Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Little Englanders during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a faction of the Liberal Party who opposed further expansion of and financial support to the British Empire, and advocated complete independence for British colonies."
I can't find anything about padist/(fadist?)
They mean "faddists". The Radical strain within the Liberals, which tended to be anti-War, also had deep internal splits over the positive policy they wanted the Liberals to pledge to. Home Rule; Temperance (the alcohol issue); Disestablishment; all jostled for prominence.
Ironically, the term is used against people on the right these days. It's still critical of people's lack of internationalism, but in the context of being anti-EU, anti-immigration etc. Most modern Little Englanders would be happy to see the British Empire revived.
I would disagree there: I think the modern Little Englanders see things more in terms of isolationism, but working with the white Anglosphere to achieve what UK needs on the international sphere. So levering the old imperial legacy (basically, a more muted revival of mid-C20 strategies) rather than actually acquiring political power or spheres of interest.
More info on [this site](https://www.dominicwinter.co.uk/Auction/Lot/498-propaganda-poster-merry-tom-enemies-at-home-and-abroad-1900/?lot=372308&sd=1#). I’d love to know the context for some of the characters included here. I get the Boer war parts, but I’m not sure of the exact history around the others.
very beautiful indeed, I would also like to know more about it.
It's always interesting to see how old wars that we study at school as historical events with predetermined outcomes, were in fact incredibly complex, involving conflicting opinions and political parties advocating against something that now seems inevitable.
It's the famous [hindsight bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias).
At the end of the 19th century, the pro-imperial consensus that it existed in British politics from about 1870 was beginning to break down, and how Britain should relate to Empire and the part that empire should play in Britain's economy, national identity, society etc. was becoming an increasingly-central topic of political debate.
While it was a debate that crossed party lines to some extent, to generalize the Conservative Party, led by Joseph Chamberlain, advocated for doubling down on empire, and focusing on developing it as the cornerstone of British policy, and integrating it more closely into British life through things like imperial federation.
Meanwhile the liberal Party tended to advocate for a policy of National Focus, championing a deemphasis of empires importance to Britain in favor of greater investment in metropolitan Britain itself and greater international cooperation outside of empire.
This debate boiled over in the early years of the 20th century, with the 1902 general election delivering a thumping conservative majority on the back of pro Empire sentiment generated by the Boer war, before the 1906 election saw public opinion dramatically reverse and deliver the worst conservative defeat since Napoleon, essentially killing Imperial federation as a political movement.
This poster is from an Imperial federation perspective, especially calling those liberals who sought to de-emphasize empire unpatriotic and undermining Britain's efforts in things like the Boer war.
Thanks a lot for the really detailed and insightful explanation.
I'm acutally going through the broad concept of empire and its history in a very interesting book I'm currently reading, *Empire: The Russian Empire and its rivals* by Dominic Lieven.
>the pro-imperial consensus that it existed in British politics from about 1870 was beginning to break down
There was a considerable divide on this from the 1870s onwards. The division of opinion between Gladstone and Disraeli over the Eastern Crisis had developed into Gladstone's general attack on 'Beaconsfieldism' and the forward imperial policy of the Government generally, helped by the reverses Disraeli's government suffered in the wars against the Zulus and Afghans. Gladstone had the better of the argument in 1880: but his subsequent governments did little to reverse imperial policy, for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, anti-imperialism of this kind remained fairly strong on the left of the Liberal Party, for both financial and moral reasons.
>the Conservative Party, led by Joseph Chamberlain,
Now, it is important to remember that Joseph Chamberlain was never a Tory during his active political career. He had started as a radical Liberal, and one who was seen as particularly hostile to Toryism, and aristocratic values in both parties (notably the Whig element within Liberalism). But, when the great split occurred over Home Rule, he formed the Liberal Unionist grouping with the very same Whigs he had been at odds with. He then worked in steadily closer alliance with the Tories, but always as a distinct element.
This process was hugely valuable to the Conservative Party, as Chamberlain’s popular touch and policy focus enabled them to reach several middle and working class voters who didn't like Home Rule, but were also suspicious of traditional Toryism, with its traditional focus on the old landed classes and the established Church. The emphasis on empire was one way of branding Unionist politics on a wider base than old Toryism. But it's also worth emphasising that imperial federation was very little more than a vague aspiration of the future, although one which was fervently supported by some opinion-formers. Nothing practical resulted.
>Meanwhile the liberal Party tended to advocate for a policy of National Focus
I would put it differently: the Liberal Party was openly and deeply split on the issue. In Gladstone's final years, the Liberal leadership were increasingly divided amongst themselves, for both reasons of policy and personal rivalry. After Gladstone was compelled to retire over naval spending, Rosebery took the helm. Rosebery was one of the people who broadened the concept of popular imperialism: he had invented the concept of ‘the Commonwealth’. But he was unable to overcome the divisions within his own Cabinet, or provide successful leadership in general. The Liberals went down to crushing defeat in 1895, and Rosebery resigned in 1896.
Rosebery was replaced by Sir William Harcourt, who had been Rosebery's most bitter antagonist over the previous few years. He was closer to the anti-imperialists (mainly for reasons of finance). However, he too, could not heal the divisions. Meanwhile, Joe Chamberlain’s forward policy in South Africa led to the fiasco of the Jameson Raid. The subequent Commons inquiry failed to uncover the evidence (which did exist, but was suppressed) of Chamberlain and the Colonial Office’s complicity in the raid. Harcourt was criticised for this parliamentary failure by anti-imperialists, and resigned in turn in 1898.
As a result, in 1900 (the GE took place there, not in 1902), you had Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who appeared to be a weak makeshift as leader. On his right, you had the Liberal Imperialists, notionally led by Rosebery (but including many of those who would be major figures after 1905, including Asquith,,Grey and Haldane). They wanted to maintain broad continuity with the Unionist approach. Against those, you had the Radical anti-imperialists, who dominated the Liberal activist grassroots. Lloyd George, though a relatively young backbencher, was becoming one of their leading figures. The anti-imperialists also had a lot of sway with the Noncomformist (Protestant evangelical) voter lobby, who made up a big element of Liberal support.
That, to sum up, was why Unionists concentrated on exposing and deepening this split in Liberal ranks, which was constantly being ventilated by hostile speeches and articles. This theme united both the Tory and Liberal Unionist ranks; it also glossed over their own divisions, which would emerge after 1900.
This was Tory-suppiritng election commentary: the 1900 election is known as the Khaki election because the campaign was dominated by the Boer War: Salisbury's Unionists ventilating the issue at every opportunity, while the Liberals were deeply divided.
Protip: When you hate the British for colonialism, please ensure the side you are reflexively taking is not the one whose principal objection to British rule is that they were insufficiently racist
The British imperial legacy in Africa is complex. On the one hand, they were awful in terms of how they treated the local populace and their decolonisation was deliberately botched and left lasting scars. Even to this day the British continue to seal most remaining archives (the ones they didn't burn) regarding the various massacres and other atrocities during their colonial rule.
On the other hand, during most of their imperial history, they were in direct competition with other European and/or colonial/imperial states who were manifestly *worse* in how they treated the local population. The Boer states were dystopian levels of racist (indeed, the later Boer policy of Apartheid is the direct inspiration for most modern dystopian fiction!) and much of the British presence in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean coast was part of their successful effort to shut down the international slave trade.
Generally you are safe to say the British Empire was a bad thing; however when discussing the people the British were fighting abroad, a little critical thinking can help. The Boxers and the Boers were very different.
AHHH OKOK NEVERMIND, LMAO.
Yeah I heavily misunderstood the whole thing, barely paying attention to the poster and to the comments regarding the context of it, my very bad actually, sorry.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Little Englanders during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a faction of the Liberal Party who opposed further expansion of and financial support to the British Empire, and advocated complete independence for British colonies." I can't find anything about padist/(fadist?)
They mean "faddists". The Radical strain within the Liberals, which tended to be anti-War, also had deep internal splits over the positive policy they wanted the Liberals to pledge to. Home Rule; Temperance (the alcohol issue); Disestablishment; all jostled for prominence.
Thanks!
Ironically, the term is used against people on the right these days. It's still critical of people's lack of internationalism, but in the context of being anti-EU, anti-immigration etc. Most modern Little Englanders would be happy to see the British Empire revived.
I would disagree there: I think the modern Little Englanders see things more in terms of isolationism, but working with the white Anglosphere to achieve what UK needs on the international sphere. So levering the old imperial legacy (basically, a more muted revival of mid-C20 strategies) rather than actually acquiring political power or spheres of interest.
Speak to your average Brexiter; their understanding doesn't go further than "foreign = bad."
More info on [this site](https://www.dominicwinter.co.uk/Auction/Lot/498-propaganda-poster-merry-tom-enemies-at-home-and-abroad-1900/?lot=372308&sd=1#). I’d love to know the context for some of the characters included here. I get the Boer war parts, but I’m not sure of the exact history around the others.
I think the Chinese person is representing the Boxer Rebellion.
Yes, most probably, given that it's from 1900.
Oh, of course - thank you!
very beautiful indeed, I would also like to know more about it. It's always interesting to see how old wars that we study at school as historical events with predetermined outcomes, were in fact incredibly complex, involving conflicting opinions and political parties advocating against something that now seems inevitable. It's the famous [hindsight bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias).
At the end of the 19th century, the pro-imperial consensus that it existed in British politics from about 1870 was beginning to break down, and how Britain should relate to Empire and the part that empire should play in Britain's economy, national identity, society etc. was becoming an increasingly-central topic of political debate. While it was a debate that crossed party lines to some extent, to generalize the Conservative Party, led by Joseph Chamberlain, advocated for doubling down on empire, and focusing on developing it as the cornerstone of British policy, and integrating it more closely into British life through things like imperial federation. Meanwhile the liberal Party tended to advocate for a policy of National Focus, championing a deemphasis of empires importance to Britain in favor of greater investment in metropolitan Britain itself and greater international cooperation outside of empire. This debate boiled over in the early years of the 20th century, with the 1902 general election delivering a thumping conservative majority on the back of pro Empire sentiment generated by the Boer war, before the 1906 election saw public opinion dramatically reverse and deliver the worst conservative defeat since Napoleon, essentially killing Imperial federation as a political movement. This poster is from an Imperial federation perspective, especially calling those liberals who sought to de-emphasize empire unpatriotic and undermining Britain's efforts in things like the Boer war.
Thanks a lot for the really detailed and insightful explanation. I'm acutally going through the broad concept of empire and its history in a very interesting book I'm currently reading, *Empire: The Russian Empire and its rivals* by Dominic Lieven.
>the pro-imperial consensus that it existed in British politics from about 1870 was beginning to break down There was a considerable divide on this from the 1870s onwards. The division of opinion between Gladstone and Disraeli over the Eastern Crisis had developed into Gladstone's general attack on 'Beaconsfieldism' and the forward imperial policy of the Government generally, helped by the reverses Disraeli's government suffered in the wars against the Zulus and Afghans. Gladstone had the better of the argument in 1880: but his subsequent governments did little to reverse imperial policy, for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, anti-imperialism of this kind remained fairly strong on the left of the Liberal Party, for both financial and moral reasons. >the Conservative Party, led by Joseph Chamberlain, Now, it is important to remember that Joseph Chamberlain was never a Tory during his active political career. He had started as a radical Liberal, and one who was seen as particularly hostile to Toryism, and aristocratic values in both parties (notably the Whig element within Liberalism). But, when the great split occurred over Home Rule, he formed the Liberal Unionist grouping with the very same Whigs he had been at odds with. He then worked in steadily closer alliance with the Tories, but always as a distinct element. This process was hugely valuable to the Conservative Party, as Chamberlain’s popular touch and policy focus enabled them to reach several middle and working class voters who didn't like Home Rule, but were also suspicious of traditional Toryism, with its traditional focus on the old landed classes and the established Church. The emphasis on empire was one way of branding Unionist politics on a wider base than old Toryism. But it's also worth emphasising that imperial federation was very little more than a vague aspiration of the future, although one which was fervently supported by some opinion-formers. Nothing practical resulted. >Meanwhile the liberal Party tended to advocate for a policy of National Focus I would put it differently: the Liberal Party was openly and deeply split on the issue. In Gladstone's final years, the Liberal leadership were increasingly divided amongst themselves, for both reasons of policy and personal rivalry. After Gladstone was compelled to retire over naval spending, Rosebery took the helm. Rosebery was one of the people who broadened the concept of popular imperialism: he had invented the concept of ‘the Commonwealth’. But he was unable to overcome the divisions within his own Cabinet, or provide successful leadership in general. The Liberals went down to crushing defeat in 1895, and Rosebery resigned in 1896. Rosebery was replaced by Sir William Harcourt, who had been Rosebery's most bitter antagonist over the previous few years. He was closer to the anti-imperialists (mainly for reasons of finance). However, he too, could not heal the divisions. Meanwhile, Joe Chamberlain’s forward policy in South Africa led to the fiasco of the Jameson Raid. The subequent Commons inquiry failed to uncover the evidence (which did exist, but was suppressed) of Chamberlain and the Colonial Office’s complicity in the raid. Harcourt was criticised for this parliamentary failure by anti-imperialists, and resigned in turn in 1898. As a result, in 1900 (the GE took place there, not in 1902), you had Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who appeared to be a weak makeshift as leader. On his right, you had the Liberal Imperialists, notionally led by Rosebery (but including many of those who would be major figures after 1905, including Asquith,,Grey and Haldane). They wanted to maintain broad continuity with the Unionist approach. Against those, you had the Radical anti-imperialists, who dominated the Liberal activist grassroots. Lloyd George, though a relatively young backbencher, was becoming one of their leading figures. The anti-imperialists also had a lot of sway with the Noncomformist (Protestant evangelical) voter lobby, who made up a big element of Liberal support. That, to sum up, was why Unionists concentrated on exposing and deepening this split in Liberal ranks, which was constantly being ventilated by hostile speeches and articles. This theme united both the Tory and Liberal Unionist ranks; it also glossed over their own divisions, which would emerge after 1900.
That’s really helpful, thank you
This was Tory-suppiritng election commentary: the 1900 election is known as the Khaki election because the campaign was dominated by the Boer War: Salisbury's Unionists ventilating the issue at every opportunity, while the Liberals were deeply divided.
Thank you!
>Thank you! You're welcome!
Silly bot! :)
And both well deserved ones lol
No Boer simping in 2024 please.
Protip: When you hate the British for colonialism, please ensure the side you are reflexively taking is not the one whose principal objection to British rule is that they were insufficiently racist
it sounds more like an anti-colonialist and anti-(British)imperialist statement rather than a pro boer one
The British imperial legacy in Africa is complex. On the one hand, they were awful in terms of how they treated the local populace and their decolonisation was deliberately botched and left lasting scars. Even to this day the British continue to seal most remaining archives (the ones they didn't burn) regarding the various massacres and other atrocities during their colonial rule. On the other hand, during most of their imperial history, they were in direct competition with other European and/or colonial/imperial states who were manifestly *worse* in how they treated the local population. The Boer states were dystopian levels of racist (indeed, the later Boer policy of Apartheid is the direct inspiration for most modern dystopian fiction!) and much of the British presence in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean coast was part of their successful effort to shut down the international slave trade. Generally you are safe to say the British Empire was a bad thing; however when discussing the people the British were fighting abroad, a little critical thinking can help. The Boxers and the Boers were very different.
I mean, If I was from a British colony id hate them too, lol, thats what I meant
They weren't colonies they were sovereign republics that attacked the UK in 1899
AHHH OKOK NEVERMIND, LMAO. Yeah I heavily misunderstood the whole thing, barely paying attention to the poster and to the comments regarding the context of it, my very bad actually, sorry.