A review of “Gandhi” (1982 movie with Ben Kingsley)

“The government of the territories now in the possession or under the government of the [British] East India Company, and all powers in relation to government vested in or exercised by the said Company in trust for Her Majesty [then Queen Victoria], shall cease to be vested in or exercised by the said Company, and all territories in the possession or under the government of the said Company, and all rights vested in or which if this act had not been passed might have been exercised by the said Company in relation to any territories, shall become vested in Her Majesty [Queen Victoria], and be exercised in her name …”

– “Government of India Act 1858,” as passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (incidentally, India had then been ruled by the British East India Company since the 1757 Battle of Plassey – which was more than a century earlier than this act)

India owes its independence from the British Empire to people like Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi was able to free India from British rule, without the nation suffering anything like a full-scale war. There was some amount of violence therein on both sides, but it surely would have been much bloodier without the steadfast efforts of people like Mr. Gandhi. India had actually been ruled by the British since the 1757 Battle of Plassey. Starting in that year, they would now be ruled by a private corporation: the British East India Company. (More about that company in a later post.) But, in 1857 (nearly a century after that battle), the locals had fought a war to free India from the now-notorious rule of that company. This revolt is known by various names – from the Indian Rebellion, to the “Indian Mutiny” (a British name), to the “Sepoy” Rebellion (a local Indian name). Incidentally, the term “Sepoy” refers to a type of Indian infantryman. But, whatever one calls the uprising, the rebellion was soon crushed in 1858. This was more than a decade before Mr. Gandhi’s birth. Thus, that revolt had failed to free India from British rule. But, significantly, the rebellion did change which of the British institutions would now get to control India. That is, control passed from the British East India Company to the British Crown. Thus, Queen Victoria would now have direct control over India. This was the situation in India, when Mr. Gandhi was born there. Specifically, Mohandas K. Gandhi was born in 1869 – the year that the Suez Canal opened in Egypt. The Suez Canal (eventually) would also be controlled by the British Empire, making it easier for the British to send their troops to India. This was because British ships no longer had to go around Africa, but could take a shortcut through the Suez Canal in Egypt. (But that’s a subject for another post.) Regardless, these things would affect the relationship between Britain and its distant colony in India. Gandhi actually spent the earliest years of his life in India. But, in his mid-twenties, he would instead set sail for South Africa in 1893 – which, at that time, was yet another province of the British Empire. This is where the Ben Kingsley movie “Gandhi” begins.

The English Empire: The predecessor of the British Empire

In 1485, the last Plantagenet king of England fell in battle. His name was Richard the Third, and he was killed on the battleground of Bosworth Field. The winner of the battle was a young man named Henry, who then became “Henry the Seventh.” He was the first of the Tudor rulers of England. Henry had been on the Lancastrian side of the “Wars of the Roses.” But, when he married a Yorkist lady in 1486, the two factions from the civil war were finally united, since he was marrying someone from that faction. Her name was Elizabeth of York, and she would eventually give birth to a son in 1491. The boy was the future “Henry the Eighth,” who would eventually form the new “Church of England.” (More about that here.) But, at that time, the boy’s birth signaled a formal end to the “Wars of the Roses.” The following year was 1492, the year that Christopher Columbus was arriving in the Americas. Spain and Portugal would soon be creating massive overseas empires, in which they spread their longtime Catholic faith to distant shores. Henry the Seventh was still the king of England in 1496, when he commissioned John Cabot to sail to Asia. Cabot sailed in 1497, but instead landed on the coast of Newfoundland – in what is today Canada. They did not yet attempt to found a colony there. Cabot later made another voyage to the Americas, but did not return. To this day, no one knows what happened to Cabot’s ships.

A replica of John Cabot’s ship the Matthew

Colonial Canada: From the Seven Years’ War to the War of 1812

“An Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America …”

– Long title of the “Quebec Act, 1774” (French: Acte de Québec de 1774), as passed by the British Parliament – remembered by the United States as one of the “Intolerable Acts”

How do Canadians remember the conflicts between the English, the French, and the Americans? As it turns out, the Canadians remember these conflicts somewhat differently than we do. They were a crucible for Canada, as they were for the United States – and its various colonial predecessors. Canada stayed a colony for a lot longer than we did, so there are at least three major conflicts during its colonial history. These conflicts are (in order) the Seven Years’ War, the American War of Independence, and the “War of 1812” (as it is usually called). Some of these conflicts are more often remembered in Canada than in the United States. One of these wars still creates controversy in Canada today, more than two centuries later. Thus, this might be a good time to talk about Colonial Canada, and how it was shaped by the trials of its early wars.

Engraving from the Battle of the Plains of Abraham – Quebec, 1759

The British Empire: From the Acts of Union to the Battle of Waterloo

The eighteenth century was a crucial period for the British Empire. It saw the birth of the “Kingdom of Great Britain” itself, in the 1707 “Acts of Union.” It saw much-admired advances in philosophy, from the English philosophers to the “Scottish Enlightenment.” And it saw many important political developments for the British Empire, at home and abroad. For example, it saw the continuation of an ongoing struggle between Britain and France. Britain would be affected by the loss of many of its overseas colonies in North America. Much closer to home, it was affected by the French Revolution, and the chaos left in its wake. Thus, in the early nineteenth century, it would eventually fight the Napoleonic Wars, one of the defining conflicts of its history. Therefore, an examination of this general period might be in order here. That is, I plan to go from the 1707 “Acts of Union” … to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. This period has a massive legacy for the British Empire, and for many of its former overseas colonies.

Battle of Trafalgar – Spain, 1805

Why are certain European languages so often spoken in Africa? (Answer: History)

“A Declaration introducing into international relations certain uniform rules with reference to future occupations on the coast of the African Continent. And deeming it expedient that all these several documents should be combined in one single instrument, they (the Signatory Powers) have collected them into one General Act, composed of the following Articles …”

– “General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa” (26 February 1885) – an agreement among some of the European powers

Many of the contemporary languages of Africa came to the continent from elsewhere …

Many of the contemporary languages of Africa came to the continent from elsewhere. Even the Arabic language arrived from the Middle East, although this was fairly early in (North) African history. Arabic is the dominant language of Muslim North Africa today, as you may know. In fact, Arabic is the most spoken language in Africa today. But many other languages on the African continent arrived from Europe, during the “Scramble for Africa” – which was mostly during the nineteenth century. Thus, the languages of English, French, and Portuguese are among the most spoken languages on this continent. To a lesser degree, Spanish is also spoken in certain parts of Africa, and has a presence there. This would surprise many, because we expect Africans to speak various languages that are native to the continent (such as Swahili – or “Kiswahili,” as it is sometimes called). And, very often, they do speak native African languages. But the European languages also have a strong presence in Africa, which is a legacy of the past colonization there. How did all of this happen, you might be wondering? That is what this post will be undertaking to explain. I have discussed other African colonies from Germany and Italy in another post, and their various effects on the World Wars (more about that here). Thus, I will not attempt to duplicate much of that coverage here. Rather, I will instead focus this post on the bigger colonization by Britain, France, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal – some of which were very influential, as I will show later on. I will also throw in a number of country names – and, at times, dates. But it is not expected that the reader will remember any of these details. Rather, I just hope that I will convey the feeling of how complicated these geopolitics were, and answer a possible reader’s question about how these European languages came to be in Africa. This came in the context of European colonization elsewhere in the world.

Front view of fort São João Baptista – Portuguese Benin, 1917

A review of “The Irish Rebellion 1916” (PBS)

“In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades in arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations.”

– “Proclamation of the Irish Republic,” 24 April 1916 (during World War One)

Other rebellions had tried to establish Irish independence, but this is the one that succeeded …

There have been many rebellions against British authority in what is today “Ireland,” but most of these rebellions failed to overthrow British rule in Ireland. Indeed, this is part of the reason that the initial rebellions were followed by others in later centuries, to finish the work that the others had tried to begin. But the Irish rebellion of 1916 is the one that succeeded where the others had failed. This is the rebellion that succeeded in creating the “Irish Free State,” which would one day be known as the “Republic of Ireland” – a name that it acquired later, some decades after the fact. Other documentaries have covered this ground before, but PBS seems to cover it in much greater depth than any of the others. Even three hours doesn’t really do this subject justice, as it turns out, but this program seems to make the most of its (still fairly limited) running time. It helps you to understand why this Irish rebellion happened – and why it ultimately succeeded, where the others had failed.

A review of “Australia: The Story of Us”

“It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.”

– “Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900,” an act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which helped to establish the “Commonwealth of Australia”

It’s much easier to get English-language documentaries about the histories of English-speaking countries, as you might expect. This, to be sure, is part of why I got this documentary. But that’s not the only reason – I’m also very interested in the history of the British Commonwealth to boot, of which Australia is still a part. Australia also has a fascinating history in its own right. This is a good documentary about it, to be sure, but its style and focus are not really my favorites. Their focus does have its advantages, because they talk about other things besides the traditional focus on “politics and the military.” If you like the history of sports and music, of science and technology, or of business and the private sector, you will probably enjoy this documentary. But if you’d rather hear more about Australian involvement in World War Two than the origins of Australian football, you’d be better off going elsewhere.

A review of “Queen Victoria's Empire” (PBS Empires)

“ ♪ Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves.
And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. ♪ ”

– “Rule, Britannia!” (1740), a British patriotic song written decades before Queen Victoria was born

At the height of the British Empire, it was the largest empire in the history of the world. Its geography was so widespread that people often commented that the sun “never set” on its borders. Actually, it is not the only empire in history to be described in this way, but it may still be the most prominent of them. The British Empire actually predates Queen Victoria's reign by some centuries, with its “first empire” going from 1583 to 1783 (the year that they lost America). The “second empire” went from 1783 to 1815, the year that the Napoleonic Wars ended. But a number of historians believe that Britain's “imperial century” was from 1815 to 1914, the year that World War One began. Queen Victoria reigned for more than half of this latter period, as it turns out, and was alive for an even larger share of it – part of which was before she assumed the throne in 1837. Thus, historians sometimes refer to this empire as “Queen Victoria's” empire, and to this era of British history as the “Victorian era.”

A review of “Rebels & Redcoats: How Britain Lost America”

“... That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever … ”

– American Colonies Act 1766 (better known as the “Declaratory Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

A British view of the American Revolution, which is somewhat different from our own ...

This documentary has much to admire, and much to disagree with. Its opening credits advertise it as “A British View,” and this title is certainly accurate. I picked it up hoping to hear the other side of this war, and I was not disappointed. However, it also has some weaknesses which I will note here. To be fair, it is actually fairly balanced regarding the military campaigns, but it is also somewhat less than balanced regarding some of the politics of this war. The British filmmaker Richard Holmes is a genuine military historian, and has a deep knowledge of military strategy and tactics. He has a gift for bringing the human drama of these campaigns to life. He has the ability to make you sympathize with both sides to some degree. But when it comes to the political issues of this war (and there are quite a few of them), he shows that he is not very well-versed in the politics of the Revolution. He compares people like Samuel Adams to Marx and Lenin, and it is clear that this comparison is meant to be unflattering (and not a comparison that is meant to be complimentary, as it might be if spoken by someone else).

A review of Huw Edwards' “The Story of Wales”

“ … That [the] said Country or Dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and annexed to and with this Realm of England … ”

– “Laws in Wales Act of 1535,” an act passed by the Parliament of England

If you've ever looked for “The Story of Wales” on DVD, you've probably discovered that it's somewhat pricey. Fellow Americans would be lucky to get a copy of it for less than $100 of our own currency. But in my opinion, the benefits may be well worth it; if you're into British history as I am, and if you have British ancestors as I do. My ancestors are from all over the place, actually, and my family tree includes some branches from Wales. But I also have ancestry from Scotland, Ireland, and England as well as Wales. Thus, I have ancestors from all over the British Isles. As you may have gathered, I am an American; and this is my only nationality. But I have a great respect for the United Kingdom, and am proud of my heritage from the British Isles – including, and most relevantly, my Welsh heritage. Thus, I have devoured things related to British history; and was glad for the opportunity to watch this series.

A review of Alistair Cooke's “America: A Personal History of the United States”

" ... these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved ... "

- The American Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

The British writer George Bernard Shaw is supposed to have once told a joke about the relationship between Britain and America. "The United States and Great Britain," he said, "are two countries separated by a common language." We argue about how to spell words and how to pronounce them, I think, and the "common ground" between us can sometimes be a battleground. All kidding aside, though, there is something special about the relationship between our two countries; and our shared English language could just be the most obvious manifestation of this extreme closeness. In ways that we sometimes take for granted, I think, we understand each other's humor and share each other's values. Our love of democracy and liberty, furthermore, is a characteristic that is somewhat rare in the world; and though it is found abundantly in both countries, it is not often found elsewhere to the same degree.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt meets with Winston Churchill aboard the HMS Prince of Wales - Atlantic Charter, 1941

The divide between the Americans and the British

Our culture is much the same, I think, and our view of the world is identical in many ways. But there are some differences between us that cause us both to misunderstand each other at times. It is somewhat unfortunate that my fellow Americans, for example, sometimes see the British as stuffy and unemotional (perhaps even snobbish), while the British sometimes see Americans as unsophisticated rubes who can be impetuous (and even obnoxious). I suspect that these differences have their origins in the fact that our histories diverged somewhat after the American Revolution, when the colonies declared that "all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved" (in the words of our Declaration of Independence). Thus, we have some significant differences between us, it is true; but these differences are not insurmountable. Thus, the BBC made this series about the history of America in 1973. This series was hosted by the famed journalist Alistair Cooke. This series attempted to explain us Americans - and I am an American, as you may have guessed - to our valued brethren in Britain. Thus, it helped to bridge the occasional gap of misunderstanding that sometimes pops up between us. (Although the misunderstandings are still pretty minimal even without this, and we are still a common family that gets along well most of the time.)

Alistair Cooke, the series presenter

A review of Michael Wood's “Story of England”

“... there was not one single hide, nor a yard [endnote] of land, nay, moreover (it is shameful to tell, though he thought it no shame to do it), not even an ox, nor a cow, nor a swine was there left, that was not set down in his writ [namely, the Domesday Book] ... ”

– “The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” (a medieval document), chronicling the events of the Great Survey (for taxation purposes) in the year 1085, as recorded in the so-called “Domesday Book” 

Michael Wood, the series presenter

England is the dominant part of the United Kingdom today

Even a cursory look at the British population will show that the dominant part of the United Kingdom is England, since more than 80% of its population resides in England. (That's according to the country's last census in 2011.) The rest of them are often lumped together into the term "Celtic peoples"; which come from the Celtic regions of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Each of these peoples has a long history of conflict with England, and the fact that they almost always speak English today (not to mention their smaller numbers, in comparison with the English) all testify to the degree that they were conquered by England. This is, of course, a major factor in British society today, and a painful situation for many a Celt.

Did prior series from the BBC cover English history too much (and Celtic history too little)?

It may have been England's predominance over internal British affairs that caused a prior series from the year 2000 - namely, Simon Schama's "A History of Britain" - to focus mainly on England in its political history, rather than to try to cover everything else in the British Isles. A number of Celts felt somewhat neglected by the larger Simon Schama history, and so the BBC made a few other series that focused more on Celtic history - such as Fergal Keane's "The Story of Ireland," Huw Edwards' "The Story of Wales," and Neil Oliver's "A History of Scotland." While these series may have served to pacify some of the Celtic audiences for the BBC, it is ironic that the BBC eventually decided to go back to English history (at least temporarily), and make another series about England - which is, of course, Michael Wood's "Story of England," the topic of this post.

King Henry VIII, the only person to be mentioned by name in an episode title

A review of Andrew Marr’s “Modern Britain” series (1901-2007)

I should preface this review with an up-front disclaimer, which is that I am not a citizen of Britain. I am an American citizen who has never been to the British Isles, and my ancestors haven't lived in Britain for more than a hundred years. Although I do have ancestors from various parts of the British Isles, who emigrated to the United States over a period of centuries (with some branches arriving at one time, and some branches at another). Thus, I have often felt rather British in my heritage; and this feeling is shared by many Americans of all ethnic origins, because of the cultural similarity between our two countries. (And I'm not just talking about our speaking the same language, although that does help. As George Bernard Shaw once joked, we are two countries "separated by a common language.")

Winston Churchill

A review of Fergal Keane's “The Story of Ireland” (BBC Northern Ireland)

" ... the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January, which shall be in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever, be united into one kingdom, by the name of 'the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' ... "

- Act of Union (Ireland) of 1800, passed by the Parliament of Ireland; and accompanying the Union with Ireland Act of 1800, passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

I should preface this review by saying that I am an American, whose ancestors are predominantly from the "British Isles." Although this includes much English, Scottish, and Welsh; I also have a significant portion of Irish ancestry as well; and so Ireland is something of a heritage country for me. As a disclaimer, though, I will freely say that I have grown up with a generally positive view of the British (although one which recognizes that the British were not perfect people, and did a number of things that complicate their legacy). I will also say freely that all of these things notwithstanding, I have not always sympathized with the anti-British rhetoric coming from some in Ireland today, although I have disagreed with a number of things that the British have done over the years - including the way that they treated my American homeland, in the years of our own revolution; and the way they treated the other colonial peoples of their empire in the complicated history of British imperialism.

A modern stained glass window of Saint Patrick (the man who brought Catholicism to Ireland),

whose authenticity I will neither vouch for nor call into question

Catholics and Protestants is a major theme in Irish history

Nonetheless, all these things aside; I felt like I learned a lot from this landmark documentary on "The Story of Ireland," and it helped me to understand the other side of the story - a largely Catholic viewpoint, to be sure - from the one we often hear in my predominantly Protestant country. I consider myself a neutral in the wars between Catholics and Protestants, I should note; and as a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I don't feel compelled to pick sides in this argument. (As my dad might say, I "don't have a dog in this fight.") I sympathize with both sides in this struggle to a large degree; and I certainly can understand the Irish side - and even sympathize with some of their grievances against the British - without any feelings of shame about my other "British Isles" heritage.

Union Jack flag, a potent symbol of British union that is controversial in much of Ireland

A review of Neil Oliver's “A History of Scotland”

"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain ... "

- "Union with England Act of 1707," Section I (passed by the Parliament of Scotland, and completing the process of Union begun by the "Union with Scotland Act of 1706," passed by the Parliament of England)

For my overseas readers, I should preface this review by saying that I am an American, but one who has ancestors in both Scotland and England - meaning that in the many conflicts between Scotland and England, I have ancestors from both sides of these conflicts; which is actually not uncommon in America. My mother's maiden name is McGregor (a clearly Scottish name), and my father's last name is Sparks (a more English name). Thus, I might have a kind of objectivity about the struggles covered in this series - an objectivity which, perhaps, might possibly be somewhat harder for those whose ancestors are all on one side, or all on the other. I have great pride in both of these cultures, I should add - and in the significant portion of my ancestors who came to America from the various parts of the British Isles. Thus, I had reason to be interested in this series.

A review of Simon Schama’s “A History of Britain”

"That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain ... "

- "Union with Scotland Act of 1706," Article I (passed by the Parliament of England, and later made official by the "Union with England Act of 1707," passed by the Parliament of Scotland)

I should preface this review, for my international readers, by saying that I am an American; but an American of mostly British descent, whose ancestors come mainly from England and Scotland. (England and Scotland today are both part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.) I identify strongly with Britain; not only because of my ancestry, but because Britons and Americans share common values such as freedom and democracy; and because we have been allies in war and peace for over two centuries; not fighting a war against each other since 1815 (the year the War of 1812 ended). Thus, I am much interested in the history of Great Britain, and thought I'd learn a little bit more about it by watching this series.

A review of "Canada: A People's History"

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly."

- Canada's "Constitution Act of 1867," also known as the "British North America Act 1867"

I would like to offer my American perspective to this 32-hour Canadian series. I hope Canadians will not mind. I got this series because I was interested in the history of America's northern neighbor. Canada is one of the United States' biggest trading partners, and being interested in doing trade with Canada, and able to speak both French and English, I thought it would be helpful to know something about Canadian history and culture.

This documentary did not disappoint. It was dramatic and interesting, and I learned much about Canadian history. Having read from many online comments that even Canadians learned something about their history by watching this series, I am struck by its informative and educational power. It is also very moving in places, with great acting, music, and narration. Those looking to learn something about the country will not be disappointed.

The Battle of the Plains of Abraham, a major battle in the Seven Years' War - Quebec, 1759

(an important year in Canadian history, because it was the year that Canada became British)