Why had British mainly focused on survey? What is the importance of it even today?
Answers
Answer:
The historiography of the British Empire refers to the studies, sources, critical methods and interpretations used by scholars to develop a history of Britain's empire. Historians and their ideas are the focus here; specific lands and historical dates and episodes are covered in the article on the British Empire. Scholars have long studied the Empire, looking at the causes for its formation, its relations to the French and other empires, and the kinds of people who became imperialists or anti-imperialists, together with their mindsets. The history of the breakdown of the Empire has attracted scholars of the histories of the United States (which broke away in 1776), the British Raj (dissolved in 1947), and the African colonies (independent in the 1960s). John Darwin (2013) identifies four imperial goals: colonizing, civilizing, converting, and commerce.[1] Throughout their conquests, Britain and France are the only two nations in the world to have invaded at least more than 80% of the world’s countries, France invaded more than 80% of the world’s countries (152 out of 195), Britain invaded more than 90% of the world’s countries (173 out of 195).[2]
Historians have approached imperial history from numerous angles over the last century.[3] In recent decades scholars have expanded the range of topics into new areas in social and cultural history, paying special attention to the impact on the natives and their agency in response.[4][5] The cultural turn in historiography has recently emphasised issues of language, religion, gender, and identity. Recent debates have considered the relationship between the "metropole" (Great Britain itself, especially London), and the colonial peripheries. The "British world" historians stress the material, emotional, and financial links among the colonizers across the imperial diaspora. The "new imperial historians," by contrast, are more concerned with the Empire's impact on the metropole, including everyday experiences and images.[6] Phillip Buckner says that by the 1990s few historians continued to portray the Empire as benevolent. The new thinking was that the impact was not so great,[clarification needed] for historians had discovered the many ways which the locals responded to and adapted to Imperial rule. The implication Buckner says is that Imperial history is "therefore less important than was formerly believed".[7]