The men who ran the British empire

With a stony British stare

A tale of snobbery, caprice and cynicism

See article

Readers' comments



I find it really disheartening here how so many seem to be discrediting Mr. Kwarteng's book and mocking his desire to remain neutral.

Historians are meant to record history. He is not a commentator trying to push an agenda on you but rather a collector of facts to be disseminated so as to let you make your own decisions, decisions it seems that have clearly already been made and are unchangeable.

And yes, while there are certainly many deplorable things about the British Empire, do you think that those in New York, Toronto, Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong and elsewhere can find no good? Do you think that India today is not in part successful (especially considering its birth in IT services) from having the English language?

The world is not black and white nor is it a historian's job to tell you how terrible something or someone was. It's your job to decide that on your own.

Fabio C

In further consideration, Britain still is and will remain imperialistic and interventionist as always, is the nature of this country, the only thing different is the way it operates, the set of interests, and the targets.

Post war Britain has used US might to punch far above its own weight, bully others and intervene but I have a feeling that the US does not want to go along with this game anymore. So Britain is shopping for a new partner. It tried to get Turkey into the EU and failed, it is trying to break the Euro and so far it has been unsuccessful, China is not going to play ball as China is its own master.

For what I have seen in the press Britain wants to be the largest EU member in the near future, and to achieve that is importing people blindly.

The future will be the future...

Fabio C

Correction, the British identity is not been wiped out, only its ethnic and cultural composition, and that I’ll give Britain a new dimension with the Imperialistic and interventionist impulse remaining. And as I said, the future generations will know what is to come out of it.

Why is it that Frankenstein comes to mind…?

Fabio C

The British Empire was no better or worse than any Empire past or yet to come. But not to worry, the British identity is been wiped out by its own PC establishment. In a not too distant future Britain will be a mostly Asian Muslim nation.

The future generations will know what is to come out of it.


Whether the British intended it or not, their colonialism has given us an international language - English.

'Have English, will travel around the world'

Esperanto, Mandarin or even Spanish - no not yet 'international'.

I am happy to smile at photos of some of them British imperialists with their stony stares. They have been of some good use to the world.


Of the two parties to colonial history - the colonial power and the colonised people - their self-image as well as their image of each other, are both relevant.
During the period in question, Britain's image of itself as a nation was fortified by constitutional stability at home and military success abroad. British confidence throughout the 19th century was also much helped by a host of scientific discoveries that translated into technologies that confirmed British colonial rule even more.

Colonial peoples of Asia and Africa were in awe of British power both in military and organisational terms. Colonial rule was the main avenue of modernisation of many peoples of Asia and Africa.

One can, indeed, be very critical of several British officials for their high handed acts and racist views of the colonial peoples they lorded over.

But, British colonial rule did go a long way towards making nations out of many parts of Asia and Africa, where nations in the modern sense did not exist.

Yes, yes, a war-weary Britain messed up the 'Jewel in the Crown' - an awful famine in 1943, an awful partition, Kashmir and so on.

Still, there is a pragmatic view that it is how India was to arrive as a nation in the modern world.

It may be unfair to expect even a mighty colonial power such as Britain was then, to shape perfectly progressive nations out of Asia and Africa.

Britain left her colonies at the right time. But what came after? - a procession of military, Marxist dictators and 'democratic torturers of their people', corrupt kleptos?

Are they licensed to be all that and 'divide and rule' their people because they have brown or black pigmentation, same as the people they are lording over?

Britain was a colonial power - not nice from our present perspective - but she made an impact upon the colonies all of which was not uniformly bad.

Britain today, whatever our judgement of her colonial history, is an open and free society that has welcomed many of her former colonial peoples - and lets them abuse Britain in The Economist's forums without fear of imprisonment.- or worse, disappearance.

Human Child

I found this review a bit disappointing, mostly because you got me hooked with "Where it promises neutrality, it fails" but then didn't really explain what you meant by that. And then there was that odd flurry about "anger" in the last sentence, which also left me puzzled.

Bagehot, you should stick to writing lengthy, detailed columns (or even longer blog posts), this felt a bit too short to me.


@ femi

Fair enough. You have a nice weekend, too. For us it is a long one. We call it 'Labor Day Weekend', although many of my country(wo)men are unemployed; and have been for quite some time...


I am amazed to read that the author is "rather angry". The British colonialists in India presided over one of the worst famines in human history "The Bengal Famine". It happened only 70 years back and resulted entirely from poor/ negligent governance. But hardly anybody even speaks about it.


Garaboncias,I really wish I had the time to run an argument or debate with you on semantics and latin grammar.I really do not. However,I think rather than divert attention away from the comments I have submitted,since you clearly understand the points I have made, and have at least heard of Chinwezu and adu Boahen if not read any of their works,we can leave it at that.Have a nice weekend.


@ femi

Doctors Chinweizu and Albert Kwadwo Adu Boahen wrote more than one books, hence the plural "magna opera" of "magnus opus".
Yes, you used only "opus magnus" , but that would mean that between the two of them there was one, and only one, publication. I venture that, even you would agree that, that would not be accurate.
To your question "Garaboncias,are you jesting ?", I can only answer with a similar question addressed to you: Are you for real?


Garaboncias,are you jesting ?
With respect,do not misquote me I wrote 'magnum opus' not 'magna opera',again you must be jesting.


@ femi

Would you be so kind and, please, tell us where those famous people you quote wrote their 'magna opera' (your description) and in what language? Where were those seminal works published and by whom? Who remunerated those luminaries financially - and granted the demanded academic degree from what imperialist institution? If I am not mistaken, you, yourself, are using English to convey your perspicacious observations about the English and their world and history, are you not? Why is that?


Had Kwasi Kwarteng been fortunate enough to receive a proper education in Ghana, as opposed to being mis-educated and brainwashed at Eton,Cambridge and Harvard,if he had had the good fortune to be taught by the likes of eminent history Professor Adu Boahen [... a Ghanaian ] or Chinwezu,he never would have begun his book with the ludicrous idea of being neutral about a subject that no reasonable person could possibly be neutral about.I hope, despite the brainwashing he has had the misfortune to suffer,that his research has opened his eyes to the true shape of the world before us and an insight into the nature of those who still want to oppress the rest of us.


Zambino,I too am a fellow dross of empire - if you like,and whilst you are at, it you might want to read Chinwezu's magnum opus'The West and the Rest of Us', you should find it a fine compliment to Kwarteng's.Have a nice weekend.


As dross of empire I shall certainly be reading this with enthusiasm shortly.

But there is one villain of the piece that truly deserves mention and that is Lord Kitchener - inventor of the concentration camp, slaughterer of the innocent in Sudan and South Africa, murderer of his own people and possible the most inept strategist to ever wear a British Army uniform.



There were some brilliant men as this book already highlights who ran the British Empire, but there were a few donkeys as well like Mr. churchill who was at best a white supremacist. Most white British feel very proud about him.

The thorny issues like Kashmir however cannot be blamed on the British empire. It should be blamed on the erstwhile Mughal empire and leaders like jinnah etc for creating divisions between hindus and muslims in the subcontinent. And in today's contemporary world of course the leaders of India and pakistan are responsible primarily.



Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Alibaba's IPO: Shocked, shocked!
Schumpeter -51 mins ago
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail July 12th, 19:03
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00


Products and events



