Reviewed by: Extreme Violence and the 'British Way': Colonial warfare in Perak, Sierra Leone, and Sudan by Michelle Gordon Amina Marzouk Chouchene Extreme Violence and the 'British Way': Colonial warfare in Perak, Sierra Leone, and Sudan By Michelle Gordon. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020. Michelle Gordon's Extreme Violence and the 'British Way' examines three cases of colonial violence that occurred in the second half of the nineteenth century: the Perak War in Malaya (1875–76), the Hutt Tax War in Sierra Leone (1898–99), and the Anglo-Egyptian War of Reconquest in Sudan (1896–99). The book pays close attention to these "small wars," which are "often forgotten or ignored" (3). By relying on various "colonial" sources such as British parliamentary papers, the personal accounts of the soldiers who fought in these wars, and newspaper articles, Gordon argues that "violence or the threat thereof were at the core of the British Empire" (1–2). In this respect, Gordon's major argument does not seem to offer something substantially new or different to an apparently well-worn historical subject. Numerous historians including Taylor Sherman, Mark Condos, Amanda Nettelbeck, Philip Dwyer, Elizabeth Kolsky and others have already highlighted the ubiquity of British violence in various colonial settings.1 Nevertheless, Gordon's book has the potential to add to the growing body of scholarship by dealing with lesser-known cases of British colonial violence and highlighting their genocidal potential. Drawing on the insights of genocide studies, Gordon emphasizes that the British were constantly ready to use extreme violence in order to maintain British colonial control over the indigenous people and pre-empt future acts of resistance. The use of "divide and rule" tactics, looting, a disregard for international standards of warfare, the use of collective reprisals on civilians, scorched earth policies, and starvation tactics on combatants and noncombatants represent some of the methods of extreme violence used to forestall any possible threats to British power and prestige. Interestingly, the author persuasively pinpoints that extreme acts of violence were, in many cases, committed by British soldiers who were profoundly influenced by conditions on the ground. The book focuses as well on the tensions that marked the relationship between the Colonial Office and the "men on the spot" and how the actions of the latter contributed significantly to the outbreak of conflicts and the escalation of violence. This is particularly evident in the case of Perak and Sierra Leone. For instance, the decisions of the governors, Lieutenant-General William Jervois and Colonel Frederic Cardew, contradicted the moderate approach of the Colonial Office. Nevertheless, Gordon carefully and rightly notes that although the Colonial Office frequently favored a softer approach of colonial control than "the men on the spot," measures of extreme violence "continued with little action from London" as "the main objective remained the maintenance and expansion of the British Empire" (305). The book helps us also to understand the commonalities among the three wars, which seem to be wholly distinct and separate cases of colonial warfare. Although the extent of opposition the British faced was different in each case, the British used extreme violence. Moreover, in the three cases of colonial warfare, racial prejudices fuelled British colonial violence and justified it. The Indigenous people were cast in a negative light. They were considered "inferior" and "barbarians." As a result, they were punished and they were seen as undeserving of "civilized methods of warfare." This means that "the logic of difference" or what Partha Chatterjee calls "the rule of colonial difference dictated and justified techniques of violence."2 Moreover, and equally importantly, the three wars demonstrate that collective punishments were very common. They were meted out even to noncombatants. Certainly, Gordon's book challenges the recent celebratory accounts of the British Empire, which has become much more pronounced during the Brexit campaign and even after. It refutes the nostalgic view of an exceptionally British moderate approach of colonial violence that distinguishes it from other ruthless imperial powers such as Germany. In other terms, the book debunks what historian Kim Wagner identifies as a "sanitized account of the British Empire"3 by dealing with instances of colonial violence that are considered an unworthy subject of historical research...
Read full abstract
Nov 22, 2021
David Tobin 
Open Access
