Daniel Gorman

Imperial citizenship : empire and the question of belonging

Acknowledgements List of abbreviations General editors introduction 1. Imperial citizenship Part I Theories of imperial citizenship 2. Lionel Curtis: imperial citizenship as a prelude to world government 3. John Buchan, romantic imperialism, and the question of who belongs 4. The imperial garden: Arnold White and the parochial view of imperial citizenship Part II Experiments in imperial citizenship 5. Richard Jebb, intra-imperial immigration, and the practical problems of imperial citizenship 6. Practical imperialism: Thomas Sedgwick and imperial emigration 7. The failure of imperial citizenship Appendices Bibliography Index

Amateurism, Imperialism, Internationalism and the First British Empire Games

The intersections between sport and empire, and between sport and the emergence of internationalism in the early twentieth century, have attracted much recent attention from historians. Less attention has been paid to how these relationships became intertwined. This article suggests that the interrelationship between imperialism and internationalism had a profound impact on sport in the interwar years, challenging Victorian and Edwardian ideals of amateurism. This argument is tested through a study of a signature imperial event founded in 1930, the British Empire Games. The first British Empire Games, held in Hamilton, Ontario, are often portrayed as a display of popular imperialism. This article suggests that while imperialism was certainly one aspect of the event, it was not the only one. The article examines the various meanings which organizers, participants and supporters attached to the Games. Local and national organizers in Canada used the Games to convey civic and national identities to the rest of the Empire. The athletes themselves were ambivalent about imperialism, placing the Games instead within the emerging international sporting community.

Ecumenical Internationalism: Willoughby Dickinson, the League of Nations and the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches:

Despite the eventual collapse of the international system, the interwar years also gave rise to lasting developments in international co-operation. Such co-operation was largely taken up not by nation-states, but by representatives of international civil society. Two of their foremost causes were the League of Nations and the nascent Christian ecumenical movement. One of the most active proponents of internationalism in the 1920s was the British liberal Willoughby Dickinson, the leading parliamentary proponent for female suffrage. After the war, Dickinson turned to international politics, advocating a form of ecumenical internationalism that combined his religious and liberal beliefs. This article outlines Dickinson’s background in British progressive politics. It then examines how he came to develop his ideas of ‘international friendship’ and ‘ecumenical internationalism’ through his leadership roles in the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches and the International Federation of League of Nations Societies. It concludes by examining his support for the newly emergent question of minority rights in the interwar years.

Organic Union or Aggressive Altruism: Imperial Internationalism in East Africa in the 1920s

This article assesses the influence of international questions on the Conservative and Labour parties’ imperial policy in East Africa in the 1920s. Conservatives encouraged a policy of ‘organic union’, which meant the consolidation of settler control in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika by either formal or informal means. They preferred to ignore or minimise the influence of the League of Nations mandates provisions in Tanganyika, arguing that colonial questions, which in their view included mandatory affairs, were a domestic jurisdiction. The Labour Party was more sympathetic to ideas of liberal internationalism, and pursued a policy of ‘aggressive altruism’ in East Africa when in office, especially in the late 1920s. The article compares the two parties’ respective positions with reference to closer political union, settler relations, labour and land policy, and Indian rights, and by detailing the personal relationship between the conservative governor of Kenya, Sir Edward Grigg, and Labours colonial secretary, Lord Passfield.

Britain, India, and the United Nations: colonialism and the development of international governance, 1945–1960

This article argues that the manner by which colonial societies achieved independence as sovereign states in the late 1940s and 1950s fundamentally shaped the parallel emergence of ideas and institutions of international governance, particularly at the newly created United Nations. Using Anglo-Indian relations as its primary focus, it argues that the internationalization of imperialism was particularly evident in two areas: postcolonial states’ negotiation of relations with their former colonial power within the UN system; and the influence of colonialism on international governance, particularly through the idea and practice of planning. The article assesses these developments through an analysis of British debates about United Nations membership for postcolonial states, Indias role at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 where the United Nations was formed, Indias campaign for a seat on the Security Council and its engagement with ECOSOC, the applicability of existing international conventions to postcolonial states, and the transfer of the ideal of planning from colonial to international governance.

The Lion and the Springbok: Britain and South Africa since the Boer War: Hyam, Ronald, and Peter Henshaw: New York: Cambridge University Press 379 pp., Publication Date: May 2003

Petenburg idea was harmed by the Decemhrist uprising, elsewhere he states that it was who Stalin turned away from the tolerant and cosmopolitan St. Petersburg ethos to Muscovite “fanaticism” and “intolerance” (495). However, George’s argument that eighteenthcentury Russia under Peter I and Catherine I1 was heading toward civil society is dubious, as is his claim that Peter I actually wanted to disperse power, “(b)ut his personality . . . inhibit(ed) people from exercising the qualities of initiative, creativity, and responsibility that he wanted to develop” (21). The intolerant side of the imperial government in St. Petersburg in the nineteenth century is almost completely ignored: George makes no mention of Russian expansion into Central Asia and the Caucasus or of Russilication, and he mentions persecution of the Jews in a total of four words. He sees the ascension to the presidency of city native Vladimir Putin as a triumph once again of the St. Petersburg idea, but does not discuss the hesitations of many people regarding Putin’s commitment to freedom of expression. He overstates parallels between the ceremonies of Muscovite and Communist culture and ignores similar parallels between both of these and Russia of the St. Petersburg period. But even if George’s arguments in favor of St. Petersburg are not always convincing, his narrative is excellent and often picturesque, especially on court life and pageantry. His treatment of Peter the Great, the Decembrist uprising, and the siege of Leningrad are particularly extensive, and he presents good discussions of major St. Petersburg writers, especially Alexander Pushkin, Feodor Dostoevsky, Anna Akhmatova, and Joseph Brodsky. Well-written and thorough, St. Petersburg: Russia’s Window on the Future should appeal to educated readers.