Kim Wagner contends in his article "Savage Warfare" that in their efforts to suppress

anti-colonial resistance in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, British colonial
authorities employed an incredibly ruthless and dehumanising form of violence
against indigenous populations. Barbaric warfare was neither an isolated incident nor
a reaction to specific circumstances; instead, it was an integral part of the colonial
enterprise and a crucial tool for preserving British control over colonised populations.
Based on examining Kim Wagner's writings, this essay will contend that his position
is firmly correct and consistent with the historical context. Through analysis of his
argument, evidence and exhaustive comparison with numerous other historians'
writings and British conduct, it becomes abundantly clear that British colonists
resorted to savagery and violence as their primary means of gaining control over
indigenous populations.

Wagner's compelling argument asserts that the British form of violence, labelled
"savage warfare," contends that the British government's use of brutal and barbaric
measures against colonial insurgencies was not an anomaly but rather a deliberate
strategy founded on the concept of Western superiority. His ideology held that
colonised populations were deemed inherently inferior, requiring grave and violent
methods of subjugation. Wagner claims suggests the implementation violence in
colonial circumstances did not constitute the fault of rogue commanders or soldiers;
instead, it was a calculated and systemic doctrine. Uncivilised warfare was not
merely a means to an end but an objective. It reinforced the colonial power structure
by emphasising the alleged superiority of the British colonists over the colonised
peoples. By committing acts of excessive violence and cruelty, colonial authorities
could legitimise their presence in the colonies and portray themselves as the sole
source of order and stability. Numerous instances of British counterinsurgency
campaigns support Wagner's argument in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
especially the deployment of detention centres during the Boer War and the
extensive use of torture and mass executions in Kenya during the Mau Mau
Rebellion.1 The author argues that such strategies were not merely tolerated yet

1
Kim A Wagner, “Savage Warfare: Violence and the Rule of Colonial Difference in Early British
Counterinsurgency,” History Workshop Journal 85 (2018): pp. 217-237,
https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbx053, 221-222.
praised by the British government and populace, as they were deemed crucial to
preserving the colonial equilibrium.2

Hull supports Wagner's persuasive argument regarding the nature of violence in

colonial contexts. The author addresses the significance of the German military in
the genocide of the Herero and Nama peoples during the early 20th century, as well
as the contribution of military values to the process of decision-making that ultimately
led to mass murders. This eloquently mirrors Wagner's allegation that colonial
administrations frequently employed violence to retain order and subjugate any form
of defiance among subservient populations. Hull asserts that the profoundly
entrenched military mentality of the German military played an integral part in the
genocide of the Herero and Nama population . This military culture, prioritised
discipline, submission, and fealty to the state, resulting in the brutal dehumanisation
and belief in the innate inferiority of the colonised communities3. She echoes
Wagner's claim that the British continually contrasted savages and wild animals,
eventually dehumanising them to justify their actions,boldly illustarting that
oppressing the adversary was one of the three foundational pillars which prompted
genocide and cruel mistreatment in the German and British Empire.4

Furthermore, Wagner's assertion that violence underpinned colonialism is also

strongly bolstered by Kuss's book, discussing German Colonial Wars and the context
of Military violence. Kuss contends that colonial military culture, which celebrated
crudeness and aggression, was not solely a means of dominance but also a
fundamental component. The author examines the employment of violence in
German East Africa Between 1891 and 1918, arguing that the practice of abuse in
the colony did not just pertain to combat but was a daily occurrence. German
soldiers assaulted Africans frequently, involving forced labour and sexual violence
against African women. Kuss observes that the adoption of brutality in German East
Africa was never distinct to the colony but an element of German military culture.
This military culture glorified and portrayed violence as a prerequisite for triumph.

2
Kim A Wagner, “Savage Warfare”, 227.
3
Isabel V. Hull, “Military Culture and the Production of ‘Final Solutions’ in the Colonies,” The Specter
of Genocide, July 2003, pp. 141-162, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511819674.007, 144.
4
Isabel V. Hull, “Military Culture and the Production of ‘Final Solutions’ in the Colonies,”, 142-143.
5
Kuss's writing lends ardent credence to Wagner's contention that violence was
intrinsic to colonialism, exemplifying the value of brute force in sustaining imperial
rule.

Concurrently, Davis concurs Wagner's argument that colonial leaders resorted to

acts of violence to retain rigid sovereignty of colonies. Davis affirms that the famines
during the late Victorian period were the product of the policies and operations of
colonial authority rather than a natural occurrence. He pleads that the defection and
persecution of native residents in India, Africa, and other colonised territories were
catalysed by the British’s appetite for prosperity and political domination. He
accentuates how the El Nino weather pattern exacerbated the havoc in areas
impacted relentlessly by the British practises of land expropriation, forced labour, and
cash crop cultivation. Davis depicted the ensuing famines and fatalities as
predominantly avoidable, rendered more significant by the British’s idleness. The
author’s inspection of the British Empire's demeanour in colonised provinces lends
substance to Wagner's discussion that the colonial expansion formed roots in
economic and political institutions transcending mere military disputes. Arguing they
partook in institutional cruelty, leading to the anguish and fatalities of millions,
prioritising their financial and military might ahead of the welfare of local inhabitants.
The continued legacy of colonial brutality is further demonstrated by Davis's focus on
the perpetual effects of British conduct. Wagner reasons that the viciousness of
colonialism persists in the political and economic systems of formerly colonised
countries. Ultimately, Wagner's insistence that colonial violence was synthesised with
broader economic and political agendas is bolstered by Davis' examination of British
Empire policy in colonised areas. The British Empire exacerbated preventable
famines and death tolls by exploiting and shunning local communities for financial
and political gain.6

Wagner's argument recognises the vitality of violence in the establishment and

advancement of colonial supremacy. When it comes to the use of force to impose

5
Susanne Kuss, “German Colonial Wars and the Context of Military Violence,” 2017,
https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674977358, 72.
6
Geoff Mann, “Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World, by
Mike DavisNew York: Verso, 2001,” Rethinking Marxism 15, no. 2 (2003): pp. 295-297,
https://doi.org/10.1080/0893569032000113587, 25-59.
authority and discipline on the colonised, I firmly endorse Wagner's perspective. His
assertion that colonial distinctions in early British counterinsurgency were primarily a
consequence of the use of violence is highly persuasive. The author provides clear,
irrefutable proof that British counterinsurgency strategies in colonial contexts were
motivated by an inclucated belief in the legitimacy of violence against the colonised
populace. Wagner's research demonstrates how the use of barbaric warfare, with its
emphasis on merciless methods such as the forced relocation and incarceration,
contributed profusely to the derogatory stereotype and dehumanisation of colonised
communities. Consequently, this justified the use of force to retain authority over the
colonised population. Primary and secondary sources of colonial battles and the
official records of British colonial administrators and military personnel greatly
support Wagner's claims.

Ultimately, Wagner's theory clarifies the historical context of colonial violence and
how it was used to entrench colonial oppression. Identifying how the colonial
system's past is a violent past is a prerequisite for grasping its legacy and its
enduring impact on humanity today. Acknowledging the power dynamics which
sustained colonial authority while striving towards developing an increasingly just
and equitable society calls for recognising the violence and brute force played an
immense part in British colonialism.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Wagner, Kim A. “Savage Warfare: Violence and the Rule of Colonial Difference in Early
British Counterinsurgency.” History Workshop Journal 85 (2018): 217–37.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbx053.

Hull, Isabel V. “Military Culture and the Production of ‘Final Solutions’ in the Colonies.” The
Specter of Genocide, 2003, 141–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511819674.007.
Kuss, Susanne. “German Colonial Wars and the Context of Military Violence,” 2017.
https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674977358.

Mann, Geoff. “Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third
World, by Mike DavisNew York: Verso, 2001.” Rethinking Marxism 15, no. 2 (2003): 295–97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0893569032000113587.