Near the close of Chapter Six Benedict Anderson draws a critical distinction between official nationalisms and the more spontaneous linguistic-nationalisms of the late 19th and early twentieth centuries. Let the following quotation from his summary on pages 109-111 provide a context for you to reflect on the very troubling portrait of nationalism and identity displayed in "Breaker Morant."
...[F]rom about hte middle of the nineteenth century there developed what Seton-Watson terms "official nationalisms" inside Europe. These nationalisms were historically "impossible" until after the appearance of popular linguistic-nationalisms, for, at bottom, they were responses by powerful groups--primarily, but not exclusively, dynastic and aristocratic--threatened with exclusion from, or marginalization in, popular imagined communities. A sort of tectonic upheaval was beginning, which, after 1918 and 1945, tipped these groups towards drainages in Estoril and Monte Carlo. Such official nationalisms were conservative, not to say reactionary, policies, adapted from the model of the largely spontaneous popular nationalisms that preceded them....In the name of imperialism, very similar policies were pursued by the same sorts of groups in the vast Asian and African territories subjected in the course of the nineteenth century. Finally, refracted into non-European cultures and histories, they were picked up and imitated by indigenous ruling groups in those few zones (among them Japan and Siam) which escaped direct subjection....In almost every case, official nationalism concealed a discrepancy between nation and dynastic realm....The reason for all this was not simply racism; it was also the fact that at the core of the empires [think Britain] nations [think Australia] too were emerging...And these nations were also instinctively resistant to "foreign" rule. Thus, imperialist ideology in the post-1850 era thus typically had the character of a conjuring trick.
Taking your lead from this quotation explain the diverse nationalist and dynastic tensions at work in the court martial of Morant, Handcock, and Witton.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
‘Breaker’ Morant’s court marshal exemplifies the tensions existent within the imperial empire of Britain. In light of reading Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, the formation of nations is a crucial element that these tensions between the empire and the colony form their foundations.
During the Boer War, as evidenced within the film, the British Army, along with a group of allies (Australia, Canada, etc.) fought against the Boer (mainly Dutch) to gain control of South Africa. On both sides of the conflict, the groups were united together, although somewhat loosely, through their common language and ties to the British Empire. As Anderson states, “Language is not an instrument of exclusion… On the contrary, it is fundamentally inclusive” (Anderson, 134). This is the key bond that unites the British forces in South America against the Dutch-speaking Boers. This distinction between the opposing forces is apparent in the dinner scene where a Dutch woman sympathizes with the Dutch entertainer amongst the remaining English officers present.
However, this commonality of language is unable to overcome the barriers brought about by the Imperialism enforces by the British. The Australian soldiers charged with murder are also unable to break surmount the preexisting stereotypes that the British hold of the rebellious colonials. Although they have been beneficial in the fighting of the Boer, the Australian soldiers are always seen as inferior to the ruling British. This tension is a result of nationalism. Australia had separated itself from British imperialism and had asserted itself as its own nation as a reaction to the last wave of nationalism. This movement was based on eliminating the threat of marginalization or extinction of culture owing to the insidious progression towards identification as a nation. Because of this, both the British and the Australians were unable to rise above the differences in strategies set up by the other. This exteriority ultimately led to the execution of the Australian other under the rule of the dominant British.
When Morant enlisted in the army in 1899, Australia was still a colony of the British Empire; it did not become a self-governing commonwealth until 1901. However, Morant and Handcock were executed in 1902, after Australia was an independent country, yet it was still a “dominion” of the British Empire. Thus their trial by the British army and subsequent execution was not quite legal, but at the time it was justified because it did not have a precedent and Australia was still a young nation. This event is a microcosm of the tension between the imperialist powers and the emerging nations they ruled. Through military and economic power, the British Empire merged the United Kingdom with its diverse colonies, yet this merger was not universally accepted amongst the colonists themselves. The huge distance between England and Australia itself strengthened the “vernacular” nationalism that eventually led to the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia. The obese British Empire is a perfect example of Anderson’s “imagined community” because there is really no rational link between the diverse regions of the globe. Although the Australians and British both speak English, that does not mean a small country thousands of miles away can rule an entire continent.
Yet, despite this incongruity, the British still found themselves justified in trying the Australian soldiers in British court, and furthermore, they were willing to “sacrifice” three innocent soldiers (who were just following orders) to end the Boer War and prevent German hostilities. The British manipulated the Australians to cover up their inhumane policies; the Australians became the scapegoats, and according to the British, rightly so, because they are only backwards, insignificant colonists with little political, economic, or military power.
Thus, the tension between the newly formed nation of Australia and its more established and dominant imperial power is manifested in the court room, in which the Australian soldiers are not given a fair trial simply because they are inferior colonists and the British want to avoid escalating the drawn out, unsuccessful, and unpopular Boer War. After this scandalous trial, Australia asserted itself and no longer allowed Australian soldiers to be tried by the British judicial system.
At the dawn of the twentieth century, the world-spanning British is being battered on all sides by the forces of popular nationalism. Although the government in England may attempt to cast all the citizens of the empire in a common British identity in order to preserve its power, this reaction against popular nationalism is doomed to failure. No policies of official nationalism by the crown in England can hope to bind such a vast realm of geographically-separated territories into a single national identity. Thus, territories such as Canada and Australia have already become independent (though still strongly affiliated) nations with their own newly-formed separate national identities. The inhabitants of other territories are also beginning to follow the nationalist models of the west and form their own nationalist movements to rebel against British authority and demand independence. The Boer War, for example, is largely the result of Boer nationalism. Imperial power, though still substantial, is in decline.
The ‘Breaker Morant’ case, or more specifically the outraged reaction of the people of Australia to the case, is a perfect example of this decline of the once-mighty British Empire under the pressures of popular nationalism. Before nationalism, the three Australian soldiers would simply have been citizens of the British Empire and therefore, subject to the full authority of British law. They would not have been seen as foreigners in the British army. Of course, even before the rise of nationalism the Australian soldiers would not have been viewed as equals by the British (as is explained in Anderson’s discussion of creoles), so it is likely that they might still have been chosen as scapegoats over soldiers born in Britain. However, before Australian nationalism, and especially before their independent (or at least semi-independent) status in the Commonwealth of Australia, the Australian people would not have reacted in outrage to such an incident.
This film demonstrates the conflict that Anderson describes which arises from the discrepancy between nation and dynastic realm. Although the Australians and British citizens feel as if they are part of an imagined community linked by common language as well as cultural and historical roots, the “skin of official nationalism” stretched over Australia by its colonizer Great Britain proves too weak to save the lives of Australians being used as scapegoats for political Britain.When British politics looks for a scapegoat by which to distance itself from the atrocities committed in the second Boer War, it turns to Australians who are seen as not quite equal members of the imagined community of the “official nation” of Great Britain. The soldiers, especially George Witton, initially joined the Bushveldt Carbineers in nationalistic support of their English-speaking brethren of Great Britain against the Dutch in South Africa. They were motivated by a feeling of unity in an imagined community described by Anderson as popular or vernacular nationalism. In contrast the official nationalism is created almost artificially in order to preserve power over Britain’s colonies. However, when it comes time to lay the blame the makers of the official nationalism (politics) see the Australians as non-members of this official nation, or as lesser ones to be used in whatever way will benefit the “official nation,” including as scapegoats. Lord Kitchener makes the claim that it is better for Britain to save face and lose a few Australian lives than to protect these insignificant soldiers. Morant’s character summarizes the conflict between official nationalism and popular nationalism when he says he wants Matthew 10:36 on his epitaph, which reads, "and a man's foes shall be they of his own household,” demonstrating his feeling of betrayal by his imagined community of Englishmen.
The film "Breaker Morant" raises several interesting points in terms of the imagined community of nationalism, in that it shows how the nation is far more complex in its inclusion than one would believe.
Benedict Anderson is quick to point out that language is the uniting factor of the nation; however, the trial of the Australian soldiers shows that language alone does not constitute inclusion.
Once the thin veneer of official nationalism is stretched to its limits over far-flung colonies, geographical differences create unconscious bias and resentment. Morant, Witton, and Handcock, despite their assumed inclusion in the British empire, can never be equals; their physical distance from the epicenter of the creation of Britain as a nation, from the sites which make up the "ancient" and storied history of that nation, diminishes their status as a citizen of the nation-state. (Such constitutes a subtle form of hypocrisy, for the "ancient" history of any people, especially the British, is often construed in a haphazard manner in the present, as Anderson is quick to point out.)
Thus, the idea of the nation, which was so crucial to the development of the economic, technological, and military might of the imperial powers, is ironically the doom of any empires which arose from such power. The ties of language were overridden by geography and necessity, as Australia, India, Canada and all the imperial colonies formed their own nationalisms. The imagination of each community can only go so far.
This begs a new question. With the powers of self-government devolved to the Welsh and Scottish people in our present day and the creation of new technology to spread language increasing every day, will even smaller geographical borders in these regions and others weaken the imagined community of the nation further? Only time will tell, but perhaps the example of strained nationalism presented in the film is more relevant to today's world than one might suppose.
In the court martial of Morant, Handcock, and Witton, in the Australian film Breaker Morant, a tough situation arises from as a result of the men’s national identity. They are ultimately convicted unfairly of murder while fighting a war in South Africa against the Boers. The driving force behind their sentencing is the British attempt to enforce an “official nationalism” over former colonies such as Australia and Canada who are fighting in the war alongside the British. While the Australians do not disobey any immediate orders, they are still convicted as a result of British legal formalities and obvious nationalist-driven prejudice against them from the British. The British struggle to enforce rule over an army of not only British, but Australian and Canadian soldiers, is a perfect example of what Benedict Anderson describes as “policies, adapted from the model of the largely spontaneous popular nationalisms that preceded them.” It is a feeble attempt by the British to hold power over groups of people who are forming or have formed “popular nationalities” apart from Britain. The irony of the “Breaker Morant” case is that these men are being court marshaled for murder in the midst of war, resulting in a death penalty for two men who did nothing but follow orders. While this is sad, it’s also a clear example of the conflict between emerging “popular nationalism” and the responsorial “official nationalism” attempting to force itself over the other.
The dilemma facing the british at this juncture in history is that Australia is transitioning from a part of the British empire to its own state. Previously, Australia was mostly subservient and its identity was that it was a part of the British empire. However after several generations of creoles were born in Australia, it began to assume its own identity different from their British one. This becomes evident in the trial as there is a clear division between the english and the australians as opposed to them all being subjects of the crown. The tensions mount because the english essentially use the australians to fight a war the australians don't care about then attempt to prosecute them for doing what the english ordered them to do. Australia is essentially its own nation however it is still functioning within its dynastic role and this is the cause of all the problems that arise in the film.
The film Breaker Morant presents an absurd, almost comical depiction of nationalism and the problems it can create. But the sad truth is that the events of Breaker really did occur; the Boer War pitted Australians and Canadians fighting for the British against the Dutch in South Africa as the Germans searched for a way into the conflict. The film presents several obvious nationalism-generated conflicts, such as the absurd importance individuals ascribe to their national identity when they are thousands of mile from their nation of origin, and the internal debate that creoles face of what “nationality” they are (British or Australian?). Yet there is a more subtle question that the events in Breaker pose: how is a “national interest” determined?
Benedict Anderson describes nation states as “imagined communities,” groups so large that it is impossible for one individual to know all of its members. Instead, Anderson argues that nationhood is formed from an abstract common identity; things like language, folk customs, and geography bind people into thinking of themselves as a nation. Anderson’s argument is logical; nationhood provides people with a sense of identity relative to their neighbors. But what is unclear is how “national interest” can be decided. While “national interest” can be reasonably determined in simple situations such as the demise of a threatening neighbor, it is nearly impossible to determine what an “imagined community” would favor in more complex situations. The Breaker case provides an interesting moral dilemma. The film makes it clear that “it is in Australia’s best interest” for the Australians to be found guilty so that the Germans do not become involved in the war, but what is good for Australia is not good for the Australians. If we assume the Australians innocent/just-following-orders (as the film does for the most part), the trial poses a serious moral question: is it morally acceptable to sacrifice a few individuals for the “greater good” of the community? I would argue that most individuals would find this decision abhorrent and that it is only the imagined nature of the nation that makes sacrificing a few for the whole acceptable. The soldiers’ conviction can be described as in Australia’s national interest only because an incredibly small portion of Australians knew the men involved. To the rest, it is much easier to “imagine” them as guilty rather than innocent.
This is one of the primary dangers of nationalism; morally repugnant actions can be carried out because of the anonymity of an imagined community. This is consistent with the outrage in Australia after the events were made known (which Dr. Jensen described in Thursday’s class). Once the soldiers ceased to be imagined members of an imagined community and became real people who the Australians “knew” (through their media), moral outrage quickly developed. The Australians made it clear that diplomatic advantage would never trump impartial justice in shaping their national interest. The film Breaker Morant serves as a warning about nationalism. The imagined nature of national communities makes it easy to slip into “sloppy imagining” that allows a community to perceive morally repugnant actions as in their national interest. Only when nation-states and their media take the time to identify real individuals acting in real situations can a national interest be determined in a morally acceptable manner.
The Australian involvement in the Boer War, as portrayed in the ‘Breaker Morant,’ exemplifies Benedict Anderson’s passage. In this case, it becomes evident that the imperialistic efforts of empires were slowly giving way toward the rise of separate nations. The entire movie is underlined by strong feelings of nationalism especially between the British and Australians. This is evidenced by nearly every character in the movie having his or her nationality presented. The disparity that develops between the British and the Australian soldiers during the process of the court marshal marks a major development in the fall of the imperial state and the rise of separate nations.
The best way to follow this transformation as I see it is through looking at the youngest officer, Witten. Towards the beginning of the film when talking with Morant and Handcock about why they joined the war, Witten asks them if they joined in it for the glory of the ‘empire’ as well. Throughout the movie, the polarizing effects of nationalism lead him away from his once grandiose notion of fighting for an empire, and instead allow him to realize that his empire has sold him out. By the end of the film, Witten is being lead to prison for following orders given by superior officers and end up so embittered he writes a book titled ‘Scapegoats of the Empire’.
Even though the two sides (British and Australian) share the same language, they do not share the same sense of nationalism as seen in the previous linguistic-nationalisms. By this time the Australian people have reacted to being marginalized by the British, and have created their own national identity. It should make sense then that the court marshal of Morant, Handcock, and Witten caused such an outcry in Australia when the people became aware of it. To them this story probably seemed like more of the same British oppression that had come to define their lives as Australians. This fall of linguistic-nationhood, however, seems to become the norm of the empires in the new century.
“Britons once did loyally declaim
About the way we ruled the waves.
Every Briton's song was just the same
When singing of her soldier-braves...
And when they ask us how it’s done,
We’ll proudly point to every one
Of England’s soldiers of the Queen.”
This song, “Soldiers to the Queen”, is the theme music for the execution at the finale of Breaker Morant. It almost perfectly summarizes the irony of British “official nationalism.”
The nostalgia of the first two lines endows the British Empire with an imagined sense of eternity. “Britons once did loyally declaim” suggests that the Empire was timeless and thus to be revered. But Briton had only been an official entity with the Act of Unity in 1707, and Australia wouldn’t begin to be settled for another seventy years. The nation, then, claimed to be an eternal idea when it really only dated back to the last century and a half.
Had Briton’s soldiers all been from the same ethnic group, the same “popular” nationalist group, or even from the same continent, it might have been more conceivable that “every Briton’s song was just the same / When singing of her soldier-braves.” The idea of every Briton singing in unified praise to “colonials” from India, Canada, and Australia is a work of fiction – a thin covering stretched over the red parts of the world map in an attempt at displacing popular nationalisms.
The Australians officers – even outside of the murder trail – are permanently disenfranchised from the British. Despite their likely education at English schools and training in the British army, they still possess what Anderson calls the “fatality” of being colonial. In the film, an English officer scoffs at the mention of the Sydney newspaper. This shows not only the mainland contempt for the Australians, but also how the English disregard for a vehicle of popular nationalism (the newspaper) probably further isolated the Australians. The Australian prisoners, themselves, continue to praise “Australia” right up to the bitter end. (“To freedom, Australia, horses, and women!”)
The song ends with the final conclusion that England proudly points to every one of her soldiers as sources of her glory. Indeed, the colonies (and the soldiers they produced) were sources of British glory; they were just not quite British.
Normally, the main nationalistic difference evidenced in the Boer War would be between the two expanding nations of Britain and the Dutch. However, Breaker Morant takes a different angle on the conflicting nature of nationalism. Because Australia was originally a colony of Britain and was just gaining its status as a nation at the time of the Boer War, it is understandable that the British government still felt that it was in large part still in control of Australia.
Where the court marshal in question was most likely illegal according to legal doctrine, the British (as Hannah said) felt the need to show the Germans that the actions taken were the acts of rogue Australians and not the orders of the British military. I also believe that the executions were issued in order to show the Australians that the British still had a lot of control over them and that they would be smart to stay in line with Britain.
This whole case falls into line with Anderson’s line of thinking. He says that the cultural elite of a “nation” have the utmost power in what is supposed to be a “united nation.” The main reason for this unfair treatment stems from the fact that a large empire, like Britain at the time, ruled over many different cultures. However, in order to be considered a “nation,” the leaders of Britain needed to make a choice as to what the dominant culture would be. The dominant culture was chosen to be British, which meant the Australians fell lower on the ladder of nationalistic power. Although the leaders of Britain were probably seen as “not British enough” for the British and “too British” for the Australians, the Breaker Morant case seems to show that the British government was “too British” to give the Australians a fair trial.
“Official nationalism concealed a discrepancy between nation and dynastic realm.” The time of the trial depicted in “Breaker Morant” was one during which these changes in the nature of nationalism was occurring. The Canadians, Australians, and British were all fighting together, but they were no longer one people. The camaraderie or sense of oneness that existed under dynastic rule and as a result of a common language and a somewhat uniform ancestry was splintering. Each individual nation was taking shape and alliances followed suit. And as smaller groups unified, prejudices emerged between them.
Lord Kitchener is determined to use the trial to prove his willingness to discipline his own people when they break rules of war. There is a strong and apparent bias in the courtroom, and no matter what evidence was brought, the three on trial would be “proven” guilty.
Even when Boers attack and the men, British and Australian, judge and prisoner, fight along side each other and demonstrate their willingness to fight for a mutual cause, the judge does not change his bias. The prisoners broke rules and will be punished, no matter who the orders came from or whether or not the orders were given at all.
As a whole, the movie portrays the corruption within leadership and the effort that went into creating the best image in times of war despite what may have been true or correct. This need for an image came from nationalistic tensions. There were developing tensions between the Australians, Canadians, and British despite all three fighting together for the same cause, and those in charge had to create an image of unity in order to establish peace. While creating this image, however, the prejudices remained, especially between those trying to conceal it.
The film “Breaker Morant” demonstrates the failure of what Benedict Anderson termed “official nationalism” as a means of uniting peoples within a nation. The British empire tried to do just that, by uniting the nations of Australia, Canada, and England, among others, through the use of a common language. These nations fought together as one empire during the Boer wars against the Dutch-speaking speaking inhabitants of South Africa. When necessary these people were able to bond together to fight against a common enemy, but the movie shows the separation that still remains between these geographically diverse nations.
During the Boer wars, the English needed a scapegoat for the war crimes they had committed, as a way to bring about an end to the war. In the film, Morant, Handcock, and Witton, Australian soldiers fighting under and with the English become this scapegoat. They are found guilty of crimes that were committed following orders from the English Lord Kitchener. What it comes down to is that no matter how much the British tried to force official nationalism on the people of their empire, popular nationalism still won out. This dynastic tension was the downfall of Morant and his compatriots, for as soon as these Australian men were court marshaled by the British army they were doomed. The Australians would never be seen as equal to the citizens of England, and thus became the perfect scapegoat. After this trial, citizens of other nations were never again court marshaled by the British army. The nationalism of nations during the last wave became stronger than any nationalism that was ever imposed within an empire through the commonality of language. The imagined community of the British empire was nothing more than just that, and Morant clearly realized that, choosing for his epitaph a passage from Matthew 10:36: "and a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
The film "Breaker Morant" demonstrates the problems that accompany an "officialism nationalism," that Benedict Arnold describes in the sixth chapter of his book. This film highlights the differences in different nations, that when they are thrown together in a larger effort, such as the war, can cause disruptive and destructive events to occur, as one nation attempts to overcome the popular nationalism already in place. In this case, nations were forced to fight together in order to squash the efforts put forth by the Boer inhabitants of South Africa.
For example, in this movie, the three Australian men, accused of horrific crimes, such as the murder of a reverend, were punished by the British government, rather than their own. The British government used these man in order to bring about a more timely end to the war, without seeming to care about the deaths of the three men who just followed the orders of their surperiors. In addition, their government was not able to plead their case or do anything to keep them from being harshly punished and condemned to death by the British government. The British governments attempts to unite nations, such as Australia and Germany, under their iron rule in order to fight the war against the Boers. However, this plan backfires for the men who cannot find a way to halt the British government from punishing them according to the British rules, rather than those of Australia. This film gives an accurate portrayal of the issues that seem to accompany any instance of "official nationalism" as people who may have very little in common are forced to listen to the same government and obey the same laws, which typically results in disaster for people of the nations who have difficulty .
I perceived two conflicting ideals that are often associated with nationalism in the Breaker Morant trial. Firstly, we have talked in the past about how the idea of the nation, or in this particular case the empire, tends to impose its own will over everything else, even in many cases the life of the individual. In theory, and also in reality, these men were more than willing to die for their country. Breaker Morant would have carried out orders he knew would lead him to his death unquestionably, but he fought to the end the manner in which he was being convicted. The reason for this was because he was being placed outside of the realm of the empire. He wasn’t dying for his country; he was the direct target of its vengeance. The British wanted a scapegoat for what happened, but they were unwilling to sacrifice one of their own, because in their minds the island of England was the extent of the British Empire. However, in the minds of the colonials, they were still a part of the empire. Quite literally, this sense of betrayal manifested itself in the outrage that the other emerging ‘nations’ of the British Empire, like Australia, expressed their outrage over what happened. When the extent of the nation no longer coincided with the extent of the dynastic realm, as was the case with Breaker Morant, the lines of internal division became more apparent. Thus, in this specific case, the ‘official nationalism’, as described in the quote, would be the imperialism of the British Empire, while the linguistic nationalisms were those that emerged in Australia, or the Afrikaans of Southern Africa, that led to emerging nations. This specific incident in history I think demonstrates why many of the ‘official nationalisms’ ultimately failed, but the linguistic ones led to longer lasting and more stable political identities. Fringe groups of people within a society cannot move in and out of the community. Like the in case of the Australians, they were originally a part of the British Empire, but once they were kicked out, they were out for good and that was that.
Post a Comment