Porter’s book is an eye-opener that demonstrates the historian empire which had an inferior profile in Britain more than other countries abroad. The primary argument by porter is that despite being an imperial country during this period, the nation was still not a sovereign community. This means that the vast empire of Britain was never a topic of national dialogue till the later year of being a supreme nation. The Empire in Britain appeared to be a great enterprise that seemed to be a definition of Britain back in the early nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The repercussions of this empire still exist today, and one can quickly expect to have the impacts reflected within his or her society. Porters book, therefore, aims at critically examining this assumption from the modern-day British culture.
Britain was never involved in imperialism since most of the administrators responsible for imperialism were comparatively drawn into the late imperial period. Most of the imperialists with absent mind had much to do with what British empire was viewed as within Britain more so during the imperial duration (Porter 13). Porter argues that as the realm affected the lives of the Englishmen of Britain materially through items such as trade, raw materials, and culinary habits, then this question did not mean that an average man from England could be aware of what the British empire was intending to do on a daily basis to its people. It is exciting to realize that Britain could control the diverse and abundant empire and the majority of the home subjects of Britain knew its peripheral.
Porter’s idea that the British empire never impacted the daily life of the average citizens from Britain have an advantageous sense more so after because the ordinary Britain’s from the earlier nineteenth century were regular farm worker while others were factory employee who could work for an extended duration for less pay. Most of these workers were interested in what they could have for dinner than the conditions they left back in India (Porter 25). Some were interested in some money people from the upper class could make after controlling the commercial colony. From this, it is clear that Porter needs us to learn that despite what we see externally, we can fail to see the reality even when an issue is significant especially after embracing the British empire.
In this case, despite the economic impact of Britain and its size it never became possible for the realm not to affect the culture of the people of the country. The significant proponents that were leading the empire were the elite people. The upper class also had a say within the realm since they were taught how to be ”rulers first as well as imperialists second. (48)” From the liberalism, capitalism and socialism belief, the interest of the British empire was just a secondary belief.
The middle-class citizens have to figure out their commitment towards their freedom which later resulted in making several individuals to critics of the empire instead of making them its supporters. Just as George Orwell highlights, the English men were always hypocrites on issues related to their empire. The hypocrite’s, in this case, did not know that the empire used to exist. Porter, however, appears to reiterate this argument by suggesting that the working individuals were always ‘absent-minded’ regarding the empire where they could derive only little rewards from material items as well as a society that was not concerned with their social issues (Porter 50).
Being an absent-minded imperialist was significant since it could bring together various artifacts from the British culture that include objects from the practical activities, from the industries and schools, intellectuals from the social concept as well as liberated women. Franko tries to demonstrate this from his work which created some cultural and social space for the modern generation regarding the Patriots to the inhabitants. It is necessary to think about the cultural impact of the empire more so in the investment perspective because it was grouped into social classes. According to Porter, Imperialism was based on domination and control and could only support the cultural evidence within the text. Porter was on a mission to discount the exhibition of the influence of the imperialism to a point where he could leave the people he labeled Zealots since they were real Spreaders of imperialism.
If the middle-class individuals could adopt a positive vision towards the empire, then it was not as a result of being philanthropic instead it was because they had matured into an enterprising society. Summing up, Porter points out that imperial destiny consisted of some significant levels of significant thoughts. One of the views is that the British empire was a weaker imperial culture than most people assume. He goes ahead to draw some parallel assumptions with the current United States where most of the society is not imperialistic.
Secondly, most of the people from Britain were Patriotic as the nineteenth century came to an end while most of the citizens got dismayed at the end of the imperial power of the British. Some British sovereign leaders still reflect back to this duration when the map of the nation used to be imperially red. Porter ends by demonstrating that the commoner’s house consisted of imperial businesses but this appears to be a fearful experience to me. From an individual perspective, ‘Absent minded imperialism’ described Britain in a time when there were arbiters in the world, but most of them did not support nor reject the idea.
Works Cited
Porter, Bernard.В The absent-minded imperialists: Empire, society, and culture in Britain. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2006.