Murder, Mayhem, and Keeping Order in Uganda, 1905
"Keeping order" in Africa meant dispelling native unrest. According to British sensibility, although there were nationalists who were opposed to British rule, they were in the minority; there were thousands, actually millions, of silent subjects who preferred the British government. "Keeping them happy" required different approaches in each country, but the philosophy remained the same.
And if the Africans were malcontent with the outcome? Perhaps their grievances were legitimate. According to Lord Cromer, who ruled in Egypt, the clear path to "keeping the natives happy" was just and benevolent government. As long as they were materially satisfied, they would not complain. Who could be unhappy if well-fed? (Porter, 187).
"Keeping order" also meant protecting British interests against other colonial powers, leading to wars in several countries, most notably South Africa. War might not, in general, appear to be keeping order; but in some ways, holding on to the Empire was necessary to avoid financial difficulties (or panic) in Great Britain. The idea that England might lose her free trading powers was a fear that kept her clinging to colonies like India, and also to nations nearby that supplied access to trade routes, whether by sea or land. Egypt and South Africa, for example, became vital to England's financial and emotional security. Thus, keeping order in those countries meant military action.
In most of W. Africa, England's practices involved a lot more compromise with other colonial powers. Because it was not as important as other colonies, strategically or financially, England could afford to make concessions (Porter, 167-169). Except in Nigeria, Great Britain used little military power, and so France became the major colonial power.
It's been argued that England was so successful in imperialism for so long because the practical workings of policy were so varied across the Empire. The truth in this argument is easily illustrated. Even with a policy applied across the whole of a continent, such as "keeping order," the outcome in different countries and the actions that British officials took were so different that it allowed Great Britain the power and position that she had for well over a century.
Studying the inquiry into Galt's murder exposes common colonial sentiment - misunderstanding and mistrust of colonial subjects, including African leaders who served under British power; inherent racism in colonial policy, leading to a belief that Africans were unable to govern themselves; and a naïve assumption that compromise could subdue African frustration
Latest Articles