Isn’t Paxo’s series on the British Empire brilliant TV? Gone is the weary contempt that he wears on Newsnight. Instead, he is visibly enthused by talking to ordinary people in far flung lands. Paxman isn’t telling a new story, but he’s a gifted spinner of old yarns. Pottering around a spice market in Calcutta, going to the races in Hong Kong, meeting the relatives of mill workers in Lancashire, beating sugar cane with the descendants of slaves in Jamaica, having tiffin with the great-grandson of the Mahdi in Khartoum — there is an air of the sahib about Paxman, but he has the common touch.
Empire is our book of the month. Its weakness is that it does not fully explain that the empire was an elite project. Similarly, the television series devotes most of its time to the heroes (or villains depending on your sensitivities) of empire: Morgan, Clive, Raffles, Burton, Gordon, Lawrence: rather than the policy-makers: Pitt the Elder, Castlereagh, Disraeli, Joseph Chamberlain and Churchill. This is not surprising: Richard Burton’s mad eyes make for better viewing than Chamberlain’s fussy pince-nez: but it leaves much unsaid.
There are numerous simplifications* in Paxman’s sweeping account of 400 years of history, but the great strength of the book is that it eschews the fashion for wringing one’s hands of Britain’s imperial past. Paxman is relatively balanced with his broad historical brush, condemning the abominations and giving credit where credit’s due. And the once subjugated people who he interviews are forgiving on the whole, positive even in some cases. The final episode of this hugely entertaining series examines the moral issue and its effect on the modern British psyche in greater depth. It airs next week.
*The clip above is taken from Khartoum (1966), starring Charlton Heston and Lawrence Olivier. The director shot the death of Gordon according to the popular myth represented by George W. Joy’s celebrated painting, The Death of Gordon.
The myth of Gordon is complicated and Paxman falls victim to it. He claims that Gordon was sent to Khartoum by a reluctant British government to evacuate Europeans from the threat posed by Mahdist rebels, which is true enough. But he also says that the Mahdist revolt (1881-1899) was against British regional interference, which is only partly true.
Sudan had been under Egyptian control from 1819, although Egyptian political leadership fell under British sway at the end of 1882. The Mahdi was a religious leader rebelling against Egyptian colonialism. There was related economic disaffection — notably the draconian tax system and a crackdown on the slave trade, which had ruined the economy in northern and eastern Sudan. Britain was unquestionably a regional player; but it was determined to avoid regional conflict beyond securing the Suez Canal.
Gordon was a quasi-mercenary at this time. He had been sovereign Egypt’s governor general in Sudan from 1875-1879, commanding Egyptian forces in Khartoum and Darfur. He resigned following a change in government and was going to work for the Belgians in the Congo in late 1883 when London ordered him to Sudan, where the security situation had deteroriated after Mahdist forces won a string of victories against ill-disciplined Egyptian troops. By Christmas 1883, it was clear that Egypt’s Sudanese possessions could only be sustained with British military assistance, which Gladstone’s government would not give beyond securing the border and vital lines of communication in the north of the country. So, London ordered Egypt to retreat, and Gordon was dispatched to Khartoum to evacuate Egyptian forces and European traders and diplomats.
Gordon arrived in February 1884 and immediately disobeyed his orders. Women and children were removed, but he refused to withdraw Eyptian soldiers. Khartoum was cut off in mid-March 1884. Gordon prepared the city’s defences. Meanwhile, he insisted that Anglo-Egyptian relief be sent, which would deepen British political involvement in Egypt and Sudan.
Gordon had been a public hero ever since his service in China. The press rallied to his one-man cause in Sudan, and urged the government to send an army. A force was prepared in August 1884, but it was too late. Gordon’s army starved and rotted in Khartoum until the Mahdi attacked on 26 January 1885. No clear account of Gordon’s death survives, although it is probable that he went down all guns blazing: Gordon famously claimed to have been ‘created without fear’. The vanguard of the British relief column arrived two days later, although their progress down the Nile seems only to have forced the Mahdi into action. As football commentators are fond of saying, the result was never in doubt.
Gordon was venerated by the British press and public as a hero — indeed, the later Sudanese campaign led by Kitchener was to ‘avenge’ Gordon’s death as well as quell the noisy remnants of Mahdism. But, without his reckless disregard for orders, Britain would not have been drawn into a 20-year conflict in Sudan.
Comments