Opinion of the Anglo-Zanzibar War

[Simfan34]

I was just writing a post (which I haven't actually posted yet) mentioning the Fascist invasion of Ethiopia and the their comically flimsy justification (or the closest thing to one they ever bothered giving) for attempting to annex Ethiopia- to suppress slavery. Never mind the fact that slavery's persistence in Ethiopia wasn't for the lack of trying- Tewodros II outlawed slavery in the 1850s (before the US for that matter), albeit to little effect, as were the efforts of his successors.

But to get to the question, my mind wandered to another African war genuinely fought to suppress slavery, the Anglo-Zanzibar War. Better known (or in most cases only known) for its record-holding brevity than its causes, the "war" was initiated by Britain strictly over the matter of ending slavery in the island Sultanate.

The Wikipedia article rather glibly states the war was caused by the accession of a new Sultan instead of one "who was more favourable to British interests" without bothering to mention what those interests were. It does seem difficult to believe Imperial Britain would wage a war for such "humanitarian" purposes, so difficult, in fact, that I tried to find an alternate explanation, to no avail.

So, a war of aggression fought by a colonialist empire against a far smaller African nation... to end slavery. What do you make of it?

[Simfan34]

Actually, given what happened afterward, I think it likely the case that the British started the war more to prevent Zanzibar from falling into the German sphere of interest than to end slavery, tho the latter certainly was the justification that was used.

The British had already agreed to swap Heligoland (plus the rights to colonise the mainland) with the Germans for rights over Zanzibar back in 1890, so that was right out. The UK had been trying to suppress slavery on Zanzibar since the 1820s or so, not to mention elsewhere, so it's not like they just took some sudden interest in ending slavery.

[Simfan34]

Actually, given what happened afterward, I think it likely the case that the British started the war more to prevent Zanzibar from falling into the German sphere of interest than to end slavery, tho the latter certainly was the justification that was used.

The British had already agreed to swap Heligoland (plus the rights to colonise the mainland) with the Germans for rights over Zanzibar back in 1890, so that was right out. The UK had been trying to suppress slavery on Zanzibar since the 1820s or so, not to mention elsewhere, so it's not like they just took some sudden interest in ending slavery.

They also weren't particularly forceful in ending it even once they'd turned Zanzibar into a complete puppet. I never said that they were uninterested, but it clearly was a priority only when it came to propaganda rather than actual results.

Where do you get this from?

[Simfan34]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is with you and reading skills? I specifically mentioned this passage, and is failure to specify what said British interests were, in my first post.

[Simfan34]

I'm nominating Simfan for the 2014 Dinesh D'Souza Prize for Minority Apologism for Western Imperialism.

You really like to make a habit of putting words in people's mouths, don't you? I suggest one war might not have been so bad and all of a sudden I'm an "apologist for Western Imperialism".