FILIP SZCZEPAŃSKI

A) In their debate regarding British imperialism, Porter and Mackenzie mainly focus on the
subject of its influence on the British society. The historians present different points of view.
Bernard Porter neglects the importance of British imperialism and argues that it did not have a
significant impact on the domestic society of Britain. He is unable to form a clear opinion, but
he argues that the British society could not manage to forge a coherent national thought,
during the 18th and 19th centuries, due to a number of internal circumstances. John Mackenzie
forms a completely contrary opinion and insinuates that the British imperialism and
colonisation was a visible part of Britain’s public life in the fields of education, entertainment
and culture and had an indisputable impact on the society. However, both historians agree that
the truth presumably lies somewhere in between (or it either of them could be wrong) as it is
impossible to create a single, unambiguous definition of ‘imperialism’. Yet, on this definition
could depend one’s perspective.

B) To defend his point of view, Bernard Porter focuses on the division of the British society. He
explains how it was forming different, smaller communities, according to local environments,
objectives and financial situation. Each of these groups had access to different kind of media,
therefore they were not given a coherent narrative about the Empire. He also gives an example
of how the colonial missionaries were influenced by the imperialism and how each group (he
mentions settlers, missionaries and traders), having different objectives on the colonised lands,
had their attitudes formed. This visible impact that colonialism had on the people sent to
‘serve’ the Empire, according to Porter, makes the imperialist influence on ‘the British who
stayed at home’ absolutely insignificant. Porter also mentions that parliamentary discourse at
that time rarely concerned colonialism. He states that historians who analyse the British
Empire tend to exaggerate their observations to favour their perspective. Mackenzie, on the
other hand, tries to point out the mistakes and understatements in Porter’s view. He focuses on
the cultural and entertainment aspects. He lists a number of plays from that time in which
British imperialism played a major role or which had a colonial background. Mackenzie writes
that the British Empire also implicated imperialist narratives into the sphere of education (f.e.
by making frequent references to the Roman Empire).

C) A review is a form of analysis focused directly on certain subject. It should play an

informative role and simultaneously give an opinion. A review can be carried out by slowly
and scrupulously analysing different aspects of the topic, more or less objectively. Eventually,
the author could specify what solution to the problem they would find the most suitable or
remain hesitant. In the case of the Porter-Mackenzie debate, it would be more convenient to
call Porter’s texts “reviews”. He thoroughly discusses the topic, he considers different, even
opposite points of view and in the end he forms an opinion (not necessarily unambiguous)
which fits perfectly into the structure of a review. As Mackenzie’s text takes the form of a
response to Porter’s views, it would be probably less likely to be called a ‘review’. Historians
conduct the debate within written media, taking turns setting their opinions, giving feedback
and criticizing each other. Not only does this form of discussion provide them with a
possibility of exchanging views, but also reaching a wider audience.
D) While both historians manage to make a number of reasonable points, neither of their views
seems to completely appeal to me. On the one hand, initially I was more favourable towards
Mackenzie, as he scrupulously points out Porter’s mistakes, which I agree with. On the other
hand I find Porter’s narration closer to my personal opinion (which is mightily ambiguous).
Although Porter seems to be extremely chaotic in his thought process, his narration does not
choose extreme sides. However, he is indecisive and meanders around the topic, which in
some sense I do not consider good, as he seems to avoid bringing out a strong statement. I do
not think there is an unambiguous way to state whether the British Imperialism had influence
on the society of the British Empire. Thus, it is difficult to choose which historian is right.
However, it is necessary to say that they both provide arguments that are relevant and could
bring one closer to the truth, as those arguments cover the most crucial spheres of ‘society’:
economy, entertainment, culture and philosophy.