Intro: Intro music.
Welcome to Talking History with
British Online Archives, the
podcast in which we explore the
past from a variety of angles
and perspectives. British Online
Archives is an academic
publisher and digital repository
of historical source material
based in the UK, and we work
closely with academics, museum
professionals, and heritage
organisations to curate primary
source collections for students
and researchers alike.
Throughout this podcast series,
we will talk to historians and
specialists working in related
fields about their research.
Together, we will delve into
some of the most significant
themes, events, and movements in
history.
Tommy: I'm Dr. Tommy Dolan,
Senior Editor at British Online
Archives. This time on Talking
History, I spoke with Catriona
Pennell, Professor of Modern
History and Memory Studies at
the University of Exeter.
Catroina specialises in the
history of 19th and 20th century
Britain and Ireland, with a
particular focus on the
relationship between war,
Empire, experience, and memory.
She has published extensively on
various aspects of the
experience of war and Empire,
and on understandings of
Cultural Historical approaches
to the study of modern conflict.
More generally, Catriona's first
monograph, A Kingdom United:
Popular Responses to the
Outbreak of the First World War
in Britain and Ireland, was
published by Oxford University
Press in 2012. Currently,
Catriona is preparing a new
monograph, one which I very much
look forward to reading, on the
British Empire and the First
World War, and this will be
published as part of the Greater
War series produced by Oxford
University Press. I should say
that we at British Online
Archives were very pleased that
Catriona agreed to write a
contextual essay for us to
accompany one of our primary
source collections. In this
case, our collection of The
Illustrated War News, a
newspaper owned by The
Illustrated London News, and
which was published between 1914
and 1918, and then again,
briefly in 1939. In that
article, which can be freely
accessed on the British Online
Archives website, Catriona
considered press censorship
during the First and Second
World Wars. For this edition of
Talking History, however,
Catriona suggested that we
discuss colonial participation
in the British war efforts. Now,
this is a topic that all of us
at British Online Archives were
keen to learn more about. It
certainly made for an intriguing
discussion, and one which I hope
that listeners will very much
enjoy.
Good morning, Catriona.
Catriona: Good morning, Tommy,
how are you?
Tommy: I am not too bad. How are
you?
Catriona: I'm fine. Thank you.
Yeah, looking forward to
chatting to you about this.
Tommy: Yes. The first thing I
should just say is that, thank
you for agreeing to speak to us
here at British Online Archives.
Really glad to have you, and
we're really interested to hear
your thoughts and insights in to
what, I think was fair to say,
is a very fascinating theme in
20th century history, which is
colonial participation in the
British war efforts. And I
should just say, for anyone
listening, over the past couple
of months, we've put quite a lot
of thought and effort into the
questions for Catriona, and it's
actually really exciting today
to get some answers to them. And
I think on that front, my first
question, just as a very
straightforward one. So just
looking back over your, sort of,
scholarly career, undergraduate
studies, postgraduate studies,
doctoral, postdoctoral studies.
I mean, what drew you, and got
you interested in the whole
topic of colonial participation
in the British war efforts,
Catriona?
Catriona: Oh, well, I think, I
think it goes even further back
to sort of GCSE school history,
really. I mean, I had a very
sort of standard exposure to the
history of the First World War,
in particular at GCSE level,
which, you know, is obviously
decades and decades ago in my,
in my case. But I remember very
vividly that it was about, you
know, the elite figures, men. It
was white men. It was about
white aristocratic poets. It was
about guns. It was about tanks.
It was about particular British
battles, like the Somme. And I
think as my, as my interest in
history developed, particularly
once I got to undergraduate
level, that I realised that, you
know, these dominant narratives
were obscuring the stories and
the experiences of many, many,
many other people that were
involved in the First World War.
And this led to a sort of
broader interest in, for want of
a better term, lesser known
histories, marginalised
histories. I mean, these, these
terms are, are problematic in
and of themselves, but I think
they capture, at a very basic
level, this sense of, stories
that, historical stories that
are not generally told in the
mainstream media or mainstream
history curriculum. So I was
very curious about these
stories. I was also curious
about stories that are harder to
find in the traditional archive.
So you know, generally, when you
want to find out about soldiers'
experience, British soldiers
experience, in the First or
Second World Wars. And you can
go to some, can go to somewhere
fantastic, like the Imperial War
Museum documents collection,
you're generally going to find
in terms of written sources, the
experience of white soldiers. So
I was intrigued about how you,
how you go against, to take Anne
Stoler's term, "against the
archival grain". How do you
actually search for stories that
aren't necessarily captured in
the traditional written form.
And then finally, I think just
my upbringing, really, I was
brought up in an environment
that was very anti-colonial,
very anti-monarchy, and I think
that inspired an interest in
questions around loyalty. You
know, what does it mean to be
loyal to the crown, particularly
if you're not from the immediate
country that the crown
represents, you know? And these
are, I mean, I think, you know,
you could, you could approach
this from a very simplistic
perspective and say things like,
well, these, these men were
brainwashed. They were, they
were forced and, you know. And
to some extent, yes, there was a
degree of compulsion. But there
was also some volunteers. There
was also some genuine sense of
serving king and country. So
there's a complexity to these
relationships that, I think, I
became very interested in, you
know. It's not, it's not simply
a binary kind of pro-war,
anti-war, pro-crown, anti-crown.
You know, there's a multiplicity
of experiences that I was just
really, really curious, like any
historian, you know, we're part
detective, really. I was curious
to find out more about those
complexities and more about
those stories.
Tommy: Thank you, Catriona. And
I think we may come back to some
of what you talked about in some
of the subsequent questions. My
next question would just be, as
you've kind of already touched
on, I mean, this is a very broad
topic. Covers a lot of
geographically kind of vast
areas around the world, a lot of
people, and I just sort of
wondered, if you're a student or
a researcher coming to the topic
of colonial participation in the
British war efforts, you know,
you might find a little bit
daunting. Like, where would be
the best place to start? Both in
terms of, historiography,
secondary texts, but also in
terms of primary sources? Where
would you start off?
Catriona: Yeah, really good
question, Tommy. I mean, just to
start with the historiography,
the secondary literature. I
mean, there's many, many
scholars I could recommend, and
I should probably caveat this by
saying, if anyone's listening,
who I don't mention who I should
have, I apologise. But
immediately in my mind for the
First World War, students need
to look at the work of Shantanu
Das, his work has been
absolutely paradigm shifting in
terms of how we understand
non-white experience in the
First World War. I know we're
Tommy: Thank you very much for
that, Catriona. I mean, if I was
thinking mainly about British
war efforts, but I would
recommend Richard Fogarty's work
on French colonial experience in
the First World War, and also my
American colleague Michelle
Moyd, her work on Askari
soldiers. Askari is a term that
a, an undergraduate student or
starting a Master's at the
sort of captures local soldiers
who who were from parts of
Northeastern Central Africa and
the great African lakes, who
served in the European colonial
armies. So those scholars I
would recommend, for the First
World War. For the Second World
moment, and I had that at my
disposal, I think that would be
War, I would recommend the work
of Yasmin Khan, Ashley Jackson,
David Killingray, in, in terms
of African experience. And the
up and coming Early Career
Scholar Diya Gupta, who's at
City University. These are all
really important scholars of
very useful as a starting point.
In terms of my next one, you've
non-white experience of the
Second World War. In terms of
primary scholarship, I think
there are a number of ways into
this that would be accessible to
students and to researchers. I
mean, there are incredible
websites out there, produced by
heritage organisations like the
British Library and the Imperial
already touched upon this in
your answer to the previous
War Museum. If people have the
resources to do so, I would
recommend visiting those places.
I mean, a visit to the Imperial
War Museum would, would expose
students to artifacts, material
culture, as well as traditional
paper ephemera primary sources
question. So I was just
thinking, in your editorial
related to the two World Wars. I
would also encourage students to
think about overseas websites.
So the Australian War Memorial,
which is based in Canberra. I'm
not, I'm not suggesting that
British students take a trip to
Australia, unless they are very
feedback that you supplied
British Online Archives with for
lucky to do so. But their online
material is very, very
accessible, and, you know, is
very rich in terms of telling
the story of ANZAC experience in
the world wars. I would also
encourage students to think
about what types of sources we
our promotional material for our
forthcoming collection on The
can use, what types of sources
we can employ to try and uncover
these, these stories that have
been silenced, that have been
marginalised. And I think visual
sources are particularly
interesting in this sense, and
can act as a really important
doorway into the day to day
lives and experiences of
Illustrated War News, you
rightly highlighted in some of
colonial soldiers. The Imperial
War Museum, which I've already
mentioned, their photography
archive, is fundamental for this
type of work, and it's
searchable online at no cost. I
would also recommend recruitment
posters. I think they're a
the material that we'd written
that, colonial participation in
really interesting source that
can tell us about the types of
themes and issues that the
colonial metropole, so London,
in the British case, believed
would persuade colonial soldiers
to take up arms on behalf of the
British army. It doesn't
the British war efforts is by no
means a neglected topic, which
necessarily tell us that those,
those ideas were accepted and
received as unproblematic, but
it does tell us the type of
framework that the British
authorities were using to try
and persuade colonial soldiers
to fight. And then finally, I
would encourage students you
know that live, particularly in
was very instructive in our
part. So just kind of thinking,
maybe the South East of England,
to visit memorials such as
Brighton Pavilion, that tell us
a little bit more about, about
non-white war experience, when
those soldiers came back to
England for recuperation and
recovery if they were, if they
were injured. My final point as
well, though, you know, let's
you have touched upon it, but
what insights into the history
not forget silences within the
archive. So wherever students
are looking at sources that are
telling us something about war
experience, of the mainstream.
Thinking about what silences are
within those sources. Where,
where are the gaps, and how
of colonial participation has
this existing body of
might we seek to try to fill
those gaps through alternative,
non traditional archival means?
scholarship furnished us with?
And perhaps more importantly,
you know, what themes and issues
in this topic are scholars
increasingly becoming interested
in?
Catriona: Yeah, thank you. I
enjoy thinking about this
question because it's, it's
always helpful as a historian to
just take a moment and reflect
on the field and what has been
produced and where is it going
in terms of future directions.
So I think there's really good
coverage on, and I don't mean
this in a disparaging way, but,
but traditional topics relating
to, you know, the military
logistical efforts, official
histories, who fought, where, in
what numbers, in which battles,
that kind of stuff. So I think
there's a lot of material on
that. I also think there's a
good amount of material related
to the consequences of both
World Wars, on world power and
Imperial structures, on zones of
influence, on Imperial
relations. So the kind of
geopolitics, international
relations type literature. What
I find more interesting, and
that's, that's just a reflection
of my bias as a sociocultural
historian of conflict, is
precisely that research that
touches on the harder to reach
topics like human experience and
human understanding. So thinking
about, instead of how many
non-colonial. Sorry, how many
non-white colonial men fought,
thinking more about why they
fought, so the psychology of it.
The contexts in which they made
those decisions to enlist. What
was it like for them to fight?
How did they feel? What stories
did they tell about their
experiences, and how have those
experiences been memorialised or
not. So I think there's a lot of
really exciting literature
coming out on precisely those
sociocultural topics. I would
say that in terms of future
direction, or what's going on at
the moment, that we're sort of
waiting to come out, I think
there's a lot more to be said
about what the World Wars did to
cultural ideas about racial
hierarchies. And it's very, very
clear that in both World Wars,
the concept of race, and what
constituted racial identity, was
in flux in both conflicts. And I
think we're seeing increasing
research being undertaken that,
that examines the way non-white
soldiers and labourers, you
know, non combatants, how they
understood their racial position
and how their racial position
was understood within the
hierarchy and frameworks of the
Imperial powers they were
fighting under. So I think
there's some really bold
questions that are being asked
at the moment about the way
ideas of race and colonialism
underpinned both World Wars, not
just overseas, not just over
there, but in Europe as well.
And then, I would say there's
increasing scholarship that is
examining the way the World Wars
could be understood as Imperial
emergencies, or moments of
Imperial crisis, because the
conflicts, both World Wars were
moments when understandings of
Imperialism and under,
understandings of Imperial power
were transforming, whether,
whether the London and Paris
authorities wanted them to. They
were transforming, and the
relationships between center and
periphery, for want of a better
term, were changing. And this
allows us to ask new questions,
really, about the different
kinds of Imperial actors, how
they experienced the conflicts.
It allows us to shift vantage
points. So instead of thinking
about the World Wars as being
fought from the center, from
London or from Paris, we start
thinking about, well, what's
been referred to as sideshows,
but they weren't sideshows. So
thinking about looking at the
war from different perspectives,
different global perspectives,
to think about how the wars were
run, and also what the
consequences of that war effort
were for both the Empire itself,
and its subjects. And that's
something that I'm hoping to
achieve with, with the book that
I am meant to be writing at the
moment on the British Empire and
"The Greater War" I've called
it. And I'm looking at the First
World War in the British Empire
from 1911 to 1926. Thinking
about those different vantage
points, not just sitting in
London and looking outwards.
Tommy: Yeah, I'm actually
reviewing a book at the moment
by Stuart Ward.
Catriona: Ah! Yes.
Tommy: Untied Kingdom: A Global
History of the End of Britain. And.
Catriona: Yes, yes, I've got
that on my shelf.
Tommy: I mean, one thing going
through it was just, he almost
has a very enviable quality, or
enviable ability, to sort of
sidestep debates that are going
on in the historiography by
taking this wider vantage point.
Catriona: Yes, yes.
Tommy: He can sort of come in
and be like.
Catriona: That's exactly what,
what I'm getting at. Yeah,
that's a really good example.
Tommy: Well, more or less every
chapter, you can see, maybe
scholars have got bogged down in
a debate. And he's like, but if
we just kind of change the
vantage point to sort of enter a
global perspective?
Catriona: Yeah, yeah. I think we
just leave it there, Tommy. I
Catriona: Yeah.
Tommy: You can kind of sidestep
and move on. So I mean, I think
in that sense, that book is
quite inspirational in that
mean, but on a serious note, I
think, I think Stuart Ward's
sense. And if that's the
approach you're taking, as well,
in your own book, I suspect it's
very difficult to do in terms of
book is fantastic. I've only
dipped into it at the moment,
actually writing it, but
extremely, extremely worthwhile.
but I would also encourage you,
if you haven't already, to look
at the late Keith Jeffrey's
Global 1916 book, because I
think Stuart's work is very much
influenced by the approach that
Keith took. It was, it was the
last book he wrote before he
sadly passed away, and it's
looking at 1916 as a global
moment in the First World War.
And like what you're describing
Stuart has been able to do,
Keith does that very, very
eloquently and very competently
in that book.
Tommy: I shall certainly check
that out. So thank you,
Catriona. I think just moving
on, if you have a look at your,
even a brief glimpse at your,
kind of academic profile page on
the University of Exeter, I
think it's very quickly obvious
that you've devoted a lot of
attention to the way in which
the histories of the First and
Second World Wars are taught in
schools. My question is, how do
you think that the topic of
colonial participation in the
war efforts has been integrated
into syllabuses, and is there
scope for diversification and
improvement on this front? And
just to add on to that, do you
think that the increasing
availability of digital primary
sources can aid this process?
Catriona: Right, well, stop me
if I get on my soapbox, Tommy.
Tommy: Alright.
Catriona: So no, I don't think
the topic of colonial
participation in the British war
efforts has been successfully
integrated into syllabuses in
this country. I think there are
some excellent individual
examples where stories of
colonial involvement resonate
with the constituencies of those
schools. But actually delving
into that a little bit deeper,
the best examples I've seen are
those schools, are those British
schools overseas, so for
example, in places like
Singapore, rather than schools
in this country. I'm not aware,
and I'm very happy to be
corrected by one of your
listeners, but I'm not aware of
any consistent, concertive
initiatives and efforts from a
top down, Department of
Education, type level to
diversify the history curriculum
in this country in this way. So
absolutely, there is scope for
improvement. But I think the
question then raises important
structural issues about the way
that history is taught in this
country, well beyond the subject
matter of colonial participation
in the World Wars. So history is
optional for students in this
country once they reach, once
they finish year nine. So
there's a very, very limited
space of time to pack an awful
lot in. And when you start
raising questions about age
appropriate learning, and then
you marry that with the very
dark, uncomfortable,
exploitative, inhumane nature of
a lot of the colonial experience
in the First and Second World
Wars, then you start to realise
that maybe it's quite a
difficult subject to teach in a,
in an authentic way that doesn't
lead to kind of, superficial
themes of heroism. And wasn't it
great that all these chaps from
around the Empire came to help
the Metropole. And this sort of
glorification of Empire, and,
you know, nostalgia for Empire,
which, which is, you know,
something that I think we we
really need to move away from.
And I think as well, we in this
country, we have been subjected
to a largely conservative
ideology of a very whiggish take
on British history, you know,
this sort of triumphant, plucky
little Britain that tells the
story of colonial experience in,
again, in this very sort of
tokenistic, heroic, martial
races, type way that is this
hugely problematic, and does not
tell the more difficult and
disturbing realities of that
story. And then to your final
point about, you know, the role
of digital primary source
material? Well, yeah, I think
digital primary source material
is absolutely fantastic. It's a
way of, as long as it's, you
know, freely available and
schools have the technology and
platforms and solid Wi Fi to be
able to use these resources,
then they're absolutely
fantastic. But at the moment,
these wonderful digital sources
are often not connected to the
curriculum, and if that link is
not there, and the curriculum is
not covering these topics, and
the curriculum is linked to
exams, and exams are linked to
league tables, you can see how
these topics become pushed to
the side as extracurricular, and
adjacent, and nice to cover if
we have time. And when we put
that in a context of, you know,
time starved, overworked,
underpaid teachers who are
desperately trying to get
through the curriculum that they
have to get through, you can see
how these topics become, yeah,
they've become pushed aside
unless you've got a very
dedicated teacher, supported by
a very understanding department
and head teacher who say, yeah,
go for it. Go and, go and do
some kind of extracurricular
special topic on this subject
matter. So I guess what I'm
saying in short, Tommy, is that
your question raises more about
structural issues of history
education in this country, than
it does about the particular
topic of colonial participation
in the First and Second World
Wars.
Tommy: Yeah I mean, it's
certainly an intriguing kind of
issue to think about,
particularly in terms of some of
your points about it's a dark
area of history in ways, it's
quite controversial and, and
yet, I know going to school in
Ireland that the Great Famine
was something that was just
always on the syllabus. Which is
probably just as much of a
harrowing phase of history. But
for some reason that was okay to
teach, yeah. But that colonial
participation seems to be quite
different. So it's sort of odd
because syllabuses, in ways,
aren't, they're not that wary of
putting things on that are
controversial. But maybe it's
out of, they haven't really
thought it through. So that's
certainly somethig to think
Catriona: Yeah, I would, I would
make comparisons as well Tommy
about.
to the Holocaust, which, you
know, is obviously a very, very
gruesome, horrific, disturbing
topic. But it's absolutely,
it's, it's compulsory. It's the
only compulsory item on the
history syllabus in this
country. So, I mean, maybe,
maybe my point about age
appropriateness isn't quite
accurate, but maybe it does
raise questions about, those in
power who get to decide what is
put into the curriculum. You
know, what, what is deemed an
uncomfortable topic that is,
that is worthy, and what is the
uncomfortable topic that is
perhaps just too difficult to
teach because of fears around
what it might stir up in terms
of racial hierarchies and, and
racism and exploitation and
mistreatment? You know, maybe
it's easier to steer away from
some of these topics.
Tommy: It's a tough one, a lot
of things to think about in that
question. So thank you for a
very considered answer on that
one, Catriona, thank you very
much. Suppose moving on. I mean,
this, I was looking at this
question yesterday. I suppose
it's quite a broad one, but I
still think it's, it's an
important one. So how did the
British public react to the
involvement of colonial troops
in the war effort, First and
Second World Wars? I mean, if
that isn't too broad a question?
Catriona: Yeah, if you don't
mind, I've concentrated on the
First World War in thinking
about this question, if that's
Catriona: So, and I think it's a
really interesting question.
okay.
Tommy: Okay.
It's also really interesting if
we take a moment to just think
about the British and French
experiences of colonial troops
in the First World War, because
there's, there's some very
interesting differences,
actually, about how the French
and the British understood their
relationship with colonial
subjects, and how they
interacted with them, both on
the battlefield and, and at
home. I've already mentioned
Richard Fogarty's work, I think,
and he, his research has
demonstrated that the French
system was far more inclusive.
But I use that word inclusive
very carefully. We're not
talking about some sort of, you
know, idealised post racial
society. You know, relatively
speaking, in the context of the
time of the First World War, it
was far more inclusive based on
concepts of shared language,
which was important. It was an
important way of bringing people
from different parts of the
Empire together. They all spoke
French, and ideas around French
revolutionary citizenship. So it
meant that, to a certain extent,
someone like a soldier from
Senegal, who was French, in a
way that an Indian soldier from
the Punjab was not British. And
I think that's an interesting
comparison to make. The French
were therefore far more
comfortable with using their
non-white colonial soldiers in
Europe to fight during the First
World War because they were seen
as part of the French Empire,
and therefore French. And
there's also some important
logistical points, which is, the
French army was desperate for
every man they could get their
hands on during the First World
War. If we move to the British
case, there was a lot more
reluctance to use non-white
troops in Europe. They were very
happy to use African soldiers in
Africa, but they were very, very
reluctant to bring non-white
soldiers over to Europe, because
there were concerns about how
this might disrupt the existing
racial hierarchy and what that
might do to the overall British
Imperial power structure. So the
British held off on drafting
West Indian soldiers at first,
because they literally didn't
want black soldiers fighting in
Europe. So what you see
happening in Europe from the
British side is that Indian
soldiers are allowed over to
fight in 1914, 1915, because
they were seen in the hierarchy
of race as being slightly above,
slightly more, and I'm using
inverted commas, I realise it's
audio only, but slightly more
civilised in terms of how the
British Empire operated its
racial understanding at that
time. But interestingly enough,
very quickly in the First World
War, by 1915 they were being
redeployed to the Middle East to
fight in Mesopotamia, modern day
Iraq. Partly because of this
argument that they were, were
suffering. It was too cold for
them in Europe, and that they
would be more acclimatised to a
battlefront in the Middle East.
I mean that, that raises all
sorts of questions about the
fact that the Middle East
climate is not the same as, you
know, mountainous regions of the
Punjab. But anyway, that was one
reason that was given. But
actually it was also to do with
a belief and concerns that were
were emerging at the time that,
having them in Europe was
disruptive to the Imperial power
structure. You know, this kind
of racial mixing was not landing
very comfortably with those
white elites in power. And in
fact, you don't see Indians
coming back to fight in the
First World War in Europe again
until 1918 and that's simply out
of necessity and desperation. So
that's really interesting, I
think, just to reflect on that
comparison between France and
Britain in the First World War.
The reaction of European
soldiers, so white European
soldiers to their non-white
colonial counterparts, was quite
varied. Some soldiers understood
these martial races, and again,
I'm using inverted commas, but
these races that the British and
French Empires had denoted as
particularly warlike, and from
that, particularly good at
fighting on the offensive. This
then led to a degree of respect
and a sense of these non-white
soldiers being good warriors and
good to fight alongside. But
there are also deep
undercurrents of racism, deep
undercurrents of concern about
what these non-white soldiers
might do if they mixed with
white women on the homefronts.
The example of Brighton
Pavilion, where, where Indian
soldiers were sent to recover
from injuries, is a really good
example. I mean, during the
centenary of the First World
War, the British government
often wheeled out Brighton
Pavilion as an example of, you
know, look at, you know,
wonderful multicultural Britain
with these Indian soldiers, in
Britain during the First World
War. Well, what is less known is
that those soldiers were not
allowed out of the hospital
grounds without a white escort.
Because there were very, very
deep concerns that if they were
allowed out on their own, which
Australian and Canadian soldiers
were allowed to do, white
Imperial soldiers were allowed
to do, but Indian soldiers were
not allowed to do, because there
was deep worries about them
mixing with white women, having
sexual relations with white
women, and therefore fears that
they would, and again, in
inverted commas, dilute the
superior white race. My
colleague, Philippa Levine, has
written very, very eloquently on
this topic, you know, the
intersection of race, class and
gender in the First World War.
Tommy: Just kind of glancing
through my notes for that Ward
review and, he has that line,
"the Great War, accentuated the
problem of who counted as
greater Britons".
Catriona: Yes.
Tommy: And he kind of explores
this in quite a lot of detail.
And yeah, I mean, I hadn't
thought about the comparative
French perspective in terms of
the, kind of, revolutionary
heritage and the concepts of
sort of liberty and citizenship.
So that's very enlightening,
actually, and kind of moves us
on to the next question, which I
think you've already touched
upon, slightly, in question two,
but. How were the contributions
of colonial troops recognised
and commemorated after the war?
I mean, are there any lasting
legacies or memorials dedicated
to their service? I mean, I
suppose the way you've talked
about it, this Brighton Pavilion
was, kind of, almost wheeled out
by, as a kind of memorial, in a
way, during the Centenery. But
are there any other kind of ways
in which the services were
commemorated, or, or legacies
and memorials dedicated to
colonial troops?
Catriona: Yeah. I mean, as I've
said already, Brighton Pavilion
is an example, and also the
Chattri Memorial, which is,
which is nearby in Brighton is
a, is another example of Indian
service in the British Army
during the First World War. I
mean, I think the answer to the
question very much depends on
which colony you were from. So
if you were Canadian,
Australian, from New Zealand,
then yeah, you, you got huge
recognition and memorialisation.
I mean, each of these dominions,
these white dominions, had their
own birth of a nation mythology
that was then the foundational
myth of both their, their
national identity and the way in
which that service, that blood
sacrifice, was commemorated and
memorialised. So yeah, those,
those white dominions, did
extremely well in terms of
recognition and commemoration.
Again, it comes back to this
question of racial hierarchy. If
you were non-white, then your
commemoration and
memorialisation story differs.
So there are memorials to Indian
service, absolutely. But I think
it's important to note that for
the post war period, whilst
Canada, Australia and New
Zealand are moving towards
independence and getting
ownership of their own foreign
policy and their own budgets and
their own domestic policies,
India is noted for its violence.
You know, and British, very
violent British attempts to
reassert control over that
population. So there were great
concerns in the aftermath of the
First World War, in particular
about having trained up all of
these non-white men. You know,
they were now able to shoot
white Europeans. That's exactly
what the British and French had
trained them to do, to fight
Germans. Would they turn those
guns? Would they turn that, that
knowledge of resistance and
fighting on their own Imperial
brethren? Non-white colonial
soldiers in general, fared very,
very badly in terms of official
recognition. And I would refer
any of your listeners to the
work of Michèle Barrett, who has
written extensively on this
topic for many, many years. But
it wasn't really until David
Lammy used it as a basis for his
excellent Channel Four
documentary, Unremembered, that
her research came to more public
attention. And what her work has
highlighted, she's explored the
history of what was the Imperial
War Graves Commission, but now
the Commonwealth War Graves
Commission. That there was a
very clear racial hierarchy in
the remembrance processes. So
what we're used to in Europe is
that dead and missing
servicemen's names were listed,
name by name. Everyone should be
named, everyone should be
recognised. But colonial rank
and file soldiers, as well as
labourers and porters, were not
named on memorials. And there's
a very, very clear
differentiation between the
treatment of white graves and
those that the War Graves
Commission termed natives. And
quite often the non-white
soldiers were not given
headstones. They weren't even
given a memorial. They were put
into mass graves that were
allowed, and I'm using the term
that the War Graves Commission
used at the time, to go back to
nature. In other words, to just
go wild, to be unmarked, to have
no sense of recognition at all.
So I think this is, this is a
really important question,
because we have a really self
congratulatory culture of
remembrance in this country, and
I think it's really important to
remember that there is an
actively buried history of the
establishment's failure to
acknowledge how racism was
inherent in the commemorative
process and continues to be
whitewashed really as a result.
I should add, though, that as a
result of that programme, it was
broadcast in 2019 and also
within the context of wider
social movements such as Rhodes
Must Fall and Black Lives
Matter, there has been a good
amount of work undertaken by the
Commonwealth War Graves
Commission to try to rectify
some of this past wrongdoing.
And they published their non
commemoration report in 2021.
And basically asserted their
culpability in this racism and
commemoration, and ten
recommendations to try to
correct those historical wrongs.
And obviously, we're only a
couple of years past that
publication, but they are
undertaking a really ambitious
programme to ensure that
everyone who served in, and
with, the Commonwealth's Armed
Forces during both World Wars
are honored and remembered. I
mean, of course, this is very
difficult over 100 years after
the event, but, but they are, I
think, within the means that
they have trying to rectify some
of those past wrongs.
Tommy: Thank you very much,
Catriona. I mean, I suppose your
answer to that question, it does
kind of lead on to my final
question, which is probably
quite a broad one again, but a
very intriguing, important one.
So I readily admit that this
question is, kind of, based upon
my readings through of Ward's
new book. But you know, were
there any instances of
resistance or descent among
colonial troops during the war
efforts? And following on from
this, how did these experiences
of fighting, you know, affect
colonial soldiers when they
returned home? So did it bolster
and reinforce their sense of
Britishness and loyalty, or did
it make them more likely to
oppose a British rule, or
imperial rule, when they
returned home? I know you've
slightly touched upon it? But if
you could maybe respond to that
one?
Catriona: Yeah. I mean, it's a
massive, massive question. And
again, I think the only way to
really investigate that question
Tommy: Thank you very much for
that, Catriona. Yes, it's a sort
properly is to look at case
studies. You know, there's no,
there's no general kind of
statement that I can, I can
make. And I think it's important
that you know, listeners, if
they're interested in this
topic, pick a particular
colonial experience and
investigate it to find out more.
But yes, absolutely, there were
issues with dissent and
resistance within these
colonial, Imperial armies. But
again, there were also some
important and useful differences
of fascinating one. It's sort of
one that you could kind of, I
between, between those
experiences. So one of the most
famous examples of descent and
resistance in the British Army
during the First World War was
the mutiny at the Étaples base
in 1917, which was actually
largely driven by Anzac
soldiers, so Australian and New
Zealand soldiers. So white
dominion soldiers. And they were
rebelling against the harsh
treatment that was imposed upon
them by British training
officers. So because Australia
was a dominion and therefore not
fully British, Australia also
refused to allow their soldiers
mean, I feel like I, you know,
could talk about for ages. You
to be executed for crimes during
the war. So there was this
multi-tiered justice system that
protected Australians in ways
that regular British soldiers
weren't. And of course, other
Imperial soldiers definitely
weren't protected. So if you
compare that mutiny of white
dominion soldiers with another
act of resistance, this time
from black British West Indian
soldiers who mutinied after the
armistice in 1918 because they
were being forced to clean
toilets for white soldiers, who
know, when you think back to
those whole debates in terms of
also had just received a pay
rise. There were all sorts of
court martials, and one soldier
was actually executed by firing
squad as a result of this act of
descent. And as a result, a lot
of these British West Indian
regiment soldiers were sent to
Cuba and Venezuela in response
to the mutiny and ongoing
strikes, because the British
officials were so worried about
an uprising and how that
uprising might spread amongst
the British Army more widely.
And I think it's worth noting as
Ireland and how signing up for
the British war effort was seen
well that, you know, conditions
for British soldiers were often
a lot worse than those of their,
of their white British
counterparts. Which is often,
you know, why, why there was
this feeling of having served
the crown, served the Imperial
entity, but not be, you know,
and paid the ultimate sacrifice,
you know, being willing to pay
the ultimate blood sacrifice,
but not getting what they
believed they were due, both at
the time in terms of treatment
in war, but also what they got
after the war. So in terms of
resources, it was always the
as that, home rule would come
from that sacrifice. And, and it
non-white soldiers who lost out
in terms of valuable resources,
like warm winter clothing. And
in fact, a number of West Indian
soldiers died of frostbite and
pneumonia in a training camp in
Seaford in East Sussex during
the winter of 1914 and 1915
because their conditions in camp
were so poor and they hadn't
been given adequate warm
clothing. So you, if you think
about the conditions within war,
and then you start to think
about what happens after the
war, this sense of having
contributed so valuably to the
war effort, but then not getting
sort of didn't, and what came
from that. And when you kind of
what they believed they deserve,
not only in terms of resources,
but then in terms of rights.
They're seeing their white
dominion equivalents getting
significant independence, really
moving along the road towards
self governance and self rule,
and that not happening in places
like the British West Indies
like India. And you can see that
the seeds of discontent are
really, really being sown.
Catriona: That, that is
absolutely crucial Tommy,
amplify it up over a global context.
because it raises questions
about what these colonial
soldiers believed they were
fighting for in the first place.
What they believed they were
going to get out of the war by
undertaking the ultimate
sacrifice of being willing to
die for one's country, or for
one's Empire. But the fact that
the war itself changes the
nature of that agreement or that
understanding. The case of
Ireland, is absolutely, very,
very important in this context,
because I don't want to get into
counterfactuals, but I think,
you know, if the war had perhaps
ended in 1915, before the Irish
nationalist movement started
moving towards armed resistance,
rather than constitutional
reform. I think things might
have been quite different. I
don't think that kind of
paramilitary, armed style of
resistance would have emerged,
or would have emerged so
quickly. But the fact that the
war became so demanding and
asked so much of those that were
contributing to it, not only the
soldiers, but also those left
behind. And that those, the
level of return was not matching
that level of sacrifice. That's
precisely where that crux moment
of tension explodes. In the case
of Ireland, it's the Easter
Rising in 1916 and, and what
emerges in the aftermath of
that. And that can be seen
globally, absolutely.
Tommy: Yeah, and I think, just
to wrap things up, I think it
comes back to something you said
very early on in our talk.
Where, there's always that kind
of interpretation, with that,
you know, Redmond, it was a sort
of pledging allegiance to the
war effort. It was almost like a
cynical, political move, to make
sure home rule would past. But a
lot of people believed that,
they believed in their loyalty,
and believed that signing up to
fight was the right thing to do,
and believed in the crown and
the Empire. And it wasn't a
cynical move. And maybe as the
war progressed and that loyalty
was tested, tested in a way that
no one had ever really envisaged
it could. When, when they
returned home, it, it, obviously
it had completely changed the
whole sort of like landscape.
And as Ward kind of points out
in that book, he talks about
these kind of paradoxes of, the
kind of wars in terms of the
idea of Britishness, where, in
one sense, it brought the Empire
together and it was a great
communal effort. But also, in
many ways sowed the seeds of the
kind of, like, separation of the
Empire afterwards.
Catriona: Absolutely, it's both
what the war does to the Empire,
and what the Empire does to the
war.
Tommy: I think we will leave it
there, Catriona, as much I could
happily talk about these issues
all day. Thank you very much for
a very wide ranging, thought
provoking, and informative talk.
You know, it's been really
enjoyable speaking to you today.
And thank you once again.
Catriona: Thank you, and thank
you for such good questions.
Tommy, I really enjoyed having
this chance to reflect on some
of these issues.
Tommy: Okay, thank you very
much. Catriona.
Catriona: Thank you.
Outro: Thank you for listening
to Talking history with British
Online Archives, where we
discuss the captivating stories
of the past with the leading
experts of today. We hope you
enjoyed this episode and learned
something new. If you have any
questions or comments, feel free
to reach out to us on our social
media platforms. Search for
British Online Archives on
Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and
LinkedIn. Alternatively, you can
email us at
info@britishonlinearchives.co.uk.
If you want to learn more about
the historical collections
discussed in this episode,
please visit our website at
microform.digital/boa, where you
can find more than four million
records covering over one
thousand years of world history.
Don't forget to subscribe to our
podcast and leave us a review on
your favorite podcast app. This
helps us reach more history
enthusiasts like yourself. We'll
be back soon with another
fascinating tale from the annals
of history. Until then, keep
talking history.