Hopkins's "Ruling the Savage Periphery" at WHS

The next meeting of the Washington History Seminar, on Monday, November 23 at 4:00 pm ET, will be devoted to Ruling the Savage Periphery: Frontier Governance and the Making of the Modern State (Harvard University Press, 2020), by Benjamin Hopkins, George Washington University.  Elisabeth Leake, University of Leeds, Geraldine Davies Lenoble, Torcuato Di Tella University, and Benjamin Johnson, Loyola University, will comment.  Click here to register for the webinar or watch on the National History Center’s Facebook Page or the Wilson Center website.

[Professor Hopkins]  makes a bold claim about the modern global order and the central role "frontier" spaces have made in its construction. Arguing that the "frontier" is a practice rather than a place, Hopkins theorizes that the particular way states govern such spaces – he terms it "frontier governmentality" – presents a unique constellation of power defining states and their limits. Ranging from the Afghanistan-Pakistan borderlands to the Arizona desert to the Argentine pampas, Hopkins presents an ambitious and provocative global history with continuing purchase today.

 

 --Dan Ernst

Reclamation

One thing peculiar about land is that we are predisposed to encounter it as if it was always there, seemingly naturalized from the outset without a beginning. Because histories are built upon land, its own history is obscured by later infrastructure, quickly escalating the complexity of the territory. My current book project tentatively titled Overflow - History of Land Reclamation in the British Empire focuses on the history of seaward land reclamation which entails the formation of artificial land surfaces that extend outwards over the sea using advanced geo-engineering techniques. I was motivated by the avid land reclamation that occurred in Singapore which increased in land size by 23% from 587 square kilometers in 1974 to 725 square kilometers today (slightly larger than DC metropolitan area). 

Intensive land reclamation transformed coastal areas from the late nineteenth century. Colonial governments were initially drawn to the supposed lack of ambiguity concerning the status of reclaimed land - there was little possibility of indigenous inhabitants or prior landowners of reclaimed territory so authorities were theoretically free to plan without any resistance. A territorial blank slate was the ultimate goal of colonial officials after all. But the prohibitive costs of land reclamation projects make it a last resort in expanding territory. While local colonial governments eagerly embarked on such projects, higher authorities within the imperial hierarchy based in London often asked “Is this really necessary? and “could something else be done instead?” to ensure that cheaper options were explored first. Land reclamation efforts were extremely expensive, and often completely debt-financed and thus formed risky undertakings involving huge volumes of sand, specialized equipment and vehicles, costly research into the suitability of soil and sand with its particular characteristics, labour, logistical coordination, and resettlement of people who lived in areas adjacent to reclamation sites. In Hong Kong, private enterprise was historically powerful and initiated reclamation projects. Armenian businessman Catchick Paul Chater founded property developer company Hong Kong Land which reclaimed 59 acres of land in the colony between 1889 and 1903 for example. The interests of long-established dock companies such as Butterfield and Swire, and Jardine and Matheson were aligned with that of the colonial government in the late nineteenth century although they drifted apart in the first half of the twentieth century. While businesses entrenched themselves in the area of the port, successive government administrations sometimes differed greatly from their predecessors to the extent of breaking ranks with previous policies. In addition, while the cost of reclamation was relatively low during the early years since landfill was made up of rock and soil found in abundance near sites, it became progressively expensive because fills are not easily available anymore and the sea to be reclaimed was deeper. The Admiralty too weighed in, anxious about encroachment to existing dockyard facilities. 

As land reclamation became popular throughout Empire, the coastal feature known as the foreshore which is neither wet nor always dry due to the ebb and flow of the incoming tide gained prominence. As a buffer zone, the foreshore was valuable because it provided entry to the sea. From 1830s onwards, the British government granted ownership rights to foreshores in parts of the British Isles opening them up further to construction and development but these rights were suspended in Empire. Historically, denizens of undeveloped waterfronts had survived and thrived on it because they occupied cheap land. Increasingly from the late nineteenth century onwards, the foreshore became more prized throughout Empire as a gateway to land reclamation which brought a new enemy on the horizon for residents in coastal regions - coastal development. Even when they were compensated by government authorities, rising land prices post-reclamation meant that they were unable to buy their own property back in order to live there again. Something about control over watery spaces, a relatively new form of domination, resists risk assessment necessary for compensation requests. This “hydroborder,” to borrow Isabel Hofmeyr’s term, “where the ‘normal’ anxieties of the boundary were exacerbated by ecological uncertainty” serves as the fulcrum for change.

Hofmeyr, Isabel. “Provisional Notes on Hydrocolonialism.” English Language Notes. 57, 1 (April 2019): 11-20.

--Nurfadzilah Yahaya

McClure on whipping in colonial India

 Alastair McClure (University of Hong Kong) has published "Archaic Sovereignty and Colonial Law: The reintroduction of corporal punishment in colonial India, 1864-1909," Modern Asian Studies 54:4 (2020), 1712-47. Here's the abstract: 

The judicial and summary punishment of whipping—absent from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860—was passed into law through Act No. VI of 1864. This legislation, tacked on as an appendage to the IPC, invested the judge with wider discretionary powers to administer violence across Indian society. In this case what emerged was an evolving attempt to enlarge the colonial state’s capacity for quotidian violence, targeting certain bodies to reaffirm, manage, and police the social hierarchies upon which colonial sovereignty depended. In the context of a slow imperial movement away from the cast-iron distinctions that had been made between groups in the early nineteenth century—distinctions that had, among other things, supported a legally enforced system of slavery—new methods to mark the value of different bodies were created. The events of the 1850s, in particular the rebellion of 1857-1858, saw the re-emergence of the colonial idea that certain bodies could withstand violence, and that violence itself could be used to create economically productive colonial societies, in debates around penal law and punishment. This article will trace this history through formal legal restrictions and informal legal cultural practices in relation to corporal punishment in colonial India. Over the course of the period under study, this legislation introduced into law what one official termed ‘the category of the “whippable”’. Charting the changing shape of this legal category along lines of race, gender, caste, class, and age, the article will argue that a logic of exceptionality, channelled here through the application of judicial violence, attempted to structure and manage Indian society in complicated ways.

Further information is available here. 

--Mitra Sharafi

Book Review: King Leopold’s Ghost

Recently I finished reading an incredibly well written book titled King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa written by Adam Hochschild, this book is focused upon the acquisition by Belgium of an African colony in the Congo region and the subsequent economic, social, and political exploitation and terror of that region by various different forces within the region.  In summary Hochschild argues that Belgium’s acquisition of a large colony in the Congo was due mainly to the territorial ambitions of its king at the time, King Leopold II, and Leopold gained that territory through a clever campaign of subterfuge, misdirection, diplomacy, intrigue, and lobbying both directly by King Leopold and by a web of his personal agents.  Hochschild then proceeds to examine the actual policies and actions of the various organizations and companies that ran Leopold’s newly acquired Congo colony.  Hochschild spends considerable time skillfully showing how Leopold ruled the Congo directly and treated it as a personal fiefdom, those agents acting within the territory did so at his personal approval and the funds raised from the various raw materials gathering efforts in the Congo went directly into Leopold’s personal fortune.

Probably the cornerstone value of this work is how Hochschild focuses attention upon both the atrocities conducted in the Congo by the agents of Leopold throughout his personal control of the colony, the extreme focus upon extracting the highest return of resources possible from the Congo during this period (specifically ivory and subsequently rubber), and the pioneering efforts by various concerned individual missionaries and reformers to bring about an end to Leopold’s abuses in the Congo.  Abuses is a highly appropriate word as evidence from various sources cited by Hochschild provide convincing evidence that during the roughly thirty years that Leopold personally ruled the Congo colony approximately fifty percent of the total indigenous population, or between 8 to 10 million people, died from both direct violence and indirect suffering at the hands of Leopold’s Congo policies and agents.  In addition to the high death count many survivors of this period lost their right hand to violence, a policy in the Congo was that it was expected for every round of ammunition fired an indigenous individual was to be killed.  Local soldiers who used their weapons to hunt would often take the right hand of a person still alive to even out their count.

As well Hochschild also does an incredible job of detailing the link between the novel Heart of Darkness and its authors real time spent in the Congo region.  Hochschild details how many of the events depicted in Heart of Darkness are directly drawn from Conrad’s own time in the Congo during this period.  The only complaint I would have for this book is, honestly, the title, it seems to imply a focus upon the post-Leopold II time in the Congo and the impact that ruler had on the region after his demise.  However this topic is only lightly covered in the final chapter of the book itself, most of the focus is on Leopold II and those who directly opposed him.  But beyond that minor complaint, this is an excellent book and I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in either the colonial era in Africa, Belgian politics in the Congo, or a good very character focused history.

The Fist – President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan – 1 December 2009

The fist must be deployed no matter how much one might personally like the person giving a comment that is based on questionable (or downright bad) history, even in the case of President Barack Obama.  In his speech at West Point outlining the changes in policy Obama intends to implement regarding the United States and its military presence in Afghanistan Obama included the following comment:

“For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination.  Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations.  We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.”

I am afraid that the history of the United States simply does not bear up to this comment when our actions are compared to our peer nations at any point that I know of in our history as a nation, sadly I am no expert but from what I do know of United States history and the history of the various Great Powers in existence and operation during our own history, the breakdown is roughly as follows:

1781 – 1880s:  The United States expands territory under its direct political, economic and cultural control through a policy of continued expansion in a western direction.  These territories are acquired through a combination of diplomatic efforts and the use of military force, during this period as a matter of policy the United States government assumes semi-complete control over the affairs of the various Native American/American Indian groups residing on territory later claimed by the United States government.  Key acquisitions include the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon I of France in 1803.  Acquisition of Florida from Spain in exchange for the cancellation of debts owed by Spain to the United States government/United States government assuming debt owed by Spain to United States nationals, 1819.  United States gaining one half (roughly) of disputed Oregon Territory from Great Britain, 1846.  United States gaining southwestern territories including California, New Mexico, Arizona, and part of Colorado as war concessions from the Republic of Mexico, 1848.

In each of the above cases the United States either used military force or threatened to use military force to gain territory from established, and diplomatically recognized, nations of equal sovereignty.  (In the case of Florida the United States had already in the past sent military forces into the territory and in regards to Louisiana the United States had already engaged in limited schemes to try and spark revolt in the territory from earlier Spanish control.)  In addition to this the United States government through diplomatic pressure and brute military force either subjugated or expelled native tribal groups from their long-standing association with certain territories.  Granted the United States would sign treaties with tribal chiefs or leaders, in some cases making said leaders up from whole-cloth to validate its actions, but this is not that different from the techniques used by European Great Powers in their own territorial gains in Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Africa.

As well the policy of the United States federal government, as well as that of many state governments during this period was decidedly opposed to the idea of allowing native tribal religions or social structures to survive, it was the policy of many levels of government in the United States to “civilize” native peoples, a war on cultural and religion if ever there was one.

1880s – 1930s: The United States government engages in direct colonial/imperial acquisitions of territory including the annexation of Hawaii in 1900, a sovereign kingdom nation previously recognized by the United States government as well as other national governments, as well as the seizure of former colonial possessions held by Spain after the Spanish-American war of 1898.  These newly gained territories included Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba and the Philippines.  Of these territories the United States still holds Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam.  The Philippines was not granted full independence until after World War II and were not granted Commonwealth status until the 1930s.  In fact the United States was gaining these territories at the same time that the various Great Powers of the world President Obama is probably speaking of, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, and the United States was gaining these territories using the same methods employed by other Great Powers.  The United States also directly intervened in the internal affairs of many nations in the Caribbean during this same period, using military force to modify or suppress local rebellions in many Caribbean republics or dictatorships.  As well the United States engaged in one of its most brutal and prolonged military campaigns from 1900 through 1904 in the Philippines, suppressing a local uprising that attempted to militarily defeat the United States through irregular warfare and establish an independent Philippine republic.

It was not until the 1930s that the United States, under President Roosevelt, undertook a new direction in its relations with its neighbors in the Caribbean, the Good Neighbor policy, and renounced the use of force to defend United States interests in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.  However at the same time Great Britain and France had also begun to reduce their use of military force to intervene in colonial affairs.  Which makes our policy not exceptional but instead more of a reflection of the general shift in diplomacy in the 1930s, the recognition by many of the Great Powers of a need to shift their focus from gaining territory through military force to working with local populations and leaders to maintain the empires held, a policy also followed by the United States with our, admittedly, smaller imperial territorial holdings.

1930s – 1940s: The period of the infamous land grabs by Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and Japan in a bid to redefine the global balance of power militarily, economically, and culturally.  The United States did not engage in such antics but, at the same time the various Great Powers in operation at the time did not recognize territorial changes through the use of arms.  It may be a fine point but the territorial shifts of the 1930s were achieved through diplomacy and consent, the actual seizure of territory by force was, broadly stated, rejected diplomatically and resisted militarily.  Land seized by the Soviet Union is an interesting case, it was not actually seized but instead ideologically loyal puppet states were installed to rule over the territories in compliance with the policies of the Soviet Union.

1950s – 1990s: the United States and the Soviet Union engage in a mutual dance for dominance stretching across a span of forty years roughly and the globe, known collectively as the Cold War.

So overall President Obama your statement does not appear, after analysis, to truly be accurate against the lens of history.  Unless you are speaking of quite ancient empires in which case you are correct but one could also argue the United States had not engaged in such behaviors of rape, conquest, and devastation such as Rome, the Persians, or the Huns engaged in because, in large part, we were not on the scene yet as a nation.