Imperial Loyalty Research Articles

Māori “Conversion” to the Rule of Law and Nineteenth‐Century Imperial Loyalties

Missionaries were among the first Europeans to interact with the New Zealand Māori, bringing an evangelical message with a strict set of “laws” for Māori to follow. Māori, whose own religious beliefs required rigid observance to ritual, took time to convert to missionary Christianity but, like many Oceanic peoples, did so with fervour, regulating their daily lives according to the Laws of the missionaries’ God. With the advent of British rule in New Zealand in 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi gave Māori the same rights as British subjects, but also (in the Māori‐language version) guaranteed tribal autonomy. As the British administration established itself, it slowly attempted to bring Māori under the authority of the Queen's Laws, using persuasion rather than force. This article, using Māori‐language newspapers of the mid‐nineteenth century, discusses how some Māori approached the question of Law in a similar way to how they had converted to Christianity. This was partly due to their own, now Christianised, worldview, but it was also due to how the colonial authorities presented the principles of Law to them.

The High Civil Service Corps in the Last Period of the Multi-Ethnic Empire between National and Imperial Loyalties

The target of this study is constituted by leading civil officials mainly of the Ministry of Interior (Section leaders and ministerial counselors) as well as members of the local political authority (court counselors, 'Land' presidents and state representatives) in the Cisleithanian part of the Austro Hungarian Monarchy. The research is based on samples of those occupying these positions between 1900 and 1910; in some cases information is given dating back to the 1880ies. The survey extends over geographical extraction, family background, educational path and career of all those in the sample. The official activities of these civil servants are scrutinized following questions raised in the title of the paper. Obviously enough they were above all commit ted to the imperial state. Still there is a number of indicators that they did not remain unaffected - though to variable degrees - by their regional and national connections. These indicators should be thoroughly researched in concrete terms, together with additional references to the final political options of mem bers of our target group after the end of the Habsburg Monarchy. Well, Your Excellency, being a Civil Servant it seems that you have only the choice between being an anarchist or an idiot.1 It may well be that this satirical phrase coined by the eminent writer Arthur Schnitzler can be used with some justification for one or the other individual member among the great number of higher officials serving the Emperor Francis Joseph in the late Habsburg Mon archy. Yet there can be no doubt whatsoever that the High Civil Service as a whole and as a group distinct from others must be regarded as one of the elite groups within the society of the Habsburg Monarchy. It is common knowledge that the power-elite of the High Civil Service - together with the person of the Emperor himself and with the army - formed the very pillar and backbone of

From the Editors

14 From the Editors From the EDITORS The idea to devote the thematic program of the journal in 2008 to the problem of “gardening empire” emerged from discussions during the seminar held inAugust 2007 in Kazan, Russia. The seminar was organized by the Ab Imperio editorial team and historians from Mainz University, Germany.An international group of scholars representing historical studies of empire from the Russian Federation, former Soviet Union countries, Europe and the US attended the event. Most participants were specialists in the history of Eastern Europe and the Russian empire, while the role of the seminar’s discussant was taken up by Ann Laura Stoler, an expert on colonialism and Western overseas empires. It was the discussant who drew the attention of the participants to the significant difference between the research agendas of the studies of Eastern European empires (at least as presented at the seminar) on the one hand, and colonial empires, on the other. This critical commentary triggered a fruitful discussion of “exceptionalism ,” both as a mode of self-description of imperial regimes and as a persistent modus operandi of historical understanding of empires. Since the age of classical antiquity until today empires or composite polities have been founded on some idea of their own uniqueness and exceptional historical path. This conception was dialectically transformed into a strategic vision of imperial universalism that prioritized imperial loyalties over regional, ethnic, confessional, and social identities and relegated the latter to the domain of the local and particular. While this 15 Ab Imperio, 1/2008 perception of exceptionalism can be found in many different schools of historiographic thought about empire, it is in the history of Russia that it is often expressed most visibly due to historical context. The relative absence in Russian studies of such phenomena (traditional for the studies of colonial empires) as marginalization, power operation in the domain of the intimate, and “carnal knowledge” surprised the seminar participants. This situation naturally invites a conclusion about the exceptional nature of Russian imperial experience and exceptionalism as a mode of history writing about empire. A series of questions emerged from the encounter between different academic traditions in studies of empire. Should historians aspire for a meta-interpretative framework that would account for peculiarities of that imperial experience from the view point of an external observer? Or, alternatively, should they reproduce and creatively re-work the trope of exceptionalism provided to us by languages of self-description or historiography (looking at exceptionalism as a norm and the way in which imperial political and social spaces function)? It appears obvious that those practices explored by post-colonial studies – manipulation of power, drawing of boundaries between categories of citizens, sanitary projects of “cleansing” societies from “infected” or “polluted” elements – are all characteristics of modern colonialism. A lack or presence of these lines of inquiry in the research agenda is taken to be a proof of the archaic or modernizing imperium. At the same time, the question can be reversed: is the conclusion about the archaic nature of the Russian Imperium an outcome of peculiar historical experiences, or is it a result of historiographic inertia and uncritical reading of the reification of imperial archaism in the languages of self-description and political contestation? The “Theory and Methodology” section in the current issue addresses these questions. In particular, Nicholas Breyfogle demonstrates that contemporary historiography exhibits the coexistence of different interpretative paradigms: from “modernizing” to those that reproduce the “archaism” and “exceptionalism” of Russian imperial experience. Is this historiographic polyphony a reflection of multiple layers and vectors of the real historical time in empire? (In this case, a proper research agenda is always determined by the choice of a particular set of individual imperial situations and contexts.) Can this be taken as the ultimate reflection of imperial exceptionalism? An empire that Ann Stoler missed in the papers of colleagues dealing with Eastern Europe may be called the “gardening empire” – an analog 16 From the Editors to the “gardening state” of Zygmunt Bauman. This notion presupposes the existence of the interventionist state whose power is based on modern scientific knowledge pertaining to nature, society, and politics. This knowledge entails practices of governance for “cultivation,” rationalization...

Australian Citizenship and the Two World Wars

This article surveys Australian citizenship: its distinctive characteristics in the first half of the twentieth century, and how these were changed by the experience of the two world wars. It argues that Australian citizenship, at the time of Federation, was racially exclusive, imperial, masculine and deeply anchored in the traditional view of the military obligation of the individual to the state. The world wars, especially the war of 1939‐45, encouraged some adjustment to these ideas, particularly in terms of the imperial link, women's status and the social rights of Australians. However, these conflicts were fought within a context of imperial loyalty and the intensity of their demands reinforced military service in defence of the nation as the primary civic virtue. The centrality of Anzac to Australian nationalism also perpetuated a gendered dimension to Australian citizenship. The world wars therefore, for all their dramatic impact on the lives of Australian families and the national political culture, did not force a major reconceptualisation of Australian citizenship.

Stories of independence: identity, ideology, and history in eighteenth-century America

Peter C. Messer demonstrates that a strong sense of a shared past transformed British subjects into American citizens. He traces the emergence of distinctively American attitudes about society, politics, and government through the written history of the American experience. Stories of Independence argues that the way early Americans wrote about their own history from colonial times, to the heady days of the Revolution, to the uneasy decades following independence helped shape the future of this young nation. Differences between American colonists and the British government became increasingly contentious over the course of the eighteenth century as distinctive American identities emerged among the colonists. Grounded in common values and the shared experiences of creating communities in a new world, these identities would eventually liberate Americans to declare their independence and experiment with new forms of government. During the colonial period, provincial historians celebrated the autonomous origins and local institutions of their communities as a way of arguing for greater independence from Great Britain. Imperial historians, on the other hand, stressed allegiance to the mother country and the English institutions that continued to sustain them. When relations with Britain reached a crisis, these visions of provincial pride and imperial loyalty came into open and irreconcilable conflict. The resulting debate produced not only a declaration of independence but a new political order grounded on the provincial vision of the origins and progress of America. When the political turmoil of the 1780s and 1790s threatened to fragment the new republic, historians turned to the provincial vision of history to fashion a past for their nation from which they could create a unifying national identity. Their stories of the drive for independence and the founding of the United States helped both cement and limit the innovations in political thought produced by their provincial and revolutionary predecessors.

The Finnish Guard in the Balkans: Heroism, Imperial Loyalty and Finnishness in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 as Recollected in the Memoirs of Finnish Guardsmen by Teuvo s> Laitila Finnish Guardsmen (review)

764 SEER, 82, 3, 2004 with the geographical distribution of the various nationalities and ethnic groupsin the country. London J.J.TOMIAK Laitila, Teuvo. TheFinnishGuardin theBalkans:Heroism, Imperial Loyaltyand Finnishness intheRusso-Turkish WarofI877-I878 asRecollected intheMemoirs of Finnish Guardsmen. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Humaniora, 324. Finnish Academy of Science and Letters, Helsinki, 2003. 451 PP. Maps. Tables. Notes. Bibliography. Index. ?35.00 (paperback). IN this revision of his doctoral thesis, Teuvo Laitila examines 'the Finnish guardsmen'srecollections of the Russo-TurkishWarof i877-8 as narratives of the adoption and maintenance of military identification and the men's relation to Finnish nationalism and imperial authority'. He also looks at the men's attitudestowardsthe Ottoman Turks,Islam,and the Bulgarians,whose land they were liberating.The book is an anthropologicalstudyof war, not a work of militaryhistory.However, the militaryhistorianwill benefit from the author's analysis of such fundamental questions as the soldiers' attitudes to war, death, the enemy, and comradeship. The Guards Finnish Rifle Battalion, known as the Finnish Guard, was recruited from Finns and normally stationed in Helsinki, but nevertheless formedpartof the 'new guard'of the Russianarmy.It became partof the 'old guard' in honour of its service during the Russo-TurkishWar. The book is constructed on the analysis of nine accounts of the war by Finns. Seven of these are by men who actually served in the Finnish Guard while two are by Finnish officers who served in Russian units. The actual 'guardsmen' comprised a military doctor, a sergeant-major, a junior NCO, a company clerkand three enlistedmen; at the time of the warthe battalionwas recruited by voluntary enlistment. One of the accounts, probably not written until the 1930S, exists in manuscriptbut the otherswere published between i878 and I899. The authoradmitsthatthe sampleis small;he is also alertto thepossible unreliabilityof the recollectionsthatmake up the accounts. Aftersettingthe scene in termsof the backgroundto the war, the character of the Russian army, and the theoretical framework he is using, Laitila's method is to describewhat the Finns wrote about particulartopics and then drawconclusionsfromtheirstatementsand opinions. He showsthatin battles the guardsmenunderlinedtheirheroism.The Finnswrote of Turkishbravery when the Turksbeat theRussiansbutTurkishcowardicewaslinkedto 'manly' Finnish victories. Life on campaign, not surprisingly,drew the men together as a community, a sense which was reinforced by their criticism of the deficiencies of the Russian army and its supply system. The Finns had an ambiguous attitude to the Bulgarians: those living in the mountains were considered 'virtuous'but town dwellerswere 'devious'. There was, however, some feeling for the Bulgariansas victims of the Turks.Islamwas of no great interest. REVIEWS 765 The military historian will be disturbedby a number of inaccuracies. For example, ajefreiter is a corporal not an NCO trainee, what is described as a signal-man is a bugler, and there are several references to soldiers being awarded 'Crossesof the Order of Saint Gregorius'insteadof Saint George. The author has a tendency to read more into some remarksin his sources than was probably originallyintended. Thus the emphasis in some accounts on the food and drinklaid on forthe guardsmenbefore theirdeparturefor the theatreof war 'maywell have been implyingthatwar would be a sortof feast, too' (p. I 26). When Sergeant-MajorJernvall (who became a legendaryfigure in the Finnishconscriptarmyformedin I88I) recordedthat the men thanked God fortheirinitialsafejourney, Laitalastatesthat 'byimplication,thismeant that the Guards'journey was under divine protection and that its missionwas just' (p. 132). Praise of Bulgarianvillages and the gloriouslandscape is taken to imply 'that in general virtuous people, including Finns, should be free' (p. ) This revieweris scepticalof such claims. However, Laitala'sconclusions appearsound. Loyaltyto the Russian army and the Emperorwas the reasonwhy the Finnswent willinglyand uncritically to fight in the Russo-Turkish War and why they accepted the hardships involved. As Finns, they also developed ideals derived from the heroism of theirforefathersto create a militaryidentificationwhich was loyal not only to the Emperorbut also to the nascent nationalidentityof Finland. Berkhamsted J. E. 0. SCREEN Roslof, Edward E. RedPriests.Renovationism, RussianOrthodoxy, andRevolution, I905-I946. Indiana-Michigan Series in Russian and East European Studies. Indiana University Press,Bloomington and Indianapolis, 2002. XViii+ 259 pp. Tables. Notes. Bibliography.Index. [34.50. AFTER the Bolshevikscame to power a number of Russian Orthodox clergy attempted to found a church which would...

The Finnish Guard in the Balkans: Heroism, Imperial Loyalty and Finnishness in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 as Recollected in the Memoirs of Finnish Guardsmen. By Teuvo Laitila. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Humaniora, vol. 324. Helsinki: Finnish Academy of Science and Letters, 2003. 451 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Chronology. Index. Tables. Maps. €35.00, paper.

The Finnish Guard in the Balkans: Heroism, Imperial Loyalty and Finnishness in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 as Recollected in the Memoirs of Finnish Guardsmen. By Teuvo Laitila. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Humaniora, vol. 324. Helsinki: Finnish Academy of Science and Letters, 2003. 451 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Chronology. Index. Tables. Maps. €35.00, paper.

Race, empire and British wartime national identity, 1939–45*

Abstract Britain's self-portrait as a democratic and paternalistic imperial nation was persistently undermined by the contradictory repercussions of racial divisiveness. The consequences of racism in both the metropole and in the colonies threatened the metropole-colonial relations so fundamental to British imperial sensibilities. Thus, government officials were involved throughout the war in repairing Britain's reputation with its imperial subjects. Using evidence from Colonial Office and Ministry of Information files, this article contributes to historical understanding of the empire's place in British national identity in the World War II years. It suggests the extent to which racism at “home” and in the colonies destabilized British efforts to bolster imperial loyalties that would persist into the post-war future.

Imperial Loyalties and Private Concerns: Nation, Class, and State in the Correspondence of Austro-Hungrian POWs in Russia, 1916–1918

one of the most common experiences during World War I (and one of the least researched topics in the historiography of the war) was the experience of captivity. During four years of fighting, an estimated 8.5 million soldiers were taken captive, or roughly 1 out of every 9 men to don uniforms during the war. Among the warring countries, none had a greater prisoner of war problem than Austria-Hungary: out of 8 million soldiers mobilized by the Dual Monarchy during the war, an estimated 2.77 million wound up in POW camps, the great majority (2.11 million) in Russia.