Endorsements

[Not final]This book emerged from two key questions: Did British imperialism "end" at decolonisation or did it merely adapt to changing circumstances? And why has ethnonationalism become so powerful in so many post-colonial states? It argues that British colonial officials in London and on-the-spot formed a tacit preference for Burmese ethnonationalism to combat the more revolutionary trends within Burmese politics. The relationship between imperialists and ethnonationalists may at first seem paradoxical: ethnonationalists, by definition, demand political independence. But formal rule was often the least of British imperialists' concerns, a "burden" even. The far more important end was the preservation of the foothold of British capital and geo-strategic operations in the long term. This argument has very important implications for the study of both modern imperialism and ethnonationalist politics. In expanding scholarly understanding of modern imperialism, the book bridges the gap between colonial "divide-and-rule" policies and neo-colonial "Containment" policies during the Cold War, demonstrating the continuity between these phenomena. It also provides a key case study for how imperialists - and authoritarian states in general - utilise ethnonationalist politics as a force of passive revolution: providing the aesthetics of revolution while preventing real social and economic transformation. In Burma/Myanmar itself, it identifies the origins of the military junta's present-day racial regime that scapegoats Burmese Indians and Muslims as foreign invaders. The present-day Rohingya genocide is a result of the persistence of this racial regime. Ultimately, this book uncovers the relationship between imperialism, capitalism, and ethnonationalism, a relationship that is disturbingly symbiotic and mutually-reinforcing.