Talk:Little Englander

Change in meaning

It is a pity that "Little Englander" has been distorted from its original meaning. It seeems there is a need for a phrase that suggests someone who advocates Britain pursuing a pacific and internationalist foreign policy (in the style of e.g. Richard Cobden) and an attitude of good-will and fellowship on the part of England and the English towards the Celtic nations of the British-Irish Islands.

Wikipedia is not, however, in the business of coining phrases or trying to influence usage. Charles Matthews 16:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wording

This passage needs work...I've tried my first go at it...

"Little Englanders" regard themselves as patriotic. Similar views are alleged to be found in many other countries, cf. United States isolationism.

--198.59.190.201 02:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

the term "little Englanders" must be created earlier. Chamberlain refers to it in his speech at the Royal Colonial Institute on March 31, 1897. Here he says: "It was while these views were still entertained, while the little Englanders were in their full career, that this institute was founded to protest against doctrines so injurious to our interests and so derogatory to our honor; and I rejoice that what was then, as it were, "a voice crying in the wilderness" is now the expressed and determined will of the overwhelming majority of the British people." This institute was founded in 1868

Internal evidence (US spelling) shows that that quotation has been edited, so it may be inauthentic in other respects as well. PMLawrence (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Nothing wrong with this article as far as I'm concerned. Why doesn't the person who flagged this article explain his reason for doing so? Maikel 02:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

---

• Little Englander → Britisher — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Taz (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• This move makes no sense at all; see the last sentence of the article, among other things...Cop 663 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. No reason for the move has been stated by the proposer or the admin who validated the proposal, and since the article is about the term "Little Englisher", it wouldn't seem to make much sense to move it to a different name. --DAJF (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is specifically about the term "Little Englander," not about a term "Britisher." •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose No evidence is presented that the two terms are synonymous at all. Dictionaries [1] [2] seem to think they have quite different meanings. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Earlier than the Boer war..

The term little Englander was used way before the 1890s, it was used to denote the policy of the period 1820-1870, when Disraeli called the colonies millstones around the neck of England and many argued that the colonies should be emancipated and not supported through the English treasury. The colonies were not taxed, and they were bound by no trade agreements to Britain, and many questioned the benefit of this arrangement...

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.161.161 (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

are often accused of being "ignorant" and "boorish".?

Even though the Wikipedia is not various businesses, these type of sentences do give a hint at a larger intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.20.191 (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a Brexit connection?

Hmmm, good question. 79.66.198.244 (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Did the term really exist in the 18th century?

The claim that it did, which has now made its way to the first sentence of this article, was added by @Foofbun in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Englander&diff=prev&oldid=727796008#mw-diffpage-visualdiff-cite_note-1, citing a book called the Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, Volume 2. Alas, I cannot find a copy of that book to check what it has to say on the matter. I view this claim with doubt because:

• the canonical examples of Little Englanders I seem to come across again and again when I try to research this topic, like William Gladstone and Richard Cobden, were not born until the 19th century
• many sources even specifically say that the term referred to members of the Liberal party who supported independence for the colonies, but the Liberal Party wasn't founded until 1859
• I have not stumbled across any quotes from the 18th century using the term when I Google for them, nor any historical figures alive in the 18th century who are described, even retroactively, as Little Englanders
• I can't find any other source saying the term was used in the 18th century if I google for `"little englander" "18th century"`

I am reluctant to remove the mention of the 18th century from the article without consensus, since I am in no way a historian nor any kind of expert on this topic, I haven't found any sources definitively stating that usage of the term only began in the 19th century, and I haven't yet had a chance to see what @Foofbun's source has to say about the matter. (I think I'd have to pay a visit to the British Library if I wanted to get a look at that book.) Nonetheless, I find myself suspicious that we're saying something that simply isn't true.

What are others' thoughts? Does anyone feel able to definitively say, one way or the other, what the truth of the matter is? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The OED gives "OED's earliest evidence for Little Englandism is from 1887, in the writing of E. W. Watkin." Not the same term , but close. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC).

I finally visited the British Library and got my hands on Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, Volume 2. The section on Little Englanders reads as follows:

"Little Englanders" is a term applied to those in Britain who came to look upon colonies as burdensome expenses and who called for the granting of self-government as quickly as possible. After the loss of the American colonies in 1781, a general apathy toward empire was noticeable in Britain. Political economists of the late 1700s and early 1800s, following the lead of Adam Smith, often proclaimed that colonies were like ripened fruit that would naturally fall from the tree. Once colonies had matured, they would expect and should be granted self-government. Little Englanders could point to the the United States to demonstrate that its trade with Britain had increased over the years since it had become independent, and Britain had to contribute nothing toward its defense. On the other hand, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia each accounted for less trade than Britain had with the United States, and these colonies did not bear the burden of defending themselves. The costs of protecting its possessions amounted to about one-third of Britain's military budget by the mid-nineteenth century. These political economists also argued that the expansion of armaments necessitated by imperial possession awakened suspicion among neighbors and rivals and could easily lead to war.

The agitation for the repeal of the Corn Laws also produced arguments against empire. Richard Cobden stated that removing tariffs should be followed by the emancipation of the colonies and that eliminating both of these - tariffs and colonies - would eliminate war. Jealousy over trade and empire would thereby be removed. Other countries, seeing how profitable this was for Britain, would adopt its example. Free trade and peace would become universal. Little Englanders firmly believed that many ills could be cured through the separation of the colonies. Between 1840 and 1870, arguments against empire-building reached their peak, and public apathy toward the dependencies was widespread. Members of Parliament of all political affiliations seldom stayed for colonial discussions or for reports by the colonial secretary. After 1870, however, a new spirit of imperialism began to excite the public's imagination, and those Little Englanders who remained true to their anti-imperialism came to be over-whelmingly associated with the Liberal Party.

Underneath that section of the book it says: "REFERENCE: Bernard Porter, Critics of Empire: British Radical Attitudes to Colonialism in Africa, 1895-1914, 1968".

So, this doesn't support the position that the term existed in the 1700s but does implicitly support the position that the term was used (perhaps in retrospect) to refer to opponents of empire in the late 1700s, after we'd lost the war of independence to the Americans. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

How can it make sense for Little Englanders especially to have objected to tariffs?

Articled currently says:

The movement objected to the protectionist stance of British Canada, which was exemplified by the tariff increase of 1859.^{[clarification needed]}

This seems on its face to make little sense; there's no reason to expect granting Canada independence to reduce its inclination to impose tariffs on Britain, surely? I think perhaps the argument here is that if the empire wasn't at least compelling the colonies to accept British trade on favourable terms, then it was just an economic black hole, sucking up defence spending for no reason. But the article doesn't spell that reasoning out and instead this sentence just seems like a non-sequitur. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)