmus of Panama and launch a prosperous gateway between the Atlantic and the Pacific traders. By the time the first five ships set sail Paterson was no longer involved due to being culpable for a subordinates embezzlement of the company, he was expelled from the Directors Board and away from the project. Most of the company consisted of those who would little chance of employment elsewhere and some had notorious backgrounds – involvement in the Glencoe Massacre is one particular example – that would’ve hindered their later life. On the whole approximately 1200 people set off from Leith in July 1698 and sailed East to avoid being observed by English warships. They landed in Darien on the 2nd November 1698 after short supply stops in Madeira and the West Indies.

The colony was quickly founded and named ‘Caledonia’ under the leadership of Thomas Drummond. The founders quickly formed their harbour in Caledonia Bay and built Fort St Andrew and a watch house. Several hiccups occurred in quick succession such as tides that threatened a ship if it tried to leave the bay and also the fact they had built in the heart of the Spanish landed colonies that traded silver. Caledonia eventually formed into becoming ‘New Edinburgh’ as settlement huts expanded the village and farming land was cultivated for the growth of maize. This seemed to be an auspicious start for the colonists but the founders did not fare well with those that already occupied the land. The local Indians refused to trade with the Scottish and those that docked in Caledonia bay did not express interest in their wares. Illness also spread with malaria producing a death toll of at least ten settlers a day. Some local Indians attempted contact by offering fruit but these were mainly commandeered by the leaders who kept mostly to their ship cabins. The only luck that occurred was a proficiency at turtle hunting.

Many analysts of the Darien scheme believe that had the English supported the colony, the settlers would have prospered and grown fairly rapidly. However, the English and the Dutch had expressly forbidden their merchants to supply the Scots, for fear of angering the Spanish, which meant after eight months the colony was abandoned. With most their people dead from dysentery and infested food only three hundred people survived long enough to sail to Port Royal in Jamaica. As the former settlers were deemed a disgrace to those at home they sailed north to New York to attempt a new life in the then small town.

As much a failure the first expedition was this did not prevent the Scottish from reattempting their scheme in 1699. The second flagship arrived in Darien in November 1699 and found the burnt embers and mass graves of the first settlement. Morale was low since it was expected that these people who join a busy town not be responsible for building a new one. This new settlement started a turf war with the Spanish and it did not gain any headway until the arrival of Alexander Campbell of Fonab. He organised a strong defence and took to forcing the Spanish back. As with all wars illness was rife which led to legions of death from both the Scottish and Spanish armies. Spain was able to regroup and forced a siege upon Fort St Andrew that lasted a month. Eventually in January 1700 the Scottish colonies were deserted for the last time. Few went home to Scotland, most sought a new life in the established colonies in North America. Of the approximate 2500 settlers that left Scotland, a mere couple of hundred survived to go elsewhere.

The failure of such a promising scheme led to a further morale loss in the Scottish heartlands who had lost a significant amount of their workforce. Many of the contemporary people placed the blame upon the English which led to an assault on an East India Company merchant ship and the hanging of the captain. Historians still debate today as to why the Darien Scheme failed so disastrously. One thing is certain, the failure of Darien Scheme was, and is, cited as a motivation to codify the 1701 Act of Union between English and Scotland. Due to many of the Scottish landowners having lost money through the scheme the English bailed out the Scottish economy in return for an offset future liability to help contribute to reducing the English national debt. This scheme still survives as an oral tale amongst the Kuna Indians who were the only people to settle peacefully in the region.

Burke or De Condorcet, who was the true king of Universalism?

Two men from very different backgrounds, with very different ideas on implementing their ideas, but with the same common core: universalism.

Edmund Burke

In one corner you have Edmund Burke, the Irish Whig politician, whom Sarah Palin (though not always the best backer, as seen through her Trump backing) once praised as one of the greatest conservatives, and who was involved within British politics.

Image of Sarah Palin

In the other corner you have one of France’s finest philosophers Nicolas de Condorcet, whom was a radical liberal, thoroughly behind the French Revolution, and the American one.

De Condorcet

Two people with different backgrounds, yet they agree on one thing: for universalism to be implemented within the British and French colonies across the globe. For Burke, he saw first hand how British rule was being changed in India by various different people to be harsh on the indigenous people. De Condorcet felt that the British had in the past been too unfair on their colonies, and wanted a change overall. Both wanted this change, but both wanted it in different ways. So who then is the true king of universalism?

Universalism of course is a modern-day term that would not have been used by both Burke and De Condorcet, but their work hints to what would be modern-day universalism. Burke by many historians is dubbed as the King of Universalism, that it was his views which helped pave the way towards it being a reality. As a politician, he saw the ugly side of the British Empire, whilst working in India.

Flag of the East India Company

The East India Trading Company carried the flag of the British Empire, not only showing the glory of the mass trade links that they had, but sadly highlighting the corruption that can come within an Imperial Empire. Warren Hasting’s in particular was a problem, taking the law into his own hands whilst in Bengal, and Burke knew that change was needed. The people within the colonies needed equal rights to the colonisers, they needed to be able to keep their cultural beliefs and religions but also be taught the British way. Rather than completely overthrow the British system, as had been done in France and America, Burke wanted slight changes carried out which would positively portray the British to their colonies. It was only one man wanting slight change, but it was the beginnings of the universal thought.

Image of Warren Hastings, a man who helped tarnish the Empire’s image

I realise whilst writing this post that the British Empire was not all tea and merriness, but was in many cases repressive and horrid, as was the Second French Colonial Empire in some cases. But the thoughts of a few people were aiming to get equal rights for the people within these colonies, to make the mother countries more respected, and to benefit the colonies more.

Similarly, Marquis de Condorcet, who was a French philosopher of the Enlightenment and was an advocate for Educational reforms and women’s equality. Like Burke, he wanted a universal set of languages, teachings and rights for everybody. However unlike Burke, his opinions changed just as much as the leadership of France. Living through the revolution created a very liberal viewpoint for Condorcet, who would happily overthrow the system if it meant that change could be made. Unlike Burke he viewed the French Revolution and American revolution as positive, seeing them as necessary. However he was similar to Burke in the belief that not only was it the big country’s duty to colonise these countries, but the people within the colonies had to benefit , that the big countries had to do it right.

Liberty Leading the People, one of the most famous French revolution images

When it comes to comparing the two, they both had the same sort of ideas when it came to universal thought. Burke was more vocal perhaps in his beliefs, writing up documents which would lead to Hastings getting tried, although not convicted. Condorcet also had the views that Burke did, though because of the revolution they often changed. However when it comes down to who is the true king of Universalism, the crown does have to go to Edmund Burke, who was happy to slightly tweak the system in order for the indigenous people within the colonies to benefit.