To The Guardian
If Edward Said “could find no objections to colonialism and imperialism in English literature”, he was quite wrong. Samuel Johnson (1709-84) was a fierce critic of colonial wars. In his Life of Mr Richard Savage, he attacked “the enormous wickedness of making war upon barbarous natives, because they cannot resist, and of invading countries, because they are fruitful” . He drank a toast in front of horrified fellow diners at an Oxford college to the “success of the next negro revolt in the West Indies”, and was against American independence from Great Britain because “these yelpers for liberty are drivers of negroes”. He called the seven years’ war over territories in India and the Americas between Britain and France a “fight among robbers”.
Barry Winkleman, London
Epicurus might have observed that such as colonial wars and the imposition of Western rule on those unused to it, are always eventually bound to rebound on the colonisers. It was too easy to begin with and too difficult, and often unprofitable into the bargain, to continue. The stupid mis-steps by France and Britain in Mesopotamia and Palestine after World War One are a prime example.
Imperialism is a fundamental breach of the right to self determination. It is always wrong to colonise people against their will. Therefore no empire, in the traditional sense of the term, can be moral. It is even disputable as to whether empire benefited the European colonisers. Maintaining a vast military budget was extremely costly, and most of the wealth generated was invested in the colonies. The Europeans, save for a tiny elite, saw hardly any benefits at all.
Thank you Mr. Hanrott and Mr. Winkleman for introducing me to Samuel Johnson’s passionate opposition to colonialism. This new perspective spurs me to read Samuel Johnson from a new perspective. Heinous policies from the moment they were conceived and their deadly consequences have affected us all.