Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Alice in Wonderland, the Boer War, Racism, and British Imperialism and Empire.
Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2026, 10:53 AM - Edit history (1)
Currently, I'm reading, slowly, in bed as I try to go to sleep, Caroline Elkins' book, Legacy of Violence, A History of the British Empire.
It's, um, an "eye opener" and probably not a good idea to read "eye openers" when one is an insomniac going to sleep without resorting to Ambien.
I'm currently reading the part about the establishment of the "Republic" of South Africa, motivated in part by the actions of the British educated Afrikaner "genius" Jan Smuts, who was a leader among the Boers and helped lead the Boers during the Boer war, a kind of British Vietnam, although the British, won the war, albeit with innovations like concentration camps, extreme violence, scorched earth tactics. (Elkins book contains a photograph of a starved Boer adolescent which rivals the pictures one would see four decades later after the liberation of German concentration camps like Bergen Belsen and Auschwitz. )
The war was motivated by the discovery of gold in South Africa.
Um...um...um...
An offhand comment by Elkins in the book that the "Children's book" "Alice in Wonderland" was a commentary on British Imperialism, in fact, was a satire. (The Queen of Hearts, she of "Off with their heads" is often depicted looking very much like Queen Victoria, weirdo of that Imperial expansion age.)
Here from an Icelandic academic paper written in English is an abstract I found with a quick trip into Google Scholar:
Vinsamlegast notið þetta auðkenni þegar þið vitnið til verksins eða tengið í það:
From the abstract:
This essay is an analysis of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. The novel is often perceived merely as a trip to a fantasy world created by Alice’s imagination. The reader is conveyed to Wonderland, a world that has no apparent connection with reality. It seems to be a place ruled by nonsense and incoherence, where the reader loses track of time and space. Nonetheless, many elements of the novel reflect aspects of the author’s time, Victorian Britain. The aim of this essay is to demonstrate that one of the underlying intentions of the author was to satirise the Victorian Age. In order to corroborate this statement, the essay first provides the reader with some historical and political background, and the social and cultural background of the Victorian era. The novel is then analysed through discussing the diverse happenings of Alice’s journey through Wonderland and interpreting the references to Victorian Britain as satire. The analysis of the novel consists of two major aspects. First, an analysis of diverse elements related to the political and historical context. This exposes how British imperialism and ethnocentrism are satirised in the novel, such as through Alice’s inability to understand that Wonderland has its own set of values. The British judicial system is also satirised through the authority figures of Wonderland such as the Queen and King of Hearts. Secondly, there is an analysis of the social and cultural elements that are satirised in the novel. The satire on these elements is mainly focused on the rigid educational system of Victorian Britain, which was based on memorising techniques. The essay then discusses the satire on the social conventions, manners and etiquette of the Victorian era, which is represented though the bizarre conversations and situations with Wonderland creatures in which Alice gets involved.
Excerpts from the text:
4.1 Imperialism
Alice was written at a time when the British Empire was expanding and new lands and societies were being discovered, as stated above. Victorian Britain was a golden age for explorers and travellers. They contributed to the expansion of the British Empire, both in size and knowledge. Alice is also an explorer in Wonderland: she is an English girl who happens to be entering a foreign land. As a girl from an upper class household, she is refined and educated. Alice has been taught lessons in different subjects, from History to Math, and she knows the basics of etiquette. Nonetheless, Alice’s adventures begin with her intrusion into the rabbit-hole, the White Rabbit’s home. She does not apply the standards of English politeness and goes into the rabbit-hole without hesitation. As she comes from an imperialist country, she shows this imperialistic behaviour in Wonderland. As an explorer, Alice advances through Wonderland, a completely alien place. This land is populated by beings that are unknown to her, and who are governed by a set of rules which are unfamiliar. Like Britain, Wonderland seems to be a monarchy with its own social codes. Alice interferes in these creatures’ lives in order to find out what these rules are. It is often the case that the social codes of Wonderland do not apply to those Alice has learned. Instead of adapting to this new society she does not conform to its values and acts as if she was entitled to impose her own. Alice is therefore the reflection of British imperialism during her stay in Wonderland. Her imperialist attitude is a reflection of the ethnocentrism that the British imposed upon their colonies. Alice gets involved in some games and social events that have some common features with those of 19th century Britain. Bivona suggests in his article “Alice the Child-Imperialist” that these events reflect the customs and traditions of the invaded land. Wonderland is being disrupted by Alice, who does not accept the native rules (154), therefore manifesting her ethnocentric behaviour. The first game Alice is 9 introduced to is the Caucus-Race. She assumes that this kind of race has the same features as the ones she is used to play. As any other Victorian child, Alice knows that a race has a beginning, an end, and a winner. However, in Wonderland the race does not have a specific shape, as the contestants are not lined up and run around randomly. A caucus-race, in politics, is a “committee called to decide general action of the group or party”, although it is suggested that “committee members generally do a lot of running around in circles, getting nowhere, and with everybody wanting a political plum” (Green 256), just like the creatures in the novel. The race also finishes arbitrarily, when the Dodo decides to put an end to it. The winner is not a matter of concern in the caucus-race, as everybody wins and emphasis is placed on the award ceremony, in which Alice is forced to participate despite her initial reservations. The Dodo decides that Alice will be the one to present the awards, which are given to all the participants. As an imperialist in Wonderland, Alice does not seem to be very respectful towards the creatures’ game. Alice views the Caucus-Race as something absurd and almost laughs at it, but to Wonderland creatures it seems to be a serious business, as they all look very grave (Carroll 26-27)...
Alice was written at a time when the British Empire was expanding and new lands and societies were being discovered, as stated above. Victorian Britain was a golden age for explorers and travellers. They contributed to the expansion of the British Empire, both in size and knowledge. Alice is also an explorer in Wonderland: she is an English girl who happens to be entering a foreign land. As a girl from an upper class household, she is refined and educated. Alice has been taught lessons in different subjects, from History to Math, and she knows the basics of etiquette. Nonetheless, Alice’s adventures begin with her intrusion into the rabbit-hole, the White Rabbit’s home. She does not apply the standards of English politeness and goes into the rabbit-hole without hesitation. As she comes from an imperialist country, she shows this imperialistic behaviour in Wonderland. As an explorer, Alice advances through Wonderland, a completely alien place. This land is populated by beings that are unknown to her, and who are governed by a set of rules which are unfamiliar. Like Britain, Wonderland seems to be a monarchy with its own social codes. Alice interferes in these creatures’ lives in order to find out what these rules are. It is often the case that the social codes of Wonderland do not apply to those Alice has learned. Instead of adapting to this new society she does not conform to its values and acts as if she was entitled to impose her own. Alice is therefore the reflection of British imperialism during her stay in Wonderland. Her imperialist attitude is a reflection of the ethnocentrism that the British imposed upon their colonies. Alice gets involved in some games and social events that have some common features with those of 19th century Britain. Bivona suggests in his article “Alice the Child-Imperialist” that these events reflect the customs and traditions of the invaded land. Wonderland is being disrupted by Alice, who does not accept the native rules (154), therefore manifesting her ethnocentric behaviour. The first game Alice is 9 introduced to is the Caucus-Race. She assumes that this kind of race has the same features as the ones she is used to play. As any other Victorian child, Alice knows that a race has a beginning, an end, and a winner. However, in Wonderland the race does not have a specific shape, as the contestants are not lined up and run around randomly. A caucus-race, in politics, is a “committee called to decide general action of the group or party”, although it is suggested that “committee members generally do a lot of running around in circles, getting nowhere, and with everybody wanting a political plum” (Green 256), just like the creatures in the novel. The race also finishes arbitrarily, when the Dodo decides to put an end to it. The winner is not a matter of concern in the caucus-race, as everybody wins and emphasis is placed on the award ceremony, in which Alice is forced to participate despite her initial reservations. The Dodo decides that Alice will be the one to present the awards, which are given to all the participants. As an imperialist in Wonderland, Alice does not seem to be very respectful towards the creatures’ game. Alice views the Caucus-Race as something absurd and almost laughs at it, but to Wonderland creatures it seems to be a serious business, as they all look very grave (Carroll 26-27)...
I actually have never understood the ugly details of the British Empire As a boy, I actually admired that Empire, and the then young author cheering the Imperial Apotheosis, Winston Churchill. Looking back, in my childhood, racism seemed "normal;" and let's be clear, the underlying theory behind British Imperialism, was just that, racism.
I was recently part way through an interesting book, which I read in the waiting room during one of my wife's heart procedures, comparing two visions of the British Empire and the (often violated) concept of the "Rule of Law" - the lie by which the British Empire justified itself:
Churchill and Orwell: The Fight for Freedom.
A dual biography of Winston Churchill and George Orwell, who preserved democracy from the threats of authoritarianism, from the left and right alike.
Both George Orwell and Winston Churchill came close to death in the mid-1930’s—Orwell shot in the neck in a trench line in the Spanish Civil War, and Churchill struck by a car in New York City. If they’d died then, history would scarcely remember them. At the time, Churchill was a politician on the outs, his loyalty to his class and party suspect. Orwell was a mildly successful novelist, to put it generously. No one would have predicted that by the end of the 20th century they would be considered two of the most important people in British history for having the vision and courage to campaign tirelessly, in words and in deeds, against the totalitarian threat from both the left and the right. In a crucial moment, they responded first by seeking the facts of the matter, seeing through the lies and obfuscations, and then they acted on their beliefs. Together, to an extent not sufficiently appreciated, they kept the West’s compass set toward freedom as its due north.
It’s not easy to recall now how lonely a position both men once occupied. By the late 1930’s, democracy was discredited in many circles, and authoritarian rulers were everywhere in the ascent. There were some who decried the scourge of communism, but saw in Hitler and Mussolini “men we could do business with,” if not in fact saviors. And there were others who saw the Nazi and fascist threat as malign, but tended to view communism as the path to salvation. Churchill and Orwell, on the other hand, had the foresight to see clearly that the issue was human freedom—that whatever its coloration, a government that denied its people basic freedoms was a totalitarian menace and had to be resisted.
In the end, Churchill and Orwell proved their age’s necessary men. The glorious climax of Churchill and Orwell is the work they both did in the decade of the 1940’s to triumph over freedom’s enemies...
Both George Orwell and Winston Churchill came close to death in the mid-1930’s—Orwell shot in the neck in a trench line in the Spanish Civil War, and Churchill struck by a car in New York City. If they’d died then, history would scarcely remember them. At the time, Churchill was a politician on the outs, his loyalty to his class and party suspect. Orwell was a mildly successful novelist, to put it generously. No one would have predicted that by the end of the 20th century they would be considered two of the most important people in British history for having the vision and courage to campaign tirelessly, in words and in deeds, against the totalitarian threat from both the left and the right. In a crucial moment, they responded first by seeking the facts of the matter, seeing through the lies and obfuscations, and then they acted on their beliefs. Together, to an extent not sufficiently appreciated, they kept the West’s compass set toward freedom as its due north.
It’s not easy to recall now how lonely a position both men once occupied. By the late 1930’s, democracy was discredited in many circles, and authoritarian rulers were everywhere in the ascent. There were some who decried the scourge of communism, but saw in Hitler and Mussolini “men we could do business with,” if not in fact saviors. And there were others who saw the Nazi and fascist threat as malign, but tended to view communism as the path to salvation. Churchill and Orwell, on the other hand, had the foresight to see clearly that the issue was human freedom—that whatever its coloration, a government that denied its people basic freedoms was a totalitarian menace and had to be resisted.
In the end, Churchill and Orwell proved their age’s necessary men. The glorious climax of Churchill and Orwell is the work they both did in the decade of the 1940’s to triumph over freedom’s enemies...
The more I read about Churchill - who was a correspondent in the Boer War, and had been captured, in fact, by the Boers - the more ambivalent about this "great man." The question is in whose "freedom" was he so interested?
I probably should pick up "Churchill and Orwell" again and finish it, which I may do after finishing "Legacy of Violence."
So much to read, so little time...
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
