Search

This article comprises an analysis of the practices used by British colonial troops in the suppression of the Boxer Uprising in China (1900-1901). It is argued that the suppression of the Boxers presents not only a colonial war, but also a broader international consensus related to extreme tactics; the rebellion was brutally suppressed by an eight-state international alliance, which included Britain. While Germany has been the focus of much research on the topic related to ‘uniquely’ violent practices, this article explores how British troops also took part in the worst aspects of this campaign and furthermore, that these practices were more than consistent with its approach across the British Empire. The ways in which military men experienced and learnt extreme violence across imperial spaces is also explored, and it points to colonial crossovers and a consensus of European conduct in colonial warfare. I will suggest key ways in which an ‘archive’ of mentalities, networks and practices of violence were transferred across and between different empires, including through an accepted practice of ‘small wars’ outside of Europe., Este artículo analiza las practicas utilizadas por las tropas coloniales británicas en la represión del levantamiento de los bóxers en China (1900-1901). Se ha planteado que no solo fue una guerra colonial, sino que existió un amplio consenso internacional sobre el empleo de tácticas extremas; la rebelión fue brutalmente reprimida por una alianza internacional de ocho estados, incluyendo Gran Bretaña. Aunque Alemania ha centralizado buena parte de la investigación sobre este tema en relación con sus prácticas excepcionalmente violentas, este artículo estudia cómo las tropas británicas también participaron en los peores aspectos de la campaña y, además, que estas prácticas fueron plenamente coherentes con sus métodos y estrategias en todo el imperio británico., English title: ‘A Veneer over Savagery’: British Practices of Extreme Violence in China 1900-1901., The 'Civilised' Nature of Nineteenth-Century Warfare? British and German Practices of Violence in Colonial and Intra-European Wars

The purpose of this chapter is to address the ways in which selective readings of Holocaust history have informed both Holocaust memorialisations in the UK and how the British Empire is represented and remembered. While an awareness of the Holocaust in the UK has been raised, there is a tendency in the UK to emphasise the perpetration of violence by others while occluding Britain’s historical role in extreme violence. This chapter argues explorations of the Holocaust need to be accompanied—not replaced—by greater examination and self-reflection related to British history and violence. There has long been a prevalent view of the British Empire, which tends to adhere to the longstanding view that the empire was fundamentally benevolent and was beneficial to both the ‘colonisers’ and the ‘colonised’; this approach needs to be challenged and the violent legacies of empire acknowledged.

This article addresses how (‘selective’) British memory has served to emphasize the extreme violence perpetrated by others at the expense of a critical examination of brutalities in ‘British history’. Not least, the genocidal violence perpetrated by (British) settler colonisers, as well as the extreme violence that was inherent throughout the systems of administrative colonialism. The ‘history wars’ in Australia have not penetrated ‘British history’. Assumptions are often based on British ‘exceptionalism’; an approach mirrored by British memorialisation and museum exhibitions, including Britain’s Holocaust Memorial Day and the Imperial War Museum. That the knowledge produced by scholars on the key linkages between Britain and extreme violence is not translating to the wider public, has been demonstrated through Brexit debates. The British Empire has loomed large in these discussions, on all levels of society, and politicians have been particularly willing to use ahistorical narratives to further their causes. The ongoing significance of empire to British national identity has also been demonstrated by recent polls on perceptions of the British Empire. National narratives are currently being confronted across Europe in the face of increased right-wing populism and anti-EU sentiments. In this context, thresholds are continuously being crossed. An example of ahistorical/selective narratives is the British foreign secretary’s comparison between the EU and a Soviet gulag. ‘Balance sheet’ approaches to the Empire in particular have served to continue narratives of British ‘exceptionalism’. This crisis or selectivity of memory has brought us to a crossroads. A responsible and critical assessment of Britain’s relationship with extreme violence is necessary; we must move beyond a patriotic approach (Drayton).

This study examines the utilisation of extreme violence throughout the British Empire. The role of this violence in the colonisation process is considered in relation to the following three cases: the Perak War (1875–76); the ‘Hut Tax’ Revolt in Sierra Leone (1898–99) and the Anglo-Egyptian War of Reconquest in the Sudan (1896–99). Methods that were used include: looting; the use of collective reprisals on civilians and scorched earth policies; starvation tactics on the enemy as well as the wider population. The decision-making processes that led to atrocities being committed are explored, as well as the significance of individual colonial administrators in outbreaks of violence. The ways in which racial prejudices, the advocacy of a British ‘civilising mission’ and British racial ‘superiority’ informed colonial administrators’ decisions on the ground are considered. This violence needs to be written back into British history. Moreover, this study argues that such brutalities are relevant within a wider context of European warfare and the genocidal violence of the first half of the twentieth century. Instances of British colonial violence are revealing regarding the dynamics of extreme violence. The book is divided into five sections: first it considers the place of colonial violence within the history of the British Empire; the three case studies follow; the final chapter provides an analysis of the cases studies’ findings and discusses its relevance for our understanding of both European and colonial violence, thereby placing British colonial violence within a wider framework of extreme European violence.

This article explores a range of photographs taken in the aftermath of the Battle of Omdurman on 2 September 1898, the final and decisive battle of the Anglo-Egyptian Reconquest of the Sudan (1896–98). This campaign was particularly controversial for the methods that were used against the Mahdia, which included the massacring of the enemy wounded and those trying to surrender. The photographs under examination are relevant to considerations of the ensuing controversies of the campaign in which Kitchener was obliged to write directly to Queen Victoria to explain his actions, notably in relation to the bombing of the Mahdi's tomb and the treatment of his remains. As historians have previously noted, the events in Omdurman constituted a massacre rather than a battle, and areas of dispute include whether Emirs were specifically targeted for destruction in the campaign. The photographs in question contribute to this debate. This article addresses the photographs in the wider context of violence throughout the British Empire and in the context of other images of British violence. That such photographs are not commonly viewed and discussed speaks to wider issues regarding popular perceptions of the 'benevolent' British Empire, particularly in comparison to its European counterparts.