Bear Faxx » Facts

The Origins of Ragtime: Exploring its Cultural Roots in Turn-of-the-Century America

bear — Thu, 01 May 2025 00:09:02 +0000

Ragtime History

Introduction to Ragtime: Defining Ragtime

Ragtime music emerged as a distinctively American style in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, originating primarily within African American communities in the Midwest and South. This genre’s rise coincided with major social changes in America, reflecting both cultural innovation and the blending of African and European musical traditions.

The defining trait of ragtime is its highly syncopated, or “ragged,” rhythm. Melodic accents often fall between the main beats, creating a lively, off-kilter feel that was new to many listeners at the time. Ragtime pieces, often called “rags,” typically consist of three or four contrasting sections or strains, each 16 or 32 measures long, often arranged in patterns of repeats and reprises.

Some notable characteristic features of ragtime music include:

Syncopation: The use of uneven rhythms to create a lively, off-kilter feel.
Piano-based: Most ragtime compositions were written for solo piano, exploiting the instrument’s ability to provide a steady, accented bass in the left hand and a syncopated melody in the right.
Meter: Usually written in 2/4 or 4/4 time, with a regular left-hand accompaniment (bass notes on strong beats and chords on weak beats) supporting the syncopated right-hand melody.

Ragtime’s significance in American music history cannot be overstated. This genre played a pivotal role in breaking racial and cultural barriers, paving the way for later genres such as jazz, swing, and rock and roll. Ragtime’s influence can also be seen in its impact on the music publishing industry, piano sales, and the growth of the recording industry.

The genre’s cultural fusion of African American and European musical elements symbolizes both the creative vitality and the social changes of its era. Composers like Scott Joplin, James Scott, and Joseph Lamb popularized ragtime, bringing it to a wider audience and cementing its place in American music history.

The Time Period: Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Ragtime’s emergence during this era is significant not only as a musical innovation but also as a reflection of the broader social and cultural changes underway in America. The late 19th and early 20th centuries marked a period of profound transformation and tension across American society.

Social and Cultural Context

African American Roots and Segregation: Ragtime originated within African American communities, drawing from traditions like jigs, marches, and the cakewalk.
Despite the creative vibrancy of these communities, the era was defined by intense racial segregation and the institutionalization of Jim Crow laws in the South, which enforced legal segregation and disenfranchised Black Americans.

Urbanization and Entertainment

The rapid urbanization of the late 19th century, fueled by industrialization and immigration, transformed American cities into bustling centers of economic and cultural activity. Ragtime flourished in urban venues such as saloons, gambling houses, pool halls, and brothels, where a single pianist could entertain crowds night after night.

The rise of vaudeville and mass entertainment also provided new platforms for ragtime’s spread across class and racial lines.
The mass production of sheet music and instruments made music more accessible to a wider audience.

Economic Climate

Despite economic hardship for many, the expanding urban middle class had increasing access to leisure activities and consumer goods, including sheet music and pianos, which helped fuel the popularity of ragtime.

The expanding middle class also led to an increase in consumer spending, as Americans began to enjoy more disposable income.
This shift was accompanied by a growing demand for entertainment and cultural activities.

The emerging social, cultural, and economic climate in late 19th-century America created a fertile ground for the development of ragtime. The genre’s unique blend of African American traditions and European classical forms helped it transcend racial boundaries and become a defining symbol of turn-of-the-century America.

African American Roots and Influences

African American musical traditions played a profound role in shaping the unique sound and spirit of ragtime music. The genre’s emergence was deeply rooted in various African American musical styles, each contributing distinct rhythmic, melodic, and cultural elements.

Marches: A popular style influenced by both military and brass band traditions, marches featured strong, steady rhythms with syncopated accents. Composers like John Philip Sousa popularized this form, which provided the structural template for many ragtime compositions.
Cakewalks: Originating among enslaved African Americans as a parody of formal mannerisms of white slave owners, cakewalks involved exaggerated dance movements and were often performed in contests. The music featured syncopated rhythms and a march-like feel, directly influencing the rhythmic style of ragtime.
Minstrel Songs: These songs popularized African American musical idioms like syncopation, call-and-response patterns, and dance tunes. They played a crucial role in spreading African American musical styles to mainstream American culture.

Ragtime’s unique sound was shaped by the blending of these traditions, which drew from various African American folk music elements such as work songs, spirituals, and banjo music. The banjo, with its percussive, syncopated playing style, was particularly influential in shaping ragtime’s characteristic left-hand accompaniment patterns.

The influence of African American musical traditions on ragtime is evident in the genre’s rhythmic complexity, melodic inventiveness, and cultural significance. By exploring these traditions, we can gain a deeper understanding of the cultural roots that gave rise to this iconic American music style.

The Role of African American Composers

African American composers played a pivotal role in shaping ragtime’s sound and status during the turn-of-the-century era. Scott Joplin, often referred to as the “King of Ragtime,” was a key figure in this transformation. His contributions not only elevated ragtime from popular entertainment to a respected art form but also paved the way for future generations of musicians.

Key Characteristics of African American Composers

Blending cultural influences: African American composers like Joplin synthesized African American rhythms and melodies with European forms, creating a unique genre that reflected the cultural diversity and creativity of Black America.
Innovative use of instruments: Joplin and other African American composers experimented with new instrumental combinations and techniques, expanding the possibilities of ragtime music.

Scott Joplin: A Pioneer in Ragtime

Joplin’s contributions to ragtime were profound. He:

Elevated ragtime from popular entertainment to a respected art form: By emphasizing structure, depth, and musical sophistication, Joplin distinguished his compositions from the more improvisational and less respected popular music of the time.
Composed over 40 original ragtime pieces: Classics like “Maple Leaf Rag,” “The Entertainer,” and “Peacherine Rag” remain iconic examples of Joplin’s mastery of the genre.
Taught himself piano and drew upon African American folk traditions and European classical music: This unique blend of influences resulted in a distinctive musical style that continues to inspire artists today.

Impact on Future Generations

The contributions of African American composers like Scott Joplin had far-reaching effects:

Inspired jazz and blues musicians: Ragtime’s complex rhythms and melodies influenced the development of these genres.
Paved the way for future musical innovations: By pushing the boundaries of ragtime, Joplin and other African American composers opened doors to new artistic possibilities.

In conclusion, the role of African American composers in shaping ragtime cannot be overstated. Their innovative approaches, blending cultural influences, and emphasis on musical sophistication transformed a popular genre into a respected art form.

Cultural Exchange and the Evolution of Ragtime

The Influence of European Classical Music

European classical music played a profound role in shaping the origins of ragtime, a uniquely American genre that emerged in turn-of-the-century America. Composers like Franz Liszt and Claude Debussy significantly influenced ragtime’s development, contributing to its unique sound and style.

Liszt’s Influence

Franz Liszt, a Hungarian composer and pianist, was a pioneer of virtuosic piano music. His innovations in piano technique, showmanship, and use of syncopation influenced the technical approach of later ragtime composers. Many early ragtime pianists were classically trained, drawing from Liszt’s tradition of expressive, technically demanding piano music.

Some passages in Liszt’s works, such as his Hungarian Rhapsodies, feature rhythmic vitality and dance-like qualities that anticipate aspects of ragtime. These elements were incorporated into the development of ragtime, adding to its energetic and lively spirit.

Debussy’s Contribution

Claude Debussy, a French composer, was among the first major European composers to incorporate ragtime rhythms and styles into classical compositions. He encountered ragtime at the 1900 Paris Exposition, likely through John Philip Sousa’s band. Debussy’s experimentation with extended harmonies, voicings, and rhythmic patterns helped bridge ragtime and jazz with European art music.

Debussy’s piece “Golliwog’s Cake Walk” (from Children’s Corner, 1908) directly emulates the syncopated rhythms and playful spirit of ragtime, blending them with his impressionistic harmonies. This direct incorporation of ragtime elements into classical compositions demonstrates Debussy’s significant influence on the development of ragtime.

Reciprocal Influence

The popularity of ragtime in Europe led to its adoption and adaptation by classical composers. Conversely, ragtime composers in America drew from European forms and harmonic language, creating a hybrid style that was distinctly American yet globally resonant.

This reciprocal exchange between European classical music and ragtime highlights the complex and dynamic nature of musical influence. The boundaries between genres blurred, leading to the creation of new and innovative sounds that continue to shape our understanding of music today.

In conclusion, the influence of European classical music on ragtime cannot be overstated. Composers like Liszt and Debussy played a significant role in shaping the development of ragtime, contributing to its unique sound and style. Their innovations and experiments paved the way for the creation of this iconic American genre.

Ragtime in the Vaudeville Circuit

Vaudeville played a pivotal role in popularizing ragtime, transforming the genre from a regional phenomenon into a staple of American popular culture. During its heyday, vaudeville was the dominant form of live entertainment in the United States, featuring a diverse range of acts including music, comedy, dance, and novelty performances.

Vaudeville’s exposure to ragtime was multifaceted, with the genre being incorporated into various acts as featured performances or background music for dance and comedy routines.
Ragtime’s unique syncopated rhythms captivated audiences, making it an ideal fit for vaudeville’s energetic and varied format.
The integration of ragtime into vaudeville acts helped to expose the genre to diverse, nationwide audiences who might not have encountered it otherwise.

A Platform for African American Artists

Vaudeville also provided a platform for Black performers and composers to present authentic versions of ragtime and challenge prevailing stereotypes. Notable African American entertainers and songwriters contributed original ragtime compositions and performances, helping to shape the genre’s sound and expand its reach.

Despite segregation and discrimination, vaudeville offered opportunities for African American artists to showcase their talents and share their music with a broader audience.
The contributions of these artists helped to create a more diverse and inclusive representation of ragtime, paving the way for future generations of musicians.

Evolution Through Interpretation

As ragtime became a vaudeville staple, it was adapted and interpreted by a wide range of musicians and performers. This process encouraged stylistic variation, with ragtime evolving to suit different acts and audience tastes. The genre took on a life of its own, influenced by the various interpretations and reinterpretations that emerged.

Vaudeville’s emphasis on live performance and improvisation allowed for a high degree of creative freedom, enabling musicians to experiment and innovate within the genre.
The resulting diversity of ragtime helped to keep the genre fresh and exciting, even as it gained widespread popularity.

Key Figures and Milestones

Scott Joplin: The ‘King of Ragtime’

Scott Joplin, known as the “King of Ragtime,” was a pioneering African American composer who played a pivotal role in shaping the genre’s development in turn-of-the-century America.

Born on November 24, 1868, in Texarkana, Texas (or so sources dispute), Joplin was one of six children in a musical family. His father, who played violin, and mother, who sang and played banjo, exposed him to music from an early age. By the time he was seven, Joplin began teaching himself piano, with later instruction from his mother and Julius Weiss, a German music professor who introduced him to classical music.

As a teenager, Joplin performed in local ensembles and sang in a quartet before leaving home in the late 1880s to become a traveling musician. He eventually settled in Sedalia, Missouri, where he attended George R. Smith College and immersed himself in the emerging ragtime scene. It was during this time that he composed his breakthrough piece, “Maple Leaf Rag,” which became the first and most influential ragtime hit, selling over a million copies and earning him the title “King of Ragtime.”

Joplin’s contributions to ragtime went beyond his own compositions. He worked tirelessly to elevate the genre’s status from popular dance music to a respected art form, teaching and mentoring other ragtime composers, including Arthur Marshall and Scott Hayden. His music brought depth and sophistication to ragtime, helping transform it into a central part of American musical history.

Some of Joplin’s most notable works include:

“The Entertainer”
“Peacherine Rag”
“The Chrysanthemum”
“Solace”
“Easy Winners”

Despite his struggles with syphilis and declining health, Joplin’s legacy endured. In the 1970s, a major revival of interest in his work led to the staging of his opera “Treemonisha” to critical acclaim. The piece was finally published in New York, cementing Joplin’s status as one of the most important figures in ragtime.

Today, Scott Joplin is celebrated for his innovative and influential contributions to American music. His works remain central to the repertoire, and his life story continues to inspire musicians and composers worldwide. As a pioneer in ragtime, Joplin paved the way for future generations of artists, leaving behind a lasting impact on the genre that continues to be felt today.

The Publication of ‘The Maple Leaf Rag’

In 1899, Scott Joplin published his iconic composition, “Maple Leaf Rag,” which would go on to shape the course of ragtime history and leave an indelible mark on American music.

A Key Milestone in Ragtime’s Development

“Maple Leaf Rag” was more than just a catchy tune; it was a defining moment for the ragtime genre. The piece’s innovative use of syncopation, multi-strain form, and catchy melodies set the standard for future compositions and helped elevate ragtime from dance hall entertainment to a respected art form.

The Impact on Popular Culture

The phenomenal commercial success of “Maple Leaf Rag” triggered a nationwide craze, with sheet music sales reaching over one million copies by 1914. This widespread popularity not only propelled Joplin to national fame but also inspired hundreds of composers to write their own rags, leading to the establishment of ragtime instruction schools across the country.

A Phenomenon that Crossed Generational Lines: The song’s enduring appeal is evident in its continued performance, recordings, and revivals. Its influence can be seen in various forms of music, including jazz and American popular music more broadly.
A Legacy that Endures: “Maple Leaf Rag” remains a beloved classic, regularly performed by pianists worldwide and recognized as a symbol of American musical innovation and heritage.

The Significance of Joplin’s Composition

In summary, “Maple Leaf Rag” was pivotal in popularizing ragtime, setting the artistic and commercial standard for the genre, and cementing Scott Joplin’s legacy as one of America’s most important composers. Its influence can still be felt today, making it a cornerstone of American music history.

The publication of “Maple Leaf Rag” marked a turning point in the development of ragtime, showcasing its potential to transcend traditional boundaries and become an integral part of American musical culture.

Legacy and Impact

Ragtime’s Influence on American Music

Ragtime, a genre of music that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, had a profound impact on the development of American music. Its influence can be seen in various genres, including jazz, blues, and swing.

• Jazz: Ragtime’s syncopated rhythms and formal structures were instrumental in the birth of jazz. The energetic, danceable rhythms of ragtime directly influenced the dance music that would become swing. Ragtime’s innovations in rhythm, form, and performance practice helped establish the foundation for American popular music in the 20th century.

• Blues: Ragtime’s rhythmic interplay and formal structure contributed to the evolution of the blues repertoire. The syncopated rhythms of ragtime translated into the rhythmic “swing” feel that defined big band music of the 1930s and 1940s.

• Swing: Ragtime’s popularity in dance halls and its adaptation by orchestras helped pave the way for the rise of large dance bands, which would later dominate the swing era. The energetic rhythms of ragtime directly influenced the development of swing music, with many swing musicians drawing on ragtime’s syncopated rhythms and formal structures.

Ragtime’s influence extended beyond jazz, blues, and swing, impacting European classical composers and shaping the development of American musical theater and popular song. Its legacy can be heard in the music of many notable artists, from Duke Ellington to Louis Armstrong.

The impact of ragtime on American music is a testament to its innovative spirit and its ability to influence future generations of musicians. As we explore the cultural roots of ragtime, it becomes clear that this genre was more than just a fleeting fad – it was a catalyst for musical evolution and growth.

Ragtime in Modern Times

As we delve into the cultural roots of ragtime in turn-of-the-century America, it’s essential to explore its continued relevance and popularity in contemporary music and culture.

Despite being a product of its time, ragtime has managed to endure and evolve, influencing various genres and artists across the globe. Its unique blend of African-American musical traditions, European instrumentation, and innovative rhythms has made it a staple in modern music.

Key Factors Contributing to Ragtime’s Enduring Popularity

Influence on Popular Music: Ragtime’s influence can be seen in many popular music genres, including jazz, blues, and swing. Artists such as Duke Ellington, Count Basie, and Artie Shaw have all been influenced by ragtime.
Cultural Relevance: Ragtime’s themes of love, longing, and social commentary continue to resonate with audiences today. The music’s ability to evoke emotions and tell stories has made it a staple in contemporary music.
Nostalgia and Retro Appeal: Ragtime’s retro appeal has also contributed to its enduring popularity. Many modern artists have incorporated ragtime elements into their music, appealing to fans of vintage jazz and blues.

Ragtime in Modern Media

Film and Television Soundtracks: Ragtime’s nostalgic charm has made it a popular choice for film and television soundtracks. The music has been featured in movies such as “The Sting” and TV shows like “Mad Men.”
Video Games: Ragtime’s influence can also be seen in video games, with titles like “Grand Theft Auto V” featuring ragtime-inspired music.
Live Performances: Modern artists continue to draw inspiration from ragtime, performing live shows that blend traditional jazz and blues with modern rock and pop elements.

Conclusion

Ragtime’s continued relevance and popularity in contemporary music and culture are a testament to its enduring legacy. As we continue to explore the cultural roots of this iconic genre, it’s clear that ragtime remains an essential part of our musical heritage.

Christianity

bear — Sun, 05 Jul 2020 06:26:35 +0000

Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth

Part of a series on

Christianity

Jesus
Christ

Jesus in Christianity
Nativity
Crucifixion
Resurrection

Bible
Foundations

Old Testament
New Testament
Gospel
Canon
Books of the Bible
Church
Creed
New Covenant

Theology

God
Trinity
- Father
- Son
- Holy Spirit

Apologetics
Baptism
Christology
History of theology
Mission
Salvation

History
Tradition

Apostles
Peter
Paul
Mary
Early Christianity
Church Fathers
Constantine
Councils
Augustine
East–West Schism
Crusades
Aquinas
Reformation
Luther

Denominations
Groups

Western
Roman Catholic Protestant Adventist Anabaptist Anglican Baptist Calvinist Evangelical Holiness Lutheran Methodist Pentecostal
Eastern
Assyrian Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox
Nontrinitarian
Jehovah’s Witness Latter Day Saint Oneness Pentecostal

Etymology

Early Jewish Christians referred to themselves as ‘The Way’ (της οδου), probably coming from Isaiah 40:3, “prepare the way of the Lord.”[19][note 1] According to Acts 11:26, the term “Christian” (Greek: Χριστιανός) was first used in reference to Jesus’s disciples in the city of Antioch, meaning “followers of Christ,” by the non-Jewish inhabitants of Antioch.[25] The earliest recorded use of the term “Christianity” (Greek: Χριστιανισμός) was by Ignatius of Antioch, in around 100 AD.[26]

Beliefs

While Christians worldwide share basic convictions, there are also differences of interpretations and opinions of the Bible and sacred traditions on which Christianity is based.[27]

Creeds

An Eastern Christian icon depicting Emperor Constantine and the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea (325) as holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381

Main articles: Creed § Christian creeds, and List of Christian creeds

Wikisource has original text related to this article:Apostles’ Creed

Wikisource has original text related to this article:Nicene Creed

Concise doctrinal statements or confessions of religious beliefs are known as creeds. They began as baptismal formulae and were later expanded during the Christological controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries to become statements of faith.

The Apostles’ Creed is the most widely accepted statement of the articles of Christian faith. It is used by a number of Christian denominations for both liturgical and catechetical purposes, most visibly by liturgical churches of Western Christian tradition, including the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Western Rite Orthodoxy. It is also used by Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists. This particular creed was developed between the 2nd and 9th centuries. Its central doctrines are those of the Trinity and God the Creator. Each of the doctrines found in this creed can be traced to statements current in the apostolic period. The creed was apparently used as a summary of Christian doctrine for baptismal candidates in the churches of Rome.[28] Its points include:

Belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit
The death, descent into hell, resurrection and ascension of Christ
The holiness of the Church and the communion of saints
Christ’s second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful

The Nicene Creed was formulated, largely in response to Arianism, at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople in 325 and 381 respectively,[29][30] and ratified as the universal creed of Christendom by the First Council of Ephesus in 431.[31]

The Chalcedonian Definition, or Creed of Chalcedon, developed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451,[32] though rejected by the Oriental Orthodox,[33] taught Christ “to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably”: one divine and one human, and that both natures, while perfect in themselves, are nevertheless also perfectly united into one person.[34]

The Athanasian Creed, received in the Western Church as having the same status as the Nicene and Chalcedonian, says: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.”[35]

Most Christians (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestant alike) accept the use of creeds, and subscribe to at least one of the creeds mentioned above.[36]

Many Evangelical Protestants reject creeds as definitive statements of faith, even while agreeing with some or all of the substance of the creeds. Most Baptists do not use creeds “in that they have not sought to establish binding authoritative confessions of faith on one another.”[37]:111 Also rejecting creeds are groups with roots in the Restoration Movement, such as the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Evangelical Christian Church in Canada, and the Churches of Christ.[38][39]:14–15[40]:123

Jesus

Various depictions of Jesus

Main articles: Jesus in Christianity and Christ (title)

See also: Incarnation (Christianity) and Jesus in comparative mythology

The central tenet of Christianity is the belief in Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah (Christ). Christians believe that Jesus, as the Messiah, was anointed by God as savior of humanity and hold that Jesus’ coming was the fulfillment of messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. The Christian concept of messiah differs significantly from the contemporary Jewish concept. The core Christian belief is that through belief in and acceptance of the death and resurrection of Jesus, sinful humans can be reconciled to God, and thereby are offered salvation and the promise of eternal life.[41]

While there have been many theological disputes over the nature of Jesus over the earliest centuries of Christian history, generally, Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate and “true God and true man” (or both fully divine and fully human). Jesus, having become fully human, suffered the pains and temptations of a mortal man, but did not sin. As fully God, he rose to life again. According to the New Testament, he rose from the dead,[42] ascended to heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father,[43] and will ultimately return[Acts 1:9–11] to fulfill the rest of the Messianic prophecy, including the resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment, and the final establishment of the Kingdom of God.

According to the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born from the Virgin Mary. Little of Jesus’ childhood is recorded in the canonical gospels, although infancy gospels were popular in antiquity. In comparison, his adulthood, especially the week before his death, is well documented in the gospels contained within the New Testament, because that part of his life is believed to be most important. The biblical accounts of Jesus’ ministry include: his baptism, miracles, preaching, teaching, and deeds.

Death and resurrection

Main articles: Crucifixion of Jesus and Resurrection of Jesus

Crucifixion, representing the death of Jesus on the Cross, painting by Diego Velázquez, c. 1632

Christians consider the resurrection of Jesus to be the cornerstone of their faith (see 1 Corinthians 15) and the most important event in history.[44] Among Christian beliefs, the death and resurrection of Jesus are two core events on which much of Christian doctrine and theology is based.[45] According to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified, died a physical death, was buried within a tomb, and rose from the dead three days later.[Jn. 19:30–31] [Mk. 16:1] [16:6]

The New Testament mentions several post-resurrection appearances of Jesus on different occasions to his twelve apostles and disciples, including “more than five hundred brethren at once”,[1Cor 15:6] before Jesus’ ascension to heaven. Jesus’ death and resurrection are commemorated by Christians in all worship services, with special emphasis during Holy Week, which includes Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

The death and resurrection of Jesus are usually considered the most important events in Christian theology, partly because they demonstrate that Jesus has power over life and death and therefore has the authority and power to give people eternal life.[46]

Christian churches accept and teach the New Testament account of the resurrection of Jesus with very few exceptions.[47] Some modern scholars use the belief of Jesus’ followers in the resurrection as a point of departure for establishing the continuity of the historical Jesus and the proclamation of the early church.[48] Some liberal Christians do not accept a literal bodily resurrection,[49][50] seeing the story as richly symbolic and spiritually nourishing myth. Arguments over death and resurrection claims occur at many religious debates and interfaith dialogues.[51] Paul the Apostle, an early Christian convert and missionary, wrote, “If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless.”[1Cor 15:14][52]

Salvation

Main article: Salvation in Christianity

“The Law and the Gospel” by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1529); Moses and Elijah point the sinner to Jesus for salvation

Paul the Apostle, like Jews and Roman pagans of his time, believed that sacrifice can bring about new kinship ties, purity, and eternal life.[53] For Paul, the necessary sacrifice was the death of Jesus: Gentiles who are “Christ’s” are, like Israel, descendants of Abraham and “heirs according to the promise”.[Gal. 3:29][54] The God who raised Jesus from the dead would also give new life to the “mortal bodies” of Gentile Christians, who had become with Israel, the “children of God”, and were therefore no longer “in the flesh”.[Rom. 8:9,11,16][53]

Modern Christian churches tend to be much more concerned with how humanity can be saved from a universal condition of sin and death than the question of how both Jews and Gentiles can be in God’s family. According to Eastern Orthodox theology, based upon their understanding of the atonement as put forward by Irenaeus’ recapitulation theory, Jesus’ death is a ransom. This restores the relation with God, who is loving and reaches out to humanity, and offers the possibility of theosis c.q. divinization, becoming the kind of humans God wants humanity to be. According to Catholic doctrine, Jesus’ death satisfies the wrath of God, aroused by the offense to God’s honor caused by human’s sinfulness. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation does not occur without faithfulness on the part of Christians; converts must live in accordance with principles of love and ordinarily must be baptized.[55] In Protestant theology, Jesus’ death is regarded as a substitutionary penalty carried by Jesus, for the debt that has to be paid by humankind when it broke God’s moral law. Martin Luther taught that baptism was necessary for salvation, but modern Lutherans and other Protestants tend to teach that salvation is a gift that comes to an individual by God’s grace, sometimes defined as “unmerited favor”, even apart from baptism.[citation needed]

Christians differ in their views on the extent to which individuals’ salvation is pre-ordained by God. Reformed theology places distinctive emphasis on grace by teaching that individuals are completely incapable of self-redemption, but that sanctifying grace is irresistible.[56] In contrast Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Arminian Protestants believe that the exercise of free will is necessary to have faith in Jesus.[57]

Trinity

Main article: Trinity

The Trinity is the belief that God is one God in three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit[58]

Trinity refers to the teaching that the one God[59] comprises three distinct, eternally co-existing persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate in Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Together, these three persons are sometimes called the Godhead,[60][61][62] although there is no single term in use in Scripture to denote the unified Godhead.[63] In the words of the Athanasian Creed, an early statement of Christian belief, “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God”.[64] They are distinct from another: the Father has no source, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Though distinct, the three persons cannot be divided from one another in being or in operation. While some Christians also believe that God appeared as the Father in the Old Testament, it is agreed that he appeared as the Son in the New Testament, and will still continue to manifest as the Holy Spirit in the present. But still, God still existed as three persons in each of these times.[65] However, traditionally there is a belief that it was the Son who appeared in the Old Testament because, for example, when the Trinity is depicted in art, the Son typically has the distinctive appearance, a cruciform halo identifying Christ, and in depictions of the Garden of Eden, this looks forward to an Incarnation yet to occur. In some Early Christian sarcophagi the Logos is distinguished with a beard, “which allows him to appear ancient, even pre-existent.”[66]

The Trinity is an essential doctrine of mainstream Christianity. From earlier than the times of the Nicene Creed (325) Christianity advocated[67] the triune mystery-nature of God as a normative profession of faith. According to Roger E. Olson and Christopher Hall, through prayer, meditation, study and practice, the Christian community concluded “that God must exist as both a unity and trinity”, codifying this in ecumenical council at the end of the 4th century.[68][69]

According to this doctrine, God is not divided in the sense that each person has a third of the whole; rather, each person is considered to be fully God (see Perichoresis). The distinction lies in their relations, the Father being unbegotten; the Son being begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and (in Western Christian theology) from the Son. Regardless of this apparent difference, the three “persons” are each eternal and omnipotent. Other Christian religions including Unitarian Universalism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism, do not share those views on the Trinity.

The Greek word trias[70][note 2] is first seen in this sense in the works of Theophilus of Antioch; his text reads: “of the Trinity, of God, and of His Word, and of His Wisdom”.[74] The term may have been in use before this time; its Latin equivalent,[note 2] trinitas,[72] appears afterwards with an explicit reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in Tertullian.[75][76] In the following century, the word was in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen.[77]

Trinitarians

Main article: Trinitarianism

Trinitarianism denotes Christians who believe in the concept of the Trinity. Almost all Christian denominations and churches hold Trinitarian beliefs. Although the words “Trinity” and “Triune” do not appear in the Bible, beginning in the 3rd century theologians developed the term and concept to facilitate comprehension of the New Testament teachings of God as being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since that time, Christian theologians have been careful to emphasize that Trinity does not imply that there are three gods (the antitrinitarian heresy of Tritheism), nor that each hypostasis of the Trinity is one-third of an infinite God (partialism), nor that the Son and the Holy Spirit are beings created by and subordinate to the Father (Arianism). Rather, the Trinity is defined as one God in three persons.[78]

Nontrinitarianism

Main article: Nontrinitarianism

Nontrinitarianism (or antitrinitarianism) refers to theology that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. Various nontrinitarian views, such as adoptionism or modalism, existed in early Christianity, leading to the disputes about Christology.[79] Nontrinitarianism reappeared in the Gnosticism of the Cathars between the 11th and 13th centuries, among groups with Unitarian theology in the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century,[80] in the 18th-century Enlightenment, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.

Eschatology

Main article: Christian eschatology

The 7th-century Khor Virap monastery in the shadow of Mount Ararat; Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity as the state religion, in AD 301[81]

The end of things, whether the end of an individual life, the end of the age, or the end of the world, broadly speaking, is Christian eschatology; the study of the destiny of humans as it is revealed in the Bible. The major issues in Christian eschatology are the Tribulation, death and the afterlife, (mainly for Evangelical groups) the Millennium and the following Rapture, the Second Coming of Jesus, Resurrection of the Dead, Heaven, (for liturgical branches) Purgatory, and Hell, the Last Judgment, the end of the world, and the New Heavens and New Earth.

Christians believe that the second coming of Christ will occur at the end of time, after a period of severe persecution (the Great Tribulation). All who have died will be resurrected bodily from the dead for the Last Judgment. Jesus will fully establish the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of scriptural prophecies.[82][83]

Death and afterlife

Most Christians believe that human beings experience divine judgment and are rewarded either with eternal life or eternal damnation. This includes the general judgement at the resurrection of the dead as well as the belief (held by Catholics,[84][85] Orthodox[86][87] and most Protestants) in a judgment particular to the individual soul upon physical death.

In the liturgical branches (e.g. Catholicism or Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy), those who die in a state of grace, i.e., without any mortal sin separating them from God, but are still imperfectly purified from the effects of sin, undergo purification through the intermediate state of purgatory to achieve the holiness necessary for entrance into God’s presence.[88] Those who have attained this goal are called saints (Latin sanctus, “holy”).[89]

Some Christian groups, such as Seventh-day Adventists, hold to mortalism, the belief that the human soul is not naturally immortal, and is unconscious during the intermediate state between bodily death and resurrection. These Christians also hold to Annihilationism, the belief that subsequent to the final judgement, the wicked will cease to exist rather than suffer everlasting torment. Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a similar view.[90]

Practices

Main articles: Christian worship and Church service

See also: Mass (liturgy), Reformed worship, and Contemporary worship

Samples of Catholic religious objects – the Bible, a crucifix and a rosary

Depending on the specific denomination of Christianity, practices may include baptism, the Eucharist (Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper), prayer (including the Lord’s Prayer), confession, confirmation, burial rites, marriage rites and the religious education of children. Most denominations have ordained clergy who lead regular communal worship services.[91]

Communal worship

Services of worship typically follow a pattern or form known as liturgy.[note 3] Justin Martyr described 2nd-century Christian liturgy in his First Apology (c. 150) to Emperor Antoninus Pius, and his description remains relevant to the basic structure of Christian liturgical worship:

.mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 40px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.[93]

Thus, as Justin described, Christians assemble for communal worship typically on Sunday, the day of the resurrection, though other liturgical practices often occur outside this setting. Scripture readings are drawn from the Old and New Testaments, but especially the gospels.[note 4][94] Instruction is given based on these readings, called a sermon or homily. There are a variety of congregational prayers, including thanksgiving, confession, and intercession, which occur throughout the service and take a variety of forms including recited, responsive, silent, or sung.[91] Psalms, hymns, or worship songs may be sung.[95][96] Services can be varied for special events like significant feast days.[97]

Nearly all forms of worship incorporate the Eucharist, which consists of a meal. It is reenacted in accordance with Jesus’ instruction at the Last Supper that his followers do in remembrance of him as when he gave his disciples bread, saying, “This is my body”, and gave them wine saying, “This is my blood”.[98] In the early church, Christians and those yet to complete initiation would separate for the Eucharistic part of the service.[99] Some denominations continue to practice ‘closed communion’. They offer communion to those who are already united in that denomination or sometimes individual church. Catholics restrict participation to their members who are not in a state of mortal sin.[100] Many other churches practice ‘open communion’ since they view communion as a means to unity, rather than an end, and invite all believing Christians to participate.[101][102]

Sacraments

Main article: Sacrament

See also: Sacraments of the Catholic Church, Anglican sacraments, and Lutheran sacraments

.mw-parser-output .quotebox{background-color:#F9F9F9;border:1px solid #aaa;box-sizing:border-box;padding:10px;font-size:88%;max-width:100%}.mw-parser-output .quotebox.floatleft{margin:0.5em 1.4em 0.8em 0}.mw-parser-output .quotebox.floatright{margin:0.5em 0 0.8em 1.4em}.mw-parser-output .quotebox.centered{margin:0.5em auto 0.8em auto}.mw-parser-output .quotebox.floatleft p,.mw-parser-output .quotebox.floatright p{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .quotebox-title{background-color:#F9F9F9;text-align:center;font-size:larger;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .quotebox-quote.quoted:before{font-family:”Times New Roman”,serif;font-weight:bold;font-size:large;color:gray;content:” “ “;vertical-align:-45%;line-height:0}.mw-parser-output .quotebox-quote.quoted:after{font-family:”Times New Roman”,serif;font-weight:bold;font-size:large;color:gray;content:” ” “;line-height:0}.mw-parser-output .quotebox .left-aligned{text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .quotebox .right-aligned{text-align:right}.mw-parser-output .quotebox .center-aligned{text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .quotebox cite{display:block;font-style:normal}@media screen and (max-width:360px){.mw-parser-output .quotebox{min-width:100%;margin:0 0 0.8em!important;float:none!important}}

2nd-century description of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Eukharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Justin Martyr[93]

In Christian belief and practice, a sacrament is a rite, instituted by Christ, that confers grace, constituting a sacred mystery. The term is derived from the Latin word sacramentum, which was used to translate the Greek word for mystery. Views concerning both which rites are sacramental, and what it means for an act to be a sacrament, vary among Christian denominations and traditions.[103]

The most conventional functional definition of a sacrament is that it is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, that conveys an inward, spiritual grace through Christ. The two most widely accepted sacraments are Baptism and the Eucharist, however, the majority of Christians also recognize five additional sacraments: Confirmation (Chrismation in the Orthodox tradition), Holy Orders (or ordination), Penance (or Confession), Anointing of the Sick, and Matrimony (see Christian views on marriage).[103]

Taken together, these are the Seven Sacraments as recognized by churches in the High Church tradition—notably Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Independent Catholic, Old Catholic, many Anglicans, and some Lutherans. Most other denominations and traditions typically affirm only Baptism and Eucharist as sacraments, while some Protestant groups, such as the Quakers, reject sacramental theology.[103] Christian denominations, such as Baptists, which believe these rites do not communicate grace, prefer to call Baptism and Holy Communion ordinances rather than sacraments.[citation needed]

In addition to this, the Church of the East has two additional sacraments in place of the traditional sacraments of Matrimony and the Anointing of the Sick. These include Holy Leaven (Melka) and the sign of the cross.[104]

Baptism, specifically infant baptism, in the Lutheran tradition
A penitent confessing his sins in a Ukrainian Catholic church
A Methodist minister celebrating the Eucharist
Confirmation being administered in an Anglican church
Ordination of a priest in the Eastern Orthodox tradition
Crowning during Holy Matrimony in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Service of the Sacrament of Holy Unction served on Great and Holy Wednesday

Liturgical calendar

Main article: Liturgical year

Symbols

Main article: Christian symbolism

The cross and the fish are two common symbols of Jesus Christ; letters of the Greek word ΙΧΘΥΣ Ichthys (fish) form an acronym for “Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ”, which translates into English as “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior”

Christianity has not generally practiced aniconism, the avoidance or prohibition of devotional images, even if early Jewish Christians and some modern denominations, invoking the Decalogue’s prohibition of idolatry, avoided figures in their symbols.

The cross, today one of the most widely recognized symbols, was used by Christians from the earliest times.[108][109] Tertullian, in his book De Corona, tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace the sign of the cross on their foreheads.[110] Although the cross was known to the early Christians, the crucifix did not appear in use until the 5th century.[111]

Among the earliest Christian symbols, that of the fish or Ichthys seems to have ranked first in importance, as seen on monumental sources such as tombs from the first decades of the 2nd century.[112] Its popularity seemingly arose from the Greek word ichthys (fish) forming an acronym for the Greek phrase Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter (Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ),[note 5] (Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior), a concise summary of Christian faith.[112]

Other major Christian symbols include the chi-rho monogram, the dove (symbolic of the Holy Spirit), the sacrificial lamb (representing Christ’s sacrifice), the vine (symbolizing the connection of the Christian with Christ) and many others. These all derive from passages of the New Testament.[111]

Baptism

Main article: Baptism

The baptism of Jesus depicted by Almeida Júnior (1895)

Baptism is the ritual act, with the use of water, by which a person is admitted to membership of the Church. Beliefs on baptism vary among denominations. Differences occur firstly on whether the act has any spiritual significance. Some, such as the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as well as Lutherans and Anglicans, hold to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which affirms that baptism creates or strengthens a person’s faith, and is intimately linked to salvation. Others view baptism as a purely symbolic act, an external public declaration of the inward change which has taken place in the person, but not as spiritually efficacious. Secondly, there are differences of opinion on the methodology of the act. These methods are: by immersion; if immersion is total, by submersion; by affusion (pouring); and by aspersion (sprinkling). Those who hold the first view may also adhere to the tradition of infant baptism;[113] the Orthodox Churches all practice infant baptism and always baptize by total immersion repeated three times in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[114][115] The Catholic Church also practices infant baptism,[116] usually by affusion, and utilizing the Trinitarian formula.[117]

Prayer

Main article: Prayer in Christianity

“… ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.’”

— The Lord’s Prayer, Matthew 6:9-13, EHV[118]

Jesus’ teaching on prayer in the Sermon on the Mount displays a distinct lack of interest in the external aspects of prayer. A concern with the techniques of prayer is condemned as “pagan”, and instead a simple trust in God’s fatherly goodness is encouraged.[Mat. 6:5–15] Elsewhere in the New Testament, this same freedom of access to God is also emphasized.[Phil. 4:6][Jam. 5:13–19] This confident position should be understood in light of Christian belief in the unique relationship between the believer and Christ through the indweling of the Holy Spirit.[119]

In subsequent Christian traditions, certain physical gestures are emphasized, including medieval gestures such as genuflection or making the sign of the cross. Kneeling, bowing, and prostrations (see also poklon) are often practiced in more traditional branches of Christianity. Frequently in Western Christianity, the hands are placed palms together and forward as in the feudal commendation ceremony. At other times the older orans posture may be used, with palms up and elbows in.

Intercessory prayer is prayer offered for the benefit of other people. There are many intercessory prayers recorded in the Bible, including prayers of the Apostle Peter on behalf of sick persons[Acts 9:40] and by prophets of the Old Testament in favor of other people.[1Ki 17:19–22] In the Epistle of James, no distinction is made between the intercessory prayer offered by ordinary believers and the prominent Old Testament prophet Elijah.[Jam 5:16–18] The effectiveness of prayer in Christianity derives from the power of God rather than the status of the one praying.[119]

The ancient church, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, developed a tradition of asking for the intercession of (deceased) saints, and this remains the practice of most Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic, and some Anglican churches. Churches of the Protestant Reformation, however, rejected prayer to the saints, largely on the basis of the sole mediatorship of Christ.[120] The reformer Huldrych Zwingli admitted that he had offered prayers to the saints until his reading of the Bible convinced him that this was idolatrous.[121]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Prayer is the raising of one’s mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God.”[122] The Book of Common Prayer in the Anglican tradition is a guide which provides a set order for services, containing set prayers, scripture readings, and hymns or sung Psalms.[123]

Scriptures

Main articles: Bible, Biblical canon, Development of the Christian biblical canon, and Religious text

The Bible is the sacred book in Christianity.

Christianity, like other religions, has adherents whose beliefs and biblical interpretations vary. Christianity regards the biblical canon, the Old Testament and the New Testament, as the inspired word of God. The traditional view of inspiration is that God worked through human authors so that what they produced was what God wished to communicate. The Greek word referring to inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16 is theopneustos, which literally means “God-breathed”.[124]

Some believe that divine inspiration makes our present Bibles inerrant. Others claim inerrancy for the Bible in its original manuscripts, although none of those are extant. Still others maintain that only a particular translation is inerrant, such as the King James Version.[125][126][127] Another closely related view is biblical infallibility or limited inerrancy, which affirms that the Bible is free of error as a guide to salvation, but may include errors on matters such as history, geography, or science.

The books of the Bible accepted by the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant churches vary somewhat, with Jews accepting only the Hebrew Bible as canonical; however, there is substantial overlap. These variations are a reflection of the range of traditions, and of the councils that have convened on the subject. Every version of the Old Testament always includes the books of the Tanakh, the canon of the Hebrew Bible. The Catholic and Orthodox canons, in addition to the Tanakh, also include the deuterocanonical books as part of the Old Testament. These books appear in the Septuagint, but are regarded by Protestants to be apocryphal. However, they are considered to be important historical documents which help to inform the understanding of words, grammar, and syntax used in the historical period of their conception. Some versions of the Bible include a separate Apocrypha section between the Old Testament and the New Testament.[128] The New Testament, originally written in Koine Greek, contains 27 books which are agreed upon by all churches.

Modern scholarship has raised many issues with the Bible. While the King James Version is held to by many because of its striking English prose, in fact it was translated from the Erasmus Greek Bible, which in turn “was based on a single 12th Century manuscript that is one of the worst manuscripts we have available to us”.[129] Much scholarship in the past several hundred years has gone into comparing different manuscripts in order to reconstruct the original text. Another issue is that several books are considered to be forgeries. The injunction that women “be silent and submissive” in 1 Timothy 2[130] is thought by many to be a forgery by a follower of Paul, a similar phrase in 1 Corinthians 14,[131] which is thought to be by Paul, appears in different places in different manuscripts and is thought to originally be a margin note by a copyist.[129] Other verses in 1 Corinthians, such as 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 where women are instructed to wear a covering over their hair “when they pray or prophesies”,[132] contradict this verse.

A final issue with the Bible is the way in which books were selected for inclusion in the New Testament. Other gospels have now been recovered, such as those found near Nag Hammadi in 1945, and while some of these texts are quite different from what Christians have been used to, it should be understood that some of this newly recovered Gospel material is quite possibly contemporaneous with, or even earlier than, the New Testament Gospels. The core of the Gospel of Thomas, in particular, may date from as early as AD 50 (although some major scholars contest this early dating),[133] and if so would provide an insight into the earliest gospel texts that underlie the canonical Gospels, texts that are mentioned in Luke 1:1–2. The Gospel of Thomas contains much that is familiar from the canonical Gospels—verse 113, for example (“The Father’s Kingdom is spread out upon the earth, but people do not see it”),[134] is reminiscent of Luke 17:20–21[135][136]—and the Gospel of John, with a terminology and approach that is suggestive of what was later termed Gnosticism, has recently been seen as a possible response to the Gospel of Thomas, a text that is commonly labeled proto-Gnostic. Scholarship, then, is currently exploring the relationship in the early church between mystical speculation and experience on the one hand and the search for church order on the other, by analyzing new-found texts, by subjecting canonical texts to further scrutiny, and by an examination of the passage of New Testament texts to canonical status.

Catholic interpretation

St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City, the largest church in the world and a symbol of the Catholic Church

Main article: Catholic theology of Scripture

In antiquity, two schools of exegesis developed in Alexandria and Antioch. The Alexandrian interpretation, exemplified by Origen, tended to read Scripture allegorically, while the Antiochene interpretation adhered to the literal sense, holding that other meanings (called theoria) could only be accepted if based on the literal meaning.[137]

Catholic theology distinguishes two senses of scripture: the literal and the spiritual.[138]

The literal sense of understanding scripture is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture. The spiritual sense is further subdivided into:

The allegorical sense, which includes typology. An example would be the parting of the Red Sea being understood as a “type” (sign) of baptism.[1Cor 10:2]
The moral sense, which understands the scripture to contain some ethical teaching.
The anagogical sense, which applies to eschatology, eternity and the consummation of the world

Regarding exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation, Catholic theology holds:

The injunction that all other senses of sacred scripture are based on the literal[139][140]
That the historicity of the Gospels must be absolutely and constantly held[141]
That scripture must be read within the “living Tradition of the whole Church”[142] and
That “the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome”.[143]

Protestant interpretation

The Luther Bible (shown above) was an early translation of the Bible by a Protestant. Another early unauthorized translation was Wycliffe’s Bible.

Qualities of Scripture

Protestant Christians believe that the Bible is a self-sufficient revelation, the final authority on all Christian doctrine, and revealed all truth necessary for salvation. This concept is known as sola scriptura.[144] Protestants characteristically believe that ordinary believers may reach an adequate understanding of Scripture because Scripture itself is clear in its meaning (or “perspicuous”). Martin Luther believed that without God’s help, Scripture would be “enveloped in darkness”.[145] He advocated for “one definite and simple understanding of Scripture”.[145] John Calvin wrote, “all who refuse not to follow the Holy Spirit as their guide, find in the Scripture a clear light”.[146] Related to this is “efficacy”, that Scripture is able to lead people to faith; and “sufficiency”, that the Scriptures contain everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life.[147]

Original intended meaning of Scripture

Protestants stress the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture, the historical-grammatical method.[148] The historical-grammatical method or grammatico-historical method is an effort in Biblical hermeneutics to find the intended original meaning in the text.[149] This original intended meaning of the text is drawn out through examination of the passage in light of the grammatical and syntactical aspects, the historical background, the literary genre, as well as theological (canonical) considerations.[150] The historical-grammatical method distinguishes between the one original meaning and the significance of the text. The significance of the text includes the ensuing use of the text or application. The original passage is seen as having only a single meaning or sense. As Milton S. Terry said: “A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture.”[151] Technically speaking, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation is distinct from the determination of the passage’s significance in light of that interpretation. Taken together, both define the term (Biblical) hermeneutics.[149]

Some Protestant interpreters make use of typology.[152]

History

Main article: History of Christianity

Early Christianity

Apostolic Age

Chapel of Saint Ananias, Damascus, Syria, an early example of a Christian house of worship; built in the 1st century AD

An early circular ichthys symbol, created by combining the Greek letters ΙΧΘΥΣ into a wheel, Ephesus, Asia Minor

The Monastery of St. Matthew, located atop Mount Alfaf in northern Iraq, is recognized as one of the oldest Christian monasteries in existence[153]

Kadisha Valley, Lebanon, home to some of the earliest Christian monasteries in the world

Main article: Christianity in the 1st century

Christianity developed during the 1st century CE as a Jewish Christian sect of Second Temple Judaism.[154][155] An early Jewish Christian community was founded in Jerusalem under the leadership of the Pillars of the Church, namely James the Just, the brother of the Lord, Peter, and John.[156]

Jewish Christianity soon attracted Gentile God-fearers, posing a problem for its Jewish religious outlook, which insisted on close observance of the Jewish commands. Paul the Apostle solved this by insisting that salvation by faith in Christ, and participation in his death and resurrection, sufficed.[157] At first he persecuted the early Christians, but after a conversion experience he preached to the gentiles, and is regarded as having had a formative effect on the emerging Christian identity as separate from Judaism. Eventually, his departure from Jewish customs would result in the establishment of Christianity as an independent religion.[158]

Ante-Nicene period

Main article: Ante-Nicene period

This formative period was followed by the early bishops, whom Christians consider the successors of Christ’s apostles. From the year 150, Christian teachers began to produce theological and apologetic works aimed at defending the faith. These authors are known as the Church Fathers, and the study of them is called patristics. Notable early Fathers include Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

According to the New Testament, Christians were from the beginning, subject to persecution by some Jewish and Roman religious authorities. This involved punishments, including death, for Christians such as Stephen[Acts 7:59] and James, son of Zebedee.[Acts 12:2] Further widespread persecution of the Church occurred under nine subsequent Roman emperors, most intensely under Decius and Diocletian.

Spread and acceptance in Roman Empire

Christendom by A.D. 600 after its spread to Africa and Europe from the Middle East

An example of Byzantine pictorial art, the Deësis mosaic at the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople

Early Middle Ages

With the decline and fall of the Roman Empire in the West, the papacy became a political player, first visible in Pope Leo’s diplomatic dealings with Huns and Vandals.[177] The church also entered into a long period of missionary activity and expansion among the various tribes. While Arianists instituted the death penalty for practicing pagans (see the Massacre of Verden, for example), what would later become Catholicism also spread among the Hungarians, the Germanic,[177] the Celtic, the Baltic and some Slavic peoples.

Around 500, St. Benedict set out his Monastic Rule, establishing a system of regulations for the foundation and running of monasteries.[177] Monasticism became a powerful force throughout Europe,[177] and gave rise to many early centers of learning, most famously in Ireland, Scotland, and Gaul, contributing to the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century.

In the 7th century, Muslims conquered Syria (including Jerusalem), North Africa, and Spain, converting some of the Christian population to Islam, and placing the rest under a separate legal status. Part of the Muslims’ success was due to the exhaustion of the Byzantine Empire in its decades long conflict with Persia.[178] Beginning in the 8th century, with the rise of Carolingian leaders, the Papacy sought greater political support in the Frankish Kingdom.[179]

The Middle Ages brought about major changes within the church. Pope Gregory the Great dramatically reformed the ecclesiastical structure and administration.[180] In the early 8th century, iconoclasm became a divisive issue, when it was sponsored by the Byzantine emperors. The Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) finally pronounced in favor of icons.[181] In the early 10th century, Western Christian monasticism was further rejuvenated through the leadership of the great Benedictine monastery of Cluny.[182]

High and Late Middle Ages

Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont, where he preached the First Crusade

In the West, from the 11th century onward, some older cathedral schools became universities (see, for example, University of Oxford, University of Paris and University of Bologna). Previously, higher education had been the domain of Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools (Scholae monasticae), led by monks and nuns. Evidence of such schools dates back to the 6th century CE.[183] These new universities expanded the curriculum to include academic programs for clerics, lawyers, civil servants, and physicians.[184] The university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting.[185]

Accompanying the rise of the “new towns” throughout Europe, mendicant orders were founded, bringing the consecrated religious life out of the monastery and into the new urban setting. The two principal mendicant movements were the Franciscans[186] and the Dominicans,[187] founded by St. Francis and St. Dominic, respectively. Both orders made significant contributions to the development of the great universities of Europe. Another new order was the Cistercians, whose large isolated monasteries spearheaded the settlement of former wilderness areas. In this period, church building and ecclesiastical architecture reached new heights, culminating in the orders of Romanesque and Gothic architecture and the building of the great European cathedrals.[188]

Christian nationalism emerged during this era in which Christians felt the impulse to recover lands in which Christianity had historically flourished.[189] From 1095 under the pontificate of Urban II, the Crusades were launched.[190] These were a series of military campaigns in the Holy Land and elsewhere, initiated in response to pleas from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I for aid against Turkish expansion. The Crusades ultimately failed to stifle Islamic aggression and even contributed to Christian enmity with the sacking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.[191]

The Christian Church experienced internal conflict between the 7th and 13th centuries that resulted in a schism between the so-called Latin or Western Christian branch (the Catholic Church),[192] and an Eastern, largely Greek, branch (the Eastern Orthodox Church). The two sides disagreed on a number of administrative, liturgical and doctrinal issues, most notably papal primacy of jurisdiction.[193][194] The Second Council of Lyon (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439) attempted to reunite the churches, but in both cases, the Eastern Orthodox refused to implement the decisions, and the two principal churches remain in schism to the present day. However, the Catholic Church has achieved union with various smaller eastern churches.

In the thirteenth century, a new emphasis on Jesus’ suffering, exemplified by the Franciscans’ preaching, had the consequence of turning worshippers’ attention towards Jews, on whom Christians had placed the blame for Jesus’ death. Christianity’s limited tolerance of Jews was not new—Augustine of Hippo said that Jews should not be allowed to enjoy the citizenship that Christians took for granted—but the growing antipathy towards Jews was a factor that led to the expulsion of Jews from England in 1290, the first of many such expulsions in Europe.[195][196]

Beginning around 1184, following the crusade against Cathar heresy,[197] various institutions, broadly referred to as the Inquisition, were established with the aim of suppressing heresy and securing religious and doctrinal unity within Christianity through conversion and prosecution.[198]

Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation

The Ninety-five Theses, which Luther published in 1517

Main articles: Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation

Post-Enlightenment

A depiction of Madonna and Child in a 19th-century Kakure Kirishitan Japanese woodcut

In the era known as the Great Divergence, when in the West, the Age of Enlightenment and the scientific revolution brought about great societal changes, Christianity was confronted with various forms of skepticism and with certain modern political ideologies, such as versions of socialism and liberalism.[208] Events ranged from mere anti-clericalism to violent outbursts against Christianity, such as the dechristianization of France during the French Revolution,[209] the Spanish Civil War, and certain Marxist movements, especially the Russian Revolution and the persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union under state atheism.[210][211][212][213]

Especially pressing in Europe was the formation of nation states after the Napoleonic era. In all European countries, different Christian denominations found themselves in competition to greater or lesser extents with each other and with the state. Variables were the relative sizes of the denominations and the religious, political, and ideological orientation of the states. Urs Altermatt of the University of Fribourg, looking specifically at Catholicism in Europe, identifies four models for the European nations. In traditionally Catholic-majority countries such as Belgium, Spain, and Austria, to some extent, religious and national communities are more or less identical. Cultural symbiosis and separation are found in Poland, the Republic of Ireland, and Switzerland, all countries with competing denominations. Competition is found in Germany, the Netherlands, and again Switzerland, all countries with minority Catholic populations, which to a greater or lesser extent identified with the nation. Finally, separation between religion (again, specifically Catholicism) and the state is found to a great degree in France and Italy, countries where the state actively opposed itself to the authority of the Catholic Church.[214]

The combined factors of the formation of nation states and ultramontanism, especially in Germany and the Netherlands, but also in England to a much lesser extent,[215] often forced Catholic churches, organizations, and believers to choose between the national demands of the state and the authority of the Church, specifically the papacy. This conflict came to a head in the First Vatican Council, and in Germany would lead directly to the Kulturkampf, where liberals and Protestants under the leadership of Bismarck managed to severely restrict Catholic expression and organization.

Christian commitment in Europe dropped as modernity and secularism came into their own,[216] particularly in Czechia and Estonia,[217] while religious commitments in America have been generally high in comparison to Europe. The late 20th century has shown the shift of Christian adherence to the Third World and the Southern Hemisphere in general,[218][219] with the West no longer the chief standard bearer of Christianity. Approximately 7 to 10% of Arabs are Christians,[220] most prevalent in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

Demographics

Main articles: Christianity by country, Christian population growth, and Christian denominations by membership

See also: Christendom and Christian state

With around 2.4 billion adherents,[221][222] split into three main branches of Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox, Christianity is the world’s largest religion.[223] The Christian share of the world’s population has stood at around 33% for the last hundred years, which means that one in three persons on Earth are Christians. This masks a major shift in the demographics of Christianity; large increases in the developing world have been accompanied by substantial declines in the developed world, mainly in Europe and North America.[224] According to a 2015 Pew Research Center study, within the next four decades, Christians will remain the world’s largest religion; and by 2050, the Christian population is expected to exceed 3 billion.[225]:60

A Christian procession in Brazil, the country with the largest Catholic population in the world

Trinity Sunday in Russia; the Russian Orthodox Church has experienced a great revival since the fall of communism.

As a percentage of Christians, the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental) are declining in parts of the world (though Catholicism is growing in Asia, in Africa, vibrant in Eastern Europe, etc.), while Protestants and other Christians are on the rise in the developing world.[226][227][228] The so-called popular Protestantism[note 6] is one of the fastest growing religious categories in the world.[229][230] Nevertheless, Catholicism will also continue to grow to 1.63 billion by 2050, according to Todd Johnson of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity.[231] Africa alone, by 2015, will be home to 230 million African Catholics.[232] And if in 2018, the U.N. projects that Africa’s population will reach 4.5 billion by 2100 (not 2 billion as predicted in 2004), Catholicism will indeed grow, as will other religious groups.[233]

Christianity is the predominant religion in Europe, the Americas, and Southern Africa.[15] In Asia, it is the dominant religion in Georgia, Armenia, East Timor, and the Philippines.[234] However, it is declining in many areas including the Northern and Western United States,[235] Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), northern Europe (including Great Britain,[236] Scandinavia and other places), France, Germany, and the Canadian provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec, and parts of Asia (especially the Middle East, due to the Christian emigration,[237][238][239] South Korea,[240] Taiwan,[241] and Macau[242]).

The Christian population is not decreasing in Brazil, the Southern United States,[243] and the province of Alberta, Canada,[244] but the percentage is decreasing. In countries such as Australia[245] and New Zealand,[246] the Christian population are declining in both numbers and percentage.

Despite the declining numbers, Christianity remains the dominant religion in the Western World, where 70% are Christians.[15] A 2011 Pew Research Center survey found that 76% of Europeans, 73% in Oceania and about 86% in the Americas (90% in Latin America and 77% in North America) identified themselves as Christians.[15][247][248][249] By 2010 about 157 countries and territories in the world had Christian majorities.[223]

However, there are many charismatic movements that have become well established over large parts of the world, especially Africa, Latin America, and Asia.[250][251][252][253][254] Since 1900, primarily due to conversion, Protestantism has spread rapidly in Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Latin America.[255] From 1960 to 2000, the global growth of the number of reported Evangelical Protestants grew three times the world’s population rate, and twice that of Islam.[256] A study conducted by St. Mary’s University estimated about 10.2 million Muslim converts to Christianity in 2015.[257] The results also state that significant numbers of Muslims converts to Christianity in Afghanistan,[258] Albania,[257] Azerbaijan,[259][260] Algeria,[261][262] Belgium,[263] France,[262] Germany,[264] Iran,[265] India,[262] Indonesia,[266] Malaysia,[267] Morocco,[262][268] Russia,[262] the Netherlands,[269] Saudi Arabia,[270] Tunisia,[257] Turkey,[262][271][272][273] Kazakhstan,[274] Kyrgyzstan,[257] Kosovo,[275] the United States,[276] and Central Asia.[277][278] It is also reported that Christianity is popular among people of different backgrounds in India (mostly Hindus),[279][280] and Malaysia,[281] Mongolia,[282] Nigeria,[283] Vietnam,[284] Singapore,[285] Indonesia,[286][287] China,[288] Japan,[289] and South Korea.[290]

In most countries in the developed world, church attendance among people who continue to identify themselves as Christians has been falling over the last few decades.[291] Some sources view this simply as part of a drift away from traditional membership institutions,[292] while others link it to signs of a decline in belief in the importance of religion in general.[293] Europe’s Christian population, though in decline, still constitutes the largest geographical component of the religion.[294] According to data from the 2012 European Social Survey, around a third of European Christians say they attend services once a month or more,[295] Conversely about more than two-thirds of Latin American Christians; according to the World Values Survey, about 90% of African Christians (in Ghana, Nigeria, Rwand], South Africa and Zimbabwe) said they attended church regularly.[295]

Christianity, in one form or another, is the sole state religion of the following nations: Argentina (Catholic),[296] Tuvalu (Reformed), Tonga (Methodist), Norway (Lutheran),[297][298][299] Costa Rica (Catholic),[300] the Kingdom of Denmark (Lutheran),[301] England (Anglican),[302] Georgia (Georgian Orthodox),[303] Greece (Greek Orthodox),[304] Iceland (Lutheran),[305] Liechtenstein (Catholic),[306] Malta (Catholic),[307] Monaco (Catholic),[308] and Vatican City (Catholic).[309]

There are numerous other countries, such as Cyprus, which although do not have an established church, still give official recognition and support to a specific Christian denomination.[310]

Demographics of major traditions within Christianity (Pew Research Center, 2010 data)[311]

Tradition	Followers	% of the Christian population	% of the world population	Follower dynamics	Dynamics in- and outside Christianity
Catholic Church	1,094,610,000	50.1	15.9	Growing	Growing
Protestantism	800,640,000	36.7	11.6	Growing	Growing
Orthodoxy	260,380,000	11.9	3.8	Growing	Declining
Other Christianity	28,430,000	1.3	0.4	Growing	Growing
Christianity	2,184,060,000	100	31.7	Growing	Stable

Regional median ages of Christians compared with overall median ages (Pew Research Center, 2010 data)[312]

	Christian median age in region (years)	Regional median age (years)
World	30	—
Sub-Saharan Africa	19	18
Latin America-Caribbean	27	27
Asia-Pacific	28	29
Middle East-North Africa	29	24
North America	39	37
Europe	42	40

The global distribution of Christians: Countries colored a darker shade have a higher proportion of Christians.[313]

Countries with 50% or more Christians are colored purple; countries with 10% to 50% Christians are colored pink
Nations with Christianity as their state religion are in blue
Distribution of Catholics
Distribution of Protestants
Distribution of Eastern Orthodox
Distribution of Oriental Orthodox
Distribution of other Christians

Churches and denominations

Further information: List of Christian denominations, List of Christian denominations by number of members, and List of schisms in Christianity

Catholic Church

Main article: Catholic Church

Pope Francis, the current leader of the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church consists of those particular churches, headed by bishops, in communion with the pope, the bishop of Rome, as its highest authority in matters of faith, morality, and Church governance.[319][320] Like Eastern Orthodoxy, the Catholic Church, through apostolic succession, traces its origins to the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ.[321][322] Catholics maintain that the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” founded by Jesus subsists fully in the Catholic Church, but also acknowledges other Christian churches and communities[323][324] and works towards reconciliation among all Christians.[323] The Catholic faith is detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[325][326]

The 2,834 sees[327] are grouped into 24 particular autonomous Churches (the largest of which being the Latin Church), each with its own distinct traditions regarding the liturgy and the administering of sacraments.[328] With more than 1.1 billion baptized members, the Catholic Church is the largest Christian church and represents 50.1%[15] all Christians as well as one sixth of the world’s population.[329][330][331]

Eastern Orthodox Church

Main article: Eastern Orthodox Church

The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow is the tallest Eastern Orthodox Christian church in the world

The Eastern Orthodox Church consists of those churches in communion with the patriarchal sees of the East, such as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.[332] Like the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church also traces its heritage to the foundation of Christianity through apostolic succession and has an episcopal structure, though the autonomy of its component parts is emphasized, and most of them are national churches.

A number of conflicts with Western Christianity over questions of doctrine and authority culminated in the Great Schism. Eastern Orthodoxy is the second largest single denomination in Christianity, with an estimated 230 million adherents, although Protestants collectively outnumber them, substantially.[15][13][333]

Oriental Orthodoxy

Main article: Oriental Orthodoxy

The Oriental Orthodox Churches (also called “Old Oriental” churches) are those eastern churches that recognize the first three ecumenical councils—Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus—but reject the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon and instead espouse a Miaphysite christology.

The Oriental Orthodox communion consists of six groups: Syriac Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (India), and Armenian Apostolic churches.[334] These six churches, while being in communion with each other, are completely independent hierarchically.[335] These churches are generally not in communion with Eastern Orthodox Church, with whom they are in dialogue for erecting a communion.[336]

Assyrian Church of the East

A 6th-century Nestorian church, St. John the Arab, in the Assyrian village of Geramon in Hakkari, southeastern Turkey

Main article: Assyrian Church of the East

The Assyrian Church of the East, with an unbroken patriarchate established in the 17th century, is an independent Eastern Christian denomination which claims continuity from the Church of the East—in parallel to the Catholic patriarchate established in the 16th century that evolved into the Chaldean Catholic Church, an Eastern Catholic church in full communion with the Pope. It is an Eastern Christian church that follows the traditional christology and ecclesiology of the historical Church of the East. Largely aniconic and not in communion with any other church, it belongs to the eastern branch of Syriac Christianity, and uses the East Syriac Rite in its liturgy.[337]

Its main spoken language is Syriac, a dialect of Eastern Aramaic, and the majority of its adherents are ethnic Assyrians. It is officially headquartered in the city of Erbil in northern Iraqi Kurdistan, and its original area also spreads into south-eastern Turkey and north-western Iran, corresponding to ancient Assyria. Its hierarchy is composed of metropolitan bishops and diocesan bishops, while lower clergy consists of priests and deacons, who serve in dioceses (eparchies) and parishes throughout the Middle East, India, North America, Oceania, and Europe (including the Caucasus and Russia).[338]

The Ancient Church of the East distinguished itself from the Assyrian Church of the East in 1964. It is one of the Assyrian churches that claim continuity with the historical Patriarchate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon—the Church of the East, one of the oldest Christian churches in Mesopotamia.[339]

Protestantism

Main articles: Protestantism and Proto-Protestantism

Part of a series on
Protestantism

Topics Criticism Culture Demographics Ecclesiology Great Awakenings History Persecution Reformation
Major branches Adventism Anabaptism Anglicanism Baptists Calvinism Lutheranism Methodism Pentecostalism
Minor branches Bible students Protestant Eastern Christianity Holiness movement Irvingism Plymouth Brethren Proto-Protestantism (Hussites and Waldensians) Quakers Schwarzenau Brethren Schwenkfelders Others
Broad-based movements Charismatic movement Evangelicalism Neo-charismatic movement
Other developments Arminianism Christian fundamentalism Crypto-Protestantism Evangelical Catholicism Modernism and liberalism Neo-orthodoxy Paleo-orthodoxy Pietism Puritanism
Related movements House churches Nondenominational Christianity Spiritual Christianity
Christianity portal
v t e

Restorationism

Main article: Restorationism

A 19th-century drawing of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery receiving the Aaronic priesthood from John the Baptist. Latter Day Saints believe that the Priesthood ceased to exist after the death of the Apostles and therefore needed to be restored.

The Second Great Awakening, a period of religious revival that occurred in the United States during the early 1800s, saw the development of a number of unrelated churches. They generally saw themselves as restoring the original church of Jesus Christ rather than reforming one of the existing churches.[359] A common belief held by Restorationists was that the other divisions of Christianity had introduced doctrinal defects into Christianity, which was known as the Great Apostasy.[360] In Asia, Iglesia ni Cristo is a known restorationist religion that was established during the early 1900s.

Some of the churches originating during this period are historically connected to early 19th-century camp meetings in the Midwest and upstate New York. One of the largest churches produced from the movement is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[361] American Millennialism and Adventism, which arose from Evangelical Protestantism, influenced the Jehovah’s Witnesses movement and, as a reaction specifically to William Miller, the Seventh-day Adventists. Others, including the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Evangelical Christian Church in Canada,[362][363] Churches of Christ, and the Christian churches and churches of Christ, have their roots in the contemporaneous Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, which was centered in Kentucky and Tennessee. Other groups originating in this time period include the Christadelphians and the previously mentioned Latter Day Saints movement. While the churches originating in the Second Great Awakening have some superficial similarities, their doctrine and practices vary significantly.[citation needed]

Other

Various smaller Independent Catholic communities, such as the Old Catholic Church, include the word Catholic in their title, and arguably have more or less liturgical practices in common with the Catholic Church, but are no longer in full communion with the Holy See.

Spiritual Christians, such as the Doukhobor and Molokan, broke from the Russian Orthodox Church and maintain close association with Mennonites and Quakers due to similar religious practices; all of these groups are furthermore collectively considered to be peace churches due to their belief in pacifism.[364][365]

Messianic Judaism (or the Messianic Movement) is the name of a Christian movement comprising a number of streams, whose members may consider themselves Jewish. The movement originated in the 1960s and 1970s, and it blends elements of religious Jewish practice with evangelical Christianity. Messianic Judaism affirms Christian creeds such as the messiahship and divinity of “Yeshua” (the Hebrew name of Jesus) and the Triune Nature of God, while also adhering to some Jewish dietary laws and customs.[366]

Esoteric Christians regard Christianity as a mystery religion,[367][368] and profess the existence and possession of certain esoteric doctrines or practices,[369][370] hidden from the public but accessible only to a narrow circle of “enlightened”, “initiated”, or highly educated people.[371][372] Some of the esoteric Christian institutions include the Rosicrucian Fellowship, the Anthroposophical Society, and Martinism.

Influence on western culture

Main articles: Christian culture and Role of Christianity in civilization

Further information: Protestant culture and Christian influences in Islam

.mw-parser-output .tmulti .thumbinner{display:flex;flex-direction:column}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .trow{display:flex;flex-direction:row;clear:left;flex-wrap:wrap;width:100%;box-sizing:border-box}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{margin:1px;float:left}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .theader{clear:both;font-weight:bold;text-align:center;align-self:center;background-color:transparent;width:100%}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .thumbcaption{text-align:left;background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .thumbcaption-center{text-align:center;background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .text-align-left{text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .text-align-right{text-align:right}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .text-align-center{text-align:center}@media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti .thumbinner{width:100%!important;box-sizing:border-box;max-width:none!important;align-items:center}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .trow{justify-content:center}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:100%!important;box-sizing:border-box;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .thumbcaption{text-align:center}}

Christian culture

Clockwise from top: Sistine chapel ceiling, Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris, Eastern Orthodox wedding, Christ the Redeemer statue, Nativity scene

Western culture, throughout most of its history, has been nearly equivalent to Christian culture, and a large portion of the population of the Western Hemisphere can be described as cultural Christians. The notion of “Europe” and the “Western World” has been intimately connected with the concept of “Christianity and Christendom”. Many even attribute Christianity for being the link that created a unified European identity.[373]

Though Western culture contained several polytheistic religions during its early years under the Greek and Roman empires, as the centralized Roman power waned, the dominance of the Catholic Church was the only consistent force in Western Europe.[374] Until the Age of Enlightenment,[375] Christian culture guided the course of philosophy, literature, art, music and science.[374][376] Christian disciplines of the respective arts have subsequently developed into Christian philosophy, Christian art, Christian music, Christian literature, etc.

Christianity has had a significant impact on education, as the church created the bases of the Western system of education,[377] and was the sponsor of founding universities in the Western world, as the university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting.[185] Historically, Christianity has often been a patron of science and medicine; many Catholic clergy,[378] Jesuits in particular,[379][380] have been active in the sciences throughout history and have made significant contributions to the development of science.[381] Protestantism also has had an important influence on science. According to the Merton Thesis, there was a positive correlation between the rise of English Puritanism and German Pietism on the one hand, and early experimental science on the other.[382] The civilizing influence of Christianity includes social welfare,[383] founding hospitals,[384] economics (as the Protestant work ethic),[385][386][387] architecture,[388] politics,[389] literature,[390] personal hygiene (ablution),[391][392][393] and family life.[394][395]

Eastern Christians (particularly Nestorian Christians) contributed to the Arab Islamic civilization during the reign of the Ummayad and the Abbasid, by translating works of Greek philosophers to Syriac and afterwards, to Arabic.[396][397][398] They also excelled in philosophy, science, theology, and medicine.[399][400][401]

Christians have made a myriad of contributions to human progress in a broad and diverse range of fields,[402] including philosophy,[403][404] science and technology,[405][406][407][408][409][410] fine arts and architecture,[411] politics, literatures, music,[412] and business.[413] According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of the Nobel Prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[414]

Postchristianity[415] is the term for the decline of Christianity, particularly in Europe, Canada, Australia, and to a minor degree the Southern Cone, in the 20th and 21st centuries, considered in terms of postmodernism. It refers to the loss of Christianity’s monopoly on values and world view in historically Christian societies.

Cultural Christians are secular people with a Christian heritage who may not believe in the religious claims of Christianity, but who retain an affinity for the popular culture, art, music, and so on related to the religion.[citation needed]

Ecumenism

Main article: Ecumenism

Ecumenical worship service at the monastery of Taizé in France

Christian groups and denominations have long expressed ideals of being reconciled, and in the 20th century, Christian ecumenism advanced in two ways.[416] One way was greater cooperation between groups, such as the World Evangelical Alliance founded in 1846 in London or the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of Protestants in 1910, the Justice, Peace and Creation Commission of the World Council of Churches founded in 1948 by Protestant and Orthodox churches, and similar national councils like the National Council of Churches in Australia, which includes Catholics.[416]

The other way was an institutional union with united churches, a practice that can be traced back to unions between Lutherans and Calvinists in early 19th-century Germany. Congregationalist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches united in 1925 to form the United Church of Canada,[417] and in 1977 to form the Uniting Church in Australia. The Church of South India was formed in 1947 by the union of Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian churches.[418]

The ecumenical, monastic Taizé Community is notable for being composed of more than one hundred brothers from Protestant and Catholic traditions.[419] The community emphasizes the reconciliation of all denominations and its main church, located in Taizé, Saône-et-Loire, France, is named the “Church of Reconciliation”.[419] The community is internationally known, attracting over 100,000 young pilgrims annually.[420]

Steps towards reconciliation on a global level were taken in 1965 by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, mutually revoking the excommunications that marked their Great Schism in 1054;[421] the Anglican Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) working towards full communion between those churches since 1970;[422] and some Lutheran and Catholic churches signing the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999 to address conflicts at the root of the Protestant Reformation. In 2006, the World Methodist Council, representing all Methodist denominations, adopted the declaration.[423]

Criticism, persecution, and apologetics

Main articles: Christian apologetics, Criticism of Christianity, and Persecution of Christians

A copy of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, a famous Christian apologetic work

Criticism

Criticism of Christianity and Christians goes back to the Apostolic Age, with the New Testament recording friction between the followers of Jesus and the Pharisees and scribes (e.g. Matthew 15:1–20 and Mark 7:1–23).[424] In the 2nd century, Christianity was criticized by the Jews on various grounds, e.g. that the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible could not have been fulfilled by Jesus, given that he did not have a successful life.[425] Additionally, a sacrifice to remove sins in advance, for everyone or as a human being, did not fit to the Jewish sacrifice ritual; furthermore, God is said to judge people on their deeds instead of their beliefs.[426][427] One of the first comprehensive attacks on Christianity came from the Greek philosopher Celsus, who wrote The True Word, a polemic criticizing Christians as being unprofitable members of society.[428][429][430] In response, the church father Origen published his treatise Contra Celsum, or Against Celsus, a seminal work of Christian apologetics, which systematically addressed Celsus’s criticisms and helped bring Christianity a level of academic respectability.[431][430]

By the 3rd century, criticism of Christianity had mounted. Wild rumors about Christians were widely circulated, claiming that they were atheists and that, as part of their rituals, they devoured human infants and engaged in incestuous orgies.[432][433] The Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote the fifteen-volume Adversus Christianos as a comprehensive attack on Christianity, in part building on the teachings of Plotinus.[434][435]

By the 12th century, the Mishneh Torah (i.e., Rabbi Moses Maimonides) was criticizing Christianity on the grounds of idol worship, in that Christians attributed divinity to Jesus, who had a physical body.[436] In the 19th century, Nietzsche began to write a series of polemics on the “unnatural” teachings of Christianity (e.g. sexual abstinence), and continued his criticism of Christianity to the end of his life.[437] In the 20th century, the philosopher Bertrand Russell expressed his criticism of Christianity in Why I Am Not a Christian, formulating his rejection of Christianity in the setting of logical arguments.[438]

Criticism of Christianity continues to date, e.g. Jewish and Muslim theologians criticize the doctrine of the Trinity held by most Christians, stating that this doctrine in effect assumes that there are three gods, running against the basic tenet of monotheism.[439] New Testament scholar Robert M. Price has outlined the possibility that some Bible stories are based partly on myth in The Christ Myth Theory and its problems.[440]

Persecution

Main article: Persecution of Christians

Christians are one of the most persecuted religious group in the world, especially in the Middle-East, North Africa and South and East Asia.[441] In 2017, Open Doors estimated approximately 260 million Christians are subjected annually to “high, very high, or extreme persecution”[442] with North Korea considered the most hazardous nation for Christians.[443][444] In 2019, a report[445][446] commissioned by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to investigate global persecution of Christians found persecution has increased, and is highest in the Middle East, North Africa, India, China, North Korea, and Latin America, among others,[447] and that it is global and not limited to Islamic states.[446] This investigation found that approximately 80% of persecuted believers worldwide are Christians.[18]

Apologetics

Christian apologetics aims to present a rational basis for Christianity. The word “apologetic” (Greek: ἀπολογητικός apologētikos) comes from the Greek verb ἀπολογέομαι apologeomai, meaning “(I) speak in defense of”.[448] Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle. The philosopher Thomas Aquinas presented five arguments for God’s existence in the Summa Theologica, while his Summa contra Gentiles was a major apologetic work.[449][450] Another famous apologist, G. K. Chesterton, wrote in the early twentieth century about the benefits of religion and, specifically, Christianity. Famous for his use of paradox, Chesterton explained that while Christianity had the most mysteries, it was the most practical religion.[451][452] He pointed to the advance of Christian civilizations as proof of its practicality.[453] The physicist and priest John Polkinghorne, in his Questions of Truth, discusses the subject of religion and science, a topic that other Christian apologists such as Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, and William Lane Craig have engaged, with the latter two men opining that the inflationary Big Bang model is evidence for the existence of God.[454]

Notes

^ It appears in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 9:2, Acts 19:9 and Acts 19:23). Some English translations of the New Testament capitalize ‘the Way’ (e.g. the New King James Version and the English Standard Version), indicating that this was how ‘the new religion seemed then to be designated'[20] whereas others treat the phrase as indicative—’the way’,[21] ‘that way'[22] or ‘the way of the Lord’.[23] The Syriac version reads, “the way of God” and the Vulgate Latin version, “the way of the Lord”.[24]
^ a b The Latin equivalent, from which English trinity is derived,[71] is trinitas[72] though Latin also borrowed Greek trias verbatim.[73]
^ Frequently a distinction is made between “liturgical” and “non-liturgical” churches based on how elaborate or antiquated the worship; in this usage, churches whose services are unscripted or improvised are described as “non-liturgical”.[92]
^ Often these are arranged on an annual cycle, using a book called a lectionary.
^ Iesous Christos Theou Hyios Soter would be a more complete transliteration; in Greek though, the daseia or spiritus asper was not—commonly—marked in the majuscule script of the time.
^ A flexible term; defined as all forms of Protestantism with the notable exception of the historical denominations deriving directly from the Protestant Reformation.

References

^ Woodhead 2004, p. n.p harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWoodhead2004 (help)
^ “World’s largest religion by population is still Christianity”. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 27 February 2019..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”\”””\”””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background-image:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”);background-image:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg”);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:9px;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background-image:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”);background-image:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg”);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:9px;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background-image:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”);background-image:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg”);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:9px;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background-image:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”);background-image:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg”);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:12px;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflink{font-weight:inherit}
^ S. T. Kimbrough, ed. (2005). Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural understanding and practice. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. ISBN 978-0-88141-301-4.
^ Religions in Global Society. p. 146, Peter Beyer, 2006
^ Cambridge University Historical Series, An Essay on Western Civilization in Its Economic Aspects, p. 40: Hebraism, like Hellenism, has been an all-important factor in the development of Western Civilization; Judaism, as the precursor of Christianity, has indirectly had had much to do with shaping the ideals and morality of western nations since the christian era.
^ Caltron J.H Hayas, Christianity and Western Civilization (1953), Stanford University Press, p. 2: “That certain distinctive features of our Western civilization—the civilization of western Europe and of America—have been shaped chiefly by Judaeo – Graeco – Christianity, Catholic and Protestant.”
^ Horst Hutter, University of New York, Shaping the Future: Nietzsche’s New Regime of the Soul And Its Ascetic Practices (2004), p. 111: three mighty founders of Western culture, namely Socrates, Jesus, and Plato.
^ Fred Reinhard Dallmayr, Dialogue Among Civilizations: Some Exemplary Voices (2004), p. 22: Western civilization is also sometimes described as “Christian” or “Judaeo- Christian” civilization.
^ Muslim-Christian Relations. Amsterdam University Press. 2006. ISBN 978-90-5356-938-2. Retrieved 18 October 2007. The enthusiasm for evangelization among the Christians was also accompanied by the awareness that the most immediate problem to solve was how to serve the huge number of new converts. Simatupang said, if the number of the Christians were double or triple, then the number of the ministers should also be doubled or tripled and the tole of the laity should be maximized and Christian service to society through schools, universities, hospitals and orphanages, should be increased. In addition, for him the Christian mission should be involved in the struggle for justice amid the process of modernization.
^ Fred Kammer (1 May 2004). Doing Faith Justice. Paulist Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-8091-4227-9. Retrieved 18 October 2007. Theologians, bishops, and preachers urged the Christian community to be as compassionate as their God was, reiterating that creation was for all of humanity. They also accepted and developed the identification of Christ with the poor and the requisite Christian duty to the poor. Religious congregations and individual charismatic leaders promoted the development of a number of helping institutions-hospitals, hospices for pilgrims, orphanages, shelters for unwed mothers-that laid the foundation for the modern “large network of hospitals, orphanages and schools, to serve the poor and society at large.”
^ Christian Church Women: Shapers of a Movement. Chalice Press. March 1994. ISBN 978-0-8272-0463-8. Retrieved 18 October 2007. In the central provinces of India they established schools, orphanages, hospitals, and churches, and spread the gospel message in zenanas.
^ “Christian Traditions”. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. 19 December 2011. About half of all Christians worldwide are Catholic (50%), while more than a third are Protestant (37%). Orthodox communions comprise 12% of the world’s Christians.
^ a b c “Status of Global Christianity, 2019, in the Context of 1900–2050″ (PDF). Center for the Study of Global Christianity.
^ Peter, Laurence (17 October 2018). “Orthodox Church split: Five reasons why it matters”. BBC. Retrieved 17 October 2018.
^ a b c d e f Analysis (19 December 2011). “Global Christianity”. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ Pew Research Center
^ “Christian persecution ‘at near genocide levels'”. BBC News. 3 May 2019. Retrieved 7 October 2019.
^ a b Wintour, Patrick. “Persecution of Christians coming close to genocide’ in Middle East – report”. The Guardian. 2 May 2019. Retrieved 7 October 2019.
^ Larry Hurtado (17 August 2017 ), “Paul, the Pagans’ Apostle”
^ Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Acts 19, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb//acts/19.htm accessed 8 October 2015
^ Jubilee Bible 2000
^ American King James Version
^ Douai-Rheims Bible
^ Gill, J., Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, commentary on Acts 19:23 http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/acts/19.htm accessed 8 October 2015
^ E. Peterson (1959), “Christianus.” In: Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis, publisher: Herder, Freiburg, pp. 353–72
^ Elwell & Comfort 2001, pp. 266, 828.
^ Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief.
^ Pelikan/Hotchkiss, Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition.
^ “”We Believe in One God….”: The Nicene Creed and Mass”. Catholics United for the Fath. February 2005. Retrieved 16 June 2014.
^ Encyclopedia of Religion, “Arianism”.
^ Catholic Encyclopedia, “Council of Ephesus”.
^ Christian History Institute, First Meeting of the Council of Chalcedon.
^ Peter Theodore Farrington (February 2006). “The Oriental Orthodox Rejection of Chalcedon”. Glastonbury Review (113). Archived from the original on 19 June 2008.
^ Pope Leo I, Letter to Flavian
^ Catholic Encyclopedia, “Athanasian Creed”.
^ a b “Our Common Heritage as Christians”. The United Methodist Church. Archived from the original on 14 January 2006. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ Avis, Paul (2002) The Christian Church: An Introduction to the Major Traditions, SPCK, London, ISBN 0-281-05246-8 paperback
^ White, Howard A. The History of the Church.
^ Cummins, Duane D. (1991). A handbook for Today’s Disciples in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (Revised ed.). St Louis, MO: Chalice Press. ISBN 978-0-8272-1425-5.
^ a b Ron Rhodes, The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations, Harvest House Publishers, 2005, ISBN 0-7369-1289-4
^ Metzger/Coogan, Oxford Companion to the Bible, pp. 513, 649.
^ Acts 2:24, 2:31–32, 3:15, 3:26, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40–41, 13:30, 13:34, 13:37, 17:30–31, Romans 10:9, 1 Cor. 15:15, 6:14, 2 Cor. 4:14, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:20, Col 2:12, 1 Thess. 11:10, Heb. 13:20, 1 Pet. 1:3, 1:21
^ s:Nicene Creed
^ Hanegraaff. Resurrection: The Capstone in the Arch of Christianity.
^ “The Significance of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus for the Christian”. Australian Catholic University National. Archived from the original on 1 September 2007. Retrieved 16 May 2007.
^ John, 5:24, 6:39–40, 6:47, 10:10, 11:25–26, and 17:3
^ This is drawn from a number of sources, especially the early Creeds, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, certain theological works, and various Confessions drafted during the Reformation including the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England, works contained in the Book of Concord.
^ Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 11.
^ A Jesus Seminar conclusion held that “in the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary.”
^ Funk. The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do?.
^ Lorenzen. Resurrection, Discipleship, Justice: Affirming the Resurrection Jesus Christ Today, p. 13.
^ Ball/Johnsson (ed.). The Essential Jesus.
^ a b Eisenbaum, Pamela (Winter 2004). “A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and Genealogy in Romans” (PDF). Journal of Biblical Literature. 123 (4): 671–702. doi:10.2307/3268465. JSTOR 3268465. Retrieved 3 April 2009.
^ Wright, N.T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Oxford, 1997), p. 121.
^ CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14
^ Westminster Confession, Chapter X Archived 28 May 2014 at the Wayback Machine;Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism Archived 10 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine.
^ “Grace and Justification”. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Archived from the original on 15 August 2010.
^ Definition of the Fourth Lateran Council quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church §253.
^ Christianity’s status as monotheistic is affirmed in, among other sources, the Catholic Encyclopedia (article “Monotheism”); William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity; H. Richard Niebuhr; About.com, Monotheistic Religion resources; Kirsch, God Against the Gods; Woodhead, An Introduction to Christianity; The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Monotheism; The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, monotheism; New Dictionary of Theology, Paul, pp. 496–499; Meconi. “Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity”. pp. 111ff.
^ Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines. pp. 87–90.
^ Alexander. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. pp. 514ff.
^ McGrath. Historical Theology. p. 61.
^ Metzger/Coogan. Oxford Companion to the Bible. p. 782.
^ Kelly. The Athanasian Creed.
^ Oxford, “Encyclopedia of Christianity, pg1207
^ Heidi J. Hornik and Mikeal Carl Parsons, Interpreting Christian Art: Reflections on Christian art, Mercer University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-86554-850-1, pp. 32–35.
^ Examples of ante-Nicene statements:Hence all the power of magic became dissolved; and every bond of wickedness was destroyed, men’s ignorance was taken away, and the old kingdom abolished God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life.— St. Ignatius of Antioch in Letter to the Ephesians, ch.4, shorter version, Roberts-Donaldson translationWe have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts— St. Ignatius of Antioch in Letter to the Ephesians, ch.7, shorter version, Roberts-Donaldson translation
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: …one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all…

— St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies, ch.X, v.I, Donaldson, Sir James (1950), Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 1: Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., ISBN 978-0802880871

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water

— Justin Martyr in First Apology, ch. LXI, Donaldson, Sir James (1950), Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 1: Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ISBN 978-0802880871
^ Olson, Roger E. (2002). The Trinity. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-8028-4827-7.
^ Fowler. World Religions: An Introduction for Students. p. 58.
^ τριάς. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; A Greek–English Lexicon at the Perseus Project.
^ Harper, Douglas. “trinity”. Online Etymology Dictionary.
^ a b trinitas. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary on Perseus Project.
^ trias. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary on Perseus Project.
^ Theophilus of Antioch. “Book II.15″. Apologia ad Autolycum. Patrologiae Graecae Cursus Completus (in Greek and Latin). 6. Ὡσαύτως καὶ αἱ τρεῖς ἡμέραι τῶν φωστήρων γεγονυῖαι τύποι εἰσὶν τῆς Τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς Σοφίας αὐτοῦ.
^ McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. p. 50.
^ Tertullian, “21”, De Pudicitia (in Latin), Nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius diuinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus..
^ McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, p. 53.
^ Moltman, Jurgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Tr. from German. Fortress Press, 1993. ISBN 0-8006-2825-X
^ Harnack, History of Dogma.
^ Pocket Dictionary of Church History Nathan P. Feldmeth p. 135 “Unitarianism. Unitarians emerged from Protestant Christian beginnings in the sixteenth century with a central focus on the unity of God and subsequent denial of the doctrine of the Trinity”
^ a b Gill, N.S. “Which Nation First Adopted Christianity?”. About.com. Retrieved 8 October 2011. Armenia is considered the first nation to have adopted Christianity as the state religion in a traditional date of c. A.D. 301.
^ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologicum, Supplementum Tertiae Partis questions 69 through 99
^ Calvin, John. “Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Three, Ch. 25″. reformed.org. Retrieved 1 January 2008.
^ Catholic Encyclopedia, “Particular Judgment”.
^ Ott, Grundriß der Dogmatik, p. 566.
^ David Moser, What the Orthodox believe concerning prayer for the dead.
^ Ken Collins, What Happens to Me When I Die? Archived 28 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine.
^ “Audience of 4 August 1999″. Vatican.va. 4 August 1999. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ Catholic Encyclopedia, “The Communion of Saints”.
^ “The death that Adam brought into the world is spiritual as well as physical, and only those who gain entrance into the Kingdom of God will exist eternally. However, this division will not occur until Armageddon, when all people will be resurrected and given a chance to gain eternal life. In the meantime, “the dead are conscious of nothing.” What is God’s Purpose for the Earth?” Official Site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Watchtower, 15 July 2002.
^ a b White 2010, pp. 71–82
^ Russell, Thomas Arthur (2010). Comparative Christianity: A Student’s Guide to a Religion and Its Diverse Traditions. Universal-Publishers. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-59942-877-2.
^ a b Justin Martyr, First Apology §LXVII
^ White 2010, p. 36
^ Witvliet, John D. (2007). The Biblical Psalms in Christian Worship: A Brief Introduction and Guide to Resources. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-8028-0767-0. Retrieved 24 June 2020.
^ Wallwork, Norman (2019). “The Purpose of a Hymn Book” (PDF). Joint Liturgical Group of Great Britain. Retrieved 24 June 2020.
^ For example, The Calendar, Church of England, retrieved 25 June 2020
^ Ignazio Silone, Bread and Wine (1937).
^ Benz, Ernst (2008). The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life. Transaction Publishers. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-202-36575-6.
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 1415.
^ “An open table: How United Methodists understand communion – The United Methodist Church”. United Methodist Church. Retrieved 24 June 2020.
^ Canon B28 of the Church of England
^ a b c Cross/Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. pp. 1435ff.
^ Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and Lebanon.
^ Senn, Frank C. (2012). Introduction to Christian Liturgy. Fortress Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-4514-2433-1. For example, days of Mary, Joseph, and John the Baptist (e.g., August 15, March 19, June 24, respectively) are ranked as solemnities in the Roman Catholic calendar; in the Anglican and Lutheran calendars they are holy days or lesser festivals respectively.
^ a b Fortescue, Adrian (1912). “Christian Calendar”. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
^ Hickman. Handbook of the Christian Year.
^ “ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second | Christian Classics Ethereal Library”. Ccel.org. 1 June 2005. Retrieved 5 May 2009.
^ Minucius Felix speaks of the cross of Jesus in its familiar form, likening it to objects with a crossbeam or to a man with arms outstretched in prayer (Octavius of Minucius Felix, chapter XXIX).
^ “At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.” (Tertullian, De Corona, chapter 3)
^ a b Dilasser. The Symbols of the Church.
^ a b Catholic Encyclopedia, “Symbolism of the Fish”.
^ “Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1213 Archived 22 July 2016 at the Wayback Machine); “Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ’s Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God” (Book of Common Prayer, 1979, Episcopal ); “Baptism is the sacrament of initiation and incorporation into the body of Christ” (By Water and The Spirit – The Official United Methodist Understanding of Baptism (PDF) Archived 13 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine;”As an initiatory rite into membership of the Family of God, baptismal candidates are symbolically purified or washed as their sins have been forgiven and washed away” (William H. Brackney, Doing Baptism Baptist Style – Believer’s Baptism Archived 7 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine)
^ “After the proclamation of faith, the baptismal water is prayed over and blessed as the sign of the goodness of God’s creation. The person to be baptized is also prayed over and blessed with sanctified oil as the sign that his creation by God is holy and good. And then, after the solemn proclamation of “Alleluia” (God be praised), the person is immersed three times in the water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Orthodox Church in America: Baptism). Archived 12 October 2010 at the Wayback Machine
^ “In the Orthodox Church we totally immerse, because such total immersion symbolizes death. What death? The death of the “old, sinful man”. After Baptism we are freed from the dominion of sin, even though after Baptism we retain an inclination and tendency toward evil.”, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, article “Baptism Archived 30 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine”.
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 403, 1231, 1233, 1250, 1252.
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 1240.
^ “Matthew 6:9-13 Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV)”. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
^ a b Alexander, T.D.; Rosner, B.S, eds. (2001). “Prayer”. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
^ Ferguson, S.B. & Packer, J. (1988). “Saints”. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
^ Madeleine Gray, The Protestant Reformation, (Sussex Academic Press, 2003), p. 140.
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 2559.
^ “The Book of Common Prayer”. Church of England. Retrieved 24 June 2020.
^ Virkler, Henry A. (2007). Ayayo, Karelynne Gerber (ed.). Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-8010-3138-0.
^ “Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture”. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Archived from the original on 9 September 2010.(§105–108)
^ Second Helvetic Confession, Of the Holy Scripture Being the True Word of God
^ Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, online text
^ Metzger/Coogan, Oxford Companion to the Bible. p. 39.
^ a b Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: the story behind who changed the Bible and why. San Francisco: Harper ISBN 978-0060738174 pp. 183, 209
^ “1 Timothy 2:11–12 NIV – A woman should learn in quietness and”. Bible Gateway. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
^ “1 Corinthians 14:34–35 NIV – Women should remain silent in the”. Bible Gateway. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
^ “1 corinthians 11:2–16 NIV – On Covering the Head in Worship – I”. Bible Gateway. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
^ Wright, N.T. (1992). The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. pp. 435–443. ISBN 978-0-8006-2681-5.
^ “The Gospel of Thomas Collection – Translations and Resources”. Gnosis.org. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
^ “Luke 17:20–21 NIV – The Coming of the Kingdom of God”. Bible Gateway. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
^ “Reflections on religions”. Mmnet.com.au. Archived from the original on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
^ Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines. pp. 69–78.
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture § 115–118. Archived 25 March 2015 at the Wayback Machine
^ Thomas Aquinas, “Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses” Archived 6 September 2006 at the Wayback Machine
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §116 Archived 25 March 2015 at the Wayback Machine
^ Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum (V.19) Archived 31 May 2014 at the Wayback Machine.
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture” § 113. Archived 25 March 2015 at the Wayback Machine
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The Interpretation of the Heritage of Faith” § 85. Archived 3 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine
^ Keith A. Mathison (2001). “Introduction”. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Canon Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-885767-74-5.
^ a b Foutz, Scott David. “Martin Luther and Scripture”. Quodlibet Journal. Archived from the original on 14 April 2000. Retrieved 16 June 2014.
^ John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles 2 Peter 3:14–18
^ Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
^ Sproul. Knowing Scripture, pp. 45–61; Bahnsen, A Reformed Confession Regarding Hermeneutics (article 6).
^ a b Elwell, Walter A. (1984). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House. p. 565. ISBN 978-0-8010-3413-8.
^ Johnson, Elliott (1990). Expository hermeneutics : an introduction. Grand Rapids Mich.: Academie Books. ISBN 978-0-310-34160-4.
^ Terry, Milton (1974). Biblical hermeneutics : a treatise on the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House. p. 205. (1890 edition page 103, view1, view2)
^ e.g., in his commentary on Matthew 1 (§III.1). Matthew Henry interprets the twin sons of Judah, Phares and Zara, as an allegory of the Gentile and Jewish Christians. For a contemporary treatment, see Glenny, Typology: A Summary Of The Present Evangelical Discussion.
^ “Monastère de Mor Mattai – Mossul – Irak” (in French). Archived from the original on 3 March 2014.
^ Catherine Cory (13 August 2015). Christian Theological Tradition. Routledge. p. 20 and forwards. ISBN 978-1-317-34958-7.
^ Stephen Benko (1984). Pagan Rome and the Early Christians. Indiana University Press. p. 22 and forwards. ISBN 978-0-253-34286-7.
^ McGrath, Alister E. (2006), Christianity: An Introduction, Wiley-Blackwell, p. 174, ISBN 1-4051-0899-1
^ Seifrid, Mark A. (1992). “‘Justification by Faith’ and The Disposition of Paul’s Argument”. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 210–211, 246–247. ISBN 90-04-09521-7. ISSN 0167-9732.
^ Wylen, Stephen M., The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction, Paulist Press (1995), ISBN 0-8091-3610-4, Pp. 190-192.; Dunn, James D.G., Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (1999), ISBN 0-8028-4498-7, Pp. 33–34.; Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro & Gargola, Daniel J & Talbert, Richard John Alexander, The Romans: From Village to Empire, Oxford University Press (2004), ISBN 0-19-511875-8, p. 426.
^ Michael Whitby, et al. eds. Christian Persecution, Martyrdom and Orthodoxy (2006) online edition
^ Eusebius of Caesarea, the author of Ecclesiastical History in the 4th century, states that St. Mark came to Egypt in the first or third year of the reign of Emperor Claudius, i.e. 41 or 43 AD. “Two Thousand years of Coptic Christianity” Otto F.A. Meinardus p. 28.
^ Neil Lettinga. “A History of the Christian Church in Western North Africa”. Archived from the original on 30 July 2001.
^ “Allaboutreligion.org”. Allaboutreligion.org. Archived from the original on 16 November 2010. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ “The World Factbook: Armenia”. CIA. Retrieved 8 October 2011.
^ Brunner, Borgna (2006). Time Almanac with Information Please 2007. New York: Time Home Entertainment. p. 685. ISBN 978-1-933405-49-0.
^ Theo Maarten van Lint (2009). “The Formation of Armenian Identity in the First Millennium”. Church History and Religious Culture. 89 (1/3): 269.
^ Harris, Jonathan (2017). Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. p. 38. ISBN 9781474254670.
^ Chidester, David (2000). Christianity: A Global History. HarperOne. p. 91.
^ Ricciotti 1999
^ Theodosian Code XVI.i.2, in: Bettenson. Documents of the Christian Church. p. 31.
^ Burbank, Jane; Copper, Frederick (2010). Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 64.
^ McTavish, T. J. (2010). A Theological Miscellany: 160 Pages of Odd, Merry, Essentially Inessential Facts, Figures, and Tidbits about Christianity. Thomas Nelson. ISBN 978-1-4185-5281-7. The Nicene Creed, as used in the churches of the West (Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, and others), contains the statement, “We believe [or I believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
^ McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, pp. 37ff.
^ Cameron 2006, p. 42.
^ Cameron 2006, p. 47.
^ Browning 1992, pp. 198–208.
^ Browning 1992, p. 218.
^ a b c d González 1984, pp. 238–242
^ Mullin, 2008, p. 88.
^ Mullin, 2008, pp. 93–94.
^ González 1984, pp. 244–47
^ González 1984, p. 260
^ González 1984, pp. 278–281
^ Riché, Pierre (1978): “Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the Eighth Century”, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, ISBN 0-87249-376-8, pp. 126–127, 282–298
^ Rudy, The Universities of Europe, 1100–1914, p. 40
^ a b Verger, Jacques (1999). Culture, enseignement et société en Occident aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles (in French) (1st ed.). Presses universitaires de Rennes in Rennes. ISBN 978-2868473448. Retrieved 17 June 2014.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
^ González 1984, pp. 303–307, 310ff., 384–386
^ González 1984, pp. 305, 310ff., 316ff
^ González 1984, pp. 321–323, 365ff
^ Parole de l’Orient, Volume 30. Université Saint-Esprit. 2005. p. 488.
^ González 1984, pp. 292–300
^ Riley-Smith. The Oxford History of the Crusades.
^ The Western Church was called Latin at the time by the Eastern Christians and non-Christians due to its conducting of its rituals and affairs in the Latin language
^ “The Great Schism: The Estrangement of Eastern and Western Christendom”. Orthodox Information Centre. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
^ Duffy, Saints and Sinners (1997), p. 91
^ MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2011). Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. Penguin. ISBN 9781101189993.
^ Telushkin, Joseph (2008). Jewish Literacy. HarperCollins. pp. 192–193. ISBN 978-0-688-08506-3.
^ González 1984, pp. pp. 300, 304–305
^ González 1984, pp. 310, 383, 385, 391
^ a b Simon. Great Ages of Man: The Reformation. pp. 39, 55–61.
^ Simon. Great Ages of Man: The Reformation. p. 7.
^ Schama. A History of Britain. pp. 306–310.
^ National Geographic, 254.
^ Jensen, De Lamar (1992), Renaissance Europe, ISBN 0-395-88947-2
^ Levey, Michael (1967). Early Renaissance. Penguin Books.
^ Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, pp. 242–244.
^ Simon. Great Ages of Man: The Reformation. pp. 109–120.
^ A general overview about the English discussion is given in Coffey, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558–1689.
^ Novak, Michael (1988). Catholic social thought and liberal institutions: Freedom with justice. Transaction. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-88738-763-0.
^ Mortimer Chambers, The Western Experience (vol. 2) chapter 21.
^ Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival, by Christopher Marsh, p. 47. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.
^ Inside Central Asia: A Political and Cultural History, by Dilip Hiro. Penguin, 2009.
^ Adappur, Abraham (2000). Religion and the Cultural Crisis in India and the West. Intercultural Publications. ISBN 978-81-85574-47-9. Forced Conversion under Atheistic Regimes: It might be added that the most modern example of forced “conversions” came not from any theocratic state, but from a professedly atheist government—that of the Soviet Union under the Communists.
^ Geoffrey Blainey 2011). A Short History of Christianity; Viking; p. 494
^ Altermatt, Urs (2007). “Katholizismus und Nation: Vier Modelle in europäisch-vergleichender Perspektive”. In Urs Altermatt, Franziska Metzger (ed.). Religion und Nation: Katholizismen im Europa des 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (in German). Kohlhammer Verlag. pp. 15–34. ISBN 978-3-17-019977-4.
^ Heimann, Mary (1995). Catholic Devotion in Victorian England. Clarendon Press. pp. 165–73. ISBN 978-0-19-820597-5.
^ “Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says”. BBC News. 22 March 2011.
^ “図録▽世界各国の宗教”. .ttcn.ne.jp. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ Kim, Sebastian; Kim, Kirsteen (2008). Christianity as a World Religion. London: Continuum. p. 2.
^ Jehu Hanciles (2008). Beyond Christendom: Globalization, African Migration, and the Transformation of the West. Orbis Books. ISBN 978-1-60833-103-1.
^ Fargues, Philippe (1998). “A Demographic Perspective”. In Pacini, Andrea (ed.). Christian Communities in the Middle East. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-829388-0.
^ 31.4% of ≈7.4 billion world population (under the section ‘People’) “World”. The World Factbook. CIA.
^ “Christianity 2015: Religious Diversity and Personal Contact” (PDF). gordonconwell.edu. January 2015. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 May 2017. Retrieved 29 May 2015.
^ a b “The Global Religious Landscape”. Pew Research Center. December 2012. Retrieved 5 November 2018.
^ Werner Ustorf. “A missiological postscript”, in McLeod and Ustorf (eds), The Decline of Christendom in (Western) Europe, 1750–2000, (Cambridge University Press, 2003) pp. 219–20.
^ “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050″ (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 May 2015. Retrieved 24 June 2016.
^ a b c “Pewforum: Christianity (2010)” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 August 2013. Retrieved 14 May 2014.
^ Johnstone, Patrick, “The Future of the Global Church: History, Trends and Possibilities”, p. 100, fig 4.10 & 4.11
^ Hillerbrand, Hans J., “Encyclopedia of Protestantism: 4-volume Set”, p. 1815, “Observers carefully comparing all these figures in the total context will have observed the even more startling finding that for the first itime ever in the history of Protestantism, Wider Protestants will by 2050 have become almost exactly as numerous as Catholics – each with just over 1.5 billion followers, or 17 percent of the world, with Protestants growing considerably faster than Catholics each year.”
^ Juergensmeyer, Mark (2005). Religion in Global Civil Society. Oxford University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0198040699.
^ Barker, Isabelle V. (2005). “Engendering Charismatic Economies: Pentecostalism, Global Political Economy, and the Crisis of Social Reproduction”. American Political Science Association. pp. 2, 8 and footnote 14 on page 8. Archived from the original on 17 December 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2010.
^ Todd M. Johnson, Gina A Zurlo, Albert W. Hickman, and Peter F. Grossing, “Christianity 2016: Latin America and Projecting Religions to 2050,” International Bulletin of Mission Research, 2016, Vol. 40 (1) 22–29.
^ Barrett, 29.
^ Ross Douthat, “Fear of a Black Continent,” The New York Times, 21 October 2018, 9.
^ Encyclopædia Britannica table of religions, by region. Retrieved November 2007. Archived 18 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine
^ ARIS 2008 Report: Part IA – Belonging. “American Religious Identification Survey 2008″. B27.cc.trincoll.edu. Archived from the original on 18 May 2011. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ “New UK opinion poll shows continuing collapse of ‘Christendom'”. Ekklesia.co.uk. 23 December 2006. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ Barrett/Kurian.World Christian Encyclopedia, p. 139 (Britain), 281 (France), 299 (Germany).
^ “Christians in the Middle East”. BBC News. 15 December 2005. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ Katz, Gregory (25 December 2006). “Is Christianity dying in the birthplace of Jesus?”. Chron.com. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ “Number of Christians among young Koreans decreases by 5% per year”. Omf.org. Archived from the original on 26 February 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ “Christianity fading in Taiwan | American Buddhist Net”. Americanbuddhist.net. 10 November 2007. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 5 May 2009.
^ Greenlees, Donald (26 December 2007). “A Gambling-Fueled Boom Adds to a Church’s Bane”. Macao: Nytimes.com. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
^ Barry A. Kosmin; Ariela Keysar (2009). “American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008″ (PDF). Hartford, CN: Trinity College. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 April 2009. Retrieved 1 April 2009.
^ “Religions in Canada – Census 2001″. 2.statcan.ca. 9 March 2010. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ “Australian 2006 census – Religion”. Censusdata.abs.gov.au. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ Table 28, 2006 Census Data – QuickStats About Culture and Identity – Tables. Archived 24 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
^ Analysis (19 December 2011). “Europe”. Pewforum.org. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ Analysis (19 December 2011). “Americas”. Pewforum.org. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ Analysis (19 December 2011). “Global religious landscape: Christians”. Pewforum.org. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ David Stoll, “Is Latin America Turning Protestant?” published Berkeley: University of California Press. 1990
^ Jeff Hadden (1997). “Pentecostalism”. Archived from the original on 27 April 2006. Retrieved 24 September 2008.
^ Pew Forum on Religion; Public Life (24 April 2006). “Moved by the Spirit: Pentecostal Power and Politics after 100 Years”. Retrieved 24 September 2008.
^ “Pentecostalism”. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 2007. Archived from the original on 12 January 2009. Retrieved 21 December 2008.
^ Ed Gitre, Christianity Today Magazine (13 November 2000). “The CT Review: Pie-in-the-Sky Now”.
^ Melton, J. Gordon (2005). Encyclopedia of Protestantism. Infobase Publishing. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-8160-6983-5.
^ Milne, Bruce (2010). Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief. InterVarsity Press. p. 332. ISBN 978-0-83082-576-9.
^ a b c d Johnstone, Patrick; Miller, Duane Alexander (2015). “Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census”. IJRR. 11 (10): 1–19. Retrieved 30 October 2015.
^ USSD Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (2009). “International Religious Freedom Report 2009″. Archived from the original on 30 November 2009. Retrieved 6 March 2010.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ “5,000 Azerbaijanis adopted Christianity” (in Russian). Day.az. 7 July 2007. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
^ “Christian Missionaries Becoming Active in Azerbaijan” (in Azerbaijani). Tehran Radio. 19 June 2011. Archived from the original on 19 February 2014. Retrieved 12 August 2012.
^ Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of (17 July 2013). “Algeria: Situation of Christians, including the treatment of Christians by society and by the authorities; availability of state protection; the fire at Tafat church; whether there were convictions for proselytism (2010 – July 2013) [DZA104491.FE]”.
^ a b c d e f Muslims Turn to Christ – ChristianAction
^ “In Europe, many Muslims renounce Islam, embrace Christianity: Report”. 20 November 2014.
^ Aghajanian, Liana (12 May 2014). “‘Our second mother': Iran’s converted Christians find sanctuary in Germany”. The Guardian.
^ Gary Lane. “House Churches Growing in Iran”. Cbn.com. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ David B. Barrett; George Thomas Kurian; Todd M. Johnson, eds. (2001). World Christian Encyclopedia. Oxford University Press. p. 374. ISBN 978-0195079630.
^ Ahmad Farouk Musa; Mohd Radziq Jalaluddin; Ahmasd Fuad Rahmat; Edry Faizal Eddy Yusuf (22 October 2011). “What is Himpun about?”. The Star. Archived from the original on 24 October 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
^ “Christian Converts in Morocco Fear Fatwa Calling for Their Execution”.
^ “Friesch Dagblad”.
^ Cookson, Catharine (2003). Encyclopedia of religious freedom. Taylor & Francis. p. 207. ISBN 978-0-415-94181-5.
^ “Turkey: Protestant church closed down – Church in Chains – Ireland :: An Irish voice for suffering, persecuted Christians Worldwide”.
^ “Ekklesia – Turkish Protestants still face ‘long path’ to religious freedom”. 8 March 2011.
^ khadijabibi (30 October 2009). “35,000 Muslims convert into Christianity each year in Turkey”. Chowk.com. Archived from the original on 24 September 2012. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ “Нац состав.rar”. Archived from the original on 23 July 2011. Retrieved 24 July 2011.
^ “Conversion rate”. The Economist. 30 December 2008.
^ “Why Are Millions of Muslims Becoming Christian?”.
^ Jeni Mitchell. “FREEradicals – Targeting Christians in Central Asia”. Icsr.info. Archived from the original on 24 February 2012. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ “Despite Government Set-backs, Christianity Is Alive in Central Asia”. Opendoorsusa.org. 30 November 2011. Archived from the original on 10 January 2012. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ Bareth, Narayan (23 February 2005). “State to bar religious conversion”. BBC News.
^ “Religious Conversions”. The Times of India. India.
^ “160,000 Have Converted Out of Hinduism in Malaysia in 25 Years”. Christianaggression.org. 16 May 2005. Archived from the original on 23 November 2007. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ “Religions in Mongolia”. Mongolia-attractions.com. Archived from the original on 13 May 2011. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ Religious Demographic Profiles – Pew Forum Archived 21 April 2010 at the Wayback Machine
^ “Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 2005 – Vietnam”. U.S. Department of State. 30 June 2005. Archived from the original on 20 October 2006. Retrieved 11 March 2007.
^ “Christianity, non-religious register biggest growth: Census 2010″. Newnation.sg. 13 January 2011. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ “In Indonesia, Lunar New Year an old practice for young Christians”. Webcitation.org. Archived from the original on 28 November 2011. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ “In Indonesia, the Chinese go to church”. Nytimes.com. 27 April 2006. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ “Christianity 2010: a view from the new Atlas of Global Christianity”. Goliath.ecnext.com. 1 January 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ “More People Claim Christian Faith in Japan”.
^ Landau, Christopher (26 October 2009). “Will South Korea become Christian?”. BBC News. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ Putnam, Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, p. 408.
^ McGrath, Christianity: An Introduction, p. xvi.
^ Peter Marber, Money Changes Everything: How Global Prosperity Is Reshaping Our Needs, Values and Lifestyles, p. 99.
^ Philip Jenkins God’s Continent, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 56
^ a b “The future of the world’s most popular religion is African”. The Economist. 25 December 2015.
^ “Argentina”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ Løsere bånd, men fortsatt statskirke Archived 8 January 2014 at the Wayback Machine, ABC Nyheter
^ Staten skal ikke lenger ansette biskoper, NRK
^ Forbund, Human-Etisk. “Ingen avskaffelse: / Slik blir den nye statskirkeordningen”.
^ “Costa Rica”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ “Denmark”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ “Church and State in Britain: The Church of privilege”. Centre for Citizenship. Archived from the original on 11 May 2008. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ “McCain Praises Georgia For Adopting Christianity As Official State Religion”. BeliefNet. Retrieved 11 April 2009.
^ “El Salvador”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ “Iceland”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ “Liechtenstein”. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ “Malta”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ “Monaco”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ “Vatican”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ “Cyprus”. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
^ “Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population”. 19 December 2011.
^ Pew Research Center (18 December 2012). “THE GLOBAL RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE. Christians”.
^ Analysis (19 December 2011). “Table: Religious Composition by Country, in Percentages”. Pewforum.org. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
^ “Divisions of Christianity”. North Virginia College. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ “The LDS Restorationist movement, including Mormon denominations”. Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, US. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-514183-2.
^ Sydney E. Ahlstrom, characterized denominationalism in America as “a virtual ecclesiology” that “first of all repudiates the insistences of the Catholic Church, the churches of the ‘magisterial’ Reformation, and of most sects that they alone are the true Church.” (Ahlstrom, Sydney E.; Hall, David D. (2004). A Religious History of the American People (Revised ed.). Yale University Press. p. 381. ISBN 978-0-300-10012-9.);
- Nash, Donald A. Why the Churches of Christ are Not a Denomination (PDF). pp. 1–3. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 January 2010. Retrieved 17 June 2014.;
- Wendell Winkler, Christ’s Church is not a Denomination;
- David E. Pratte (1999). “Jesus Is Lord Free Online Bible Study Course Lesson 8, II. How Did Modern Denominations Begin?”. biblestudylessons.com. Retrieved 17 June 2014.
^ “Nicene Creed”. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium Archived 6 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine.
^ Duffy, Saints and Sinners, p. 1.
^ Hitchcock, Geography of Religion, p. 281.
^ Norman, The Roman Catholic Church an Illustrated History, pp. 11, 14.
^ a b Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium Archived 6 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine, chapter 2, paragraph 15.
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 865. Archived 12 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine
^ Marthaler, Introducing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Traditional Themes and Contemporary Issues (1994), preface.
^ John Paul II, Pope (1997). “Laetamur Magnopere”. Vatican. Archived from the original on 11 February 2008. Retrieved 9 March 2008.
^ Annuario Pontificio (2012), p. 1142.
^ Barry, One Faith, One Lord (2001), p. 71
^ Central Intelligence Agency, CIA World Factbook (2007).
^ a b Adherents.com, Religions by Adherents
^ Zenit.org, “Number of Catholics and Priests Rises Archived 25 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine”, 12 February 2007.
^ Cross/Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1199.
^ Fairchild, Mary. “Christianity:Basics:Eastern Orthodox Church Denomination”. about.com. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
^ “Oriental Orthodox Churches”. Wcc-coe.org. Archived from the original on 6 April 2010. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ “An Introduction to the Oriental Orthodox Churches”. Pluralism.org. 15 March 2005. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ OONS. “Syrian Orthodox Resources – Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration”. Sor.cua.edu. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ Baumer, Christoph (2006). The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. London-New York: Tauris. ISBN 9781845111151.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
^ Hunter, Erica C.D. (2014). “The Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East”. In Leustean, Lucian N. (ed.). Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twenty-First Century. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 601–620. ISBN 9781317818663.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
^ “CNEWA: Ronald G. Roberson, C.S.P. – The Assyrian Church of the East”. Archived from the original on 29 October 2012. Retrieved 15 August 2018.
^ Fahlbusch, Erwin, and Bromiley, Geoffrey William, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume 3. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003. p. 362.
^ McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. pp. 251–259.
^ Sykes/Booty/Knight. The Study of Anglicanism, p. 219. Some Anglicans consider their church a branch of the “One Holy Catholic Church” alongside of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, a concept rejected by the Catholic Church, some Eastern Orthodox, and many evangelical Anglicans themselves, for more on this, see Gregory Hallam, Orthodoxy and Ecumenism.
^ Gregory Mathewes-Green, “Whither the Branch Theory?”, Anglican Orthodox Pilgrim Vol. 2, No. 4. Archived 19 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine
^ Benedetto, Robert; Duke, James O. (2008). The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 22. ISBN 9780664224165.
^ Littell, Franklin H. (2000). The Anabaptist View of the Church. The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc. p. 79. ISBN 978-1579788360. In reviewing the records, the reader is struck with the Anabaptists’ acute consciousness of separation from the “fallen” church—in which they included the Reformers as well as the Roman institution. Some writers have therefore concluded that Anabaptism is not merely a variant form of Protestantism, but rather an ideology and practice quite different in kind from those of both Rome and the Reformers.
^ “Who We Are: A Quick Visual Guide”. Mennonite Church US. 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Anabaptists: We are neither Catholic nor Protestant, but we share ties to those streams of Christianity. We cooperate as a sign of our unity in Christ and in ways that extend the reign of God’s Kingdom on earth. We are known as “Anabaptists” (not anti-Baptist)—meaning “rebaptizers.”
^ “About The Methodist Church”. Methodist Central Hall Westminster. Archived from the original on 21 January 2007. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ “Christianity: Pentecostal Churches”. GodPreach, Inc. Archived from the original on 11 February 2015. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ “Statement of Belief”. Cambridge Christ United Methodist Church. Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ “The New Birth by John Wesley (Sermon 45)”. The United Methodist Church GBGM. Archived from the original on 13 September 2007. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ “God’s Preparing, Accepting, and Sustaining Grace”. The United Methodist Church GBGM. Archived from the original on 9 January 2008. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ “Total Experience of the Spirit”. Warren Wilson College. Archived from the original on 3 September 2006. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ Clarke, Peter B.; Beyer, Peter (2009). The World’s Religions: Continuities and Transformations. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-135-21100-4.
^ Noll, Mark A. (2011). Protestantism: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-162013-3.
^ This branch was first called Calvinism by Lutherans who opposed it, and many within the tradition would prefer to use the word Reformed. It includes Presbyterians and Congregationalists.
^ World Council of Churches: Evangelical churches: “Evangelical churches have grown exponentially in the second half of the 20th century and continue to show great vitality, especially in the global South. This resurgence may in part be explained by the phenomenal growth of Pentecostalism and the emergence of the charismatic movement, which are closely associated with evangelicalism. However, there can be no doubt that the evangelical tradition “per se” has become one of the major components of world Christianity. Evangelicals also constitute sizable minorities in the traditional Protestant and Anglican churches. In regions like Africa and Latin America, the boundaries between “evangelical” and “mainline” are rapidly changing and giving way to new ecclesial realities.”
^ Confessionalism is a term employed by historians to refer to “the creation of fixed identities and systems of beliefs for separate churches which had previously been more fluid in their self-understanding, and which had not begun by seeking separate identities for themselves—they had wanted to be truly Catholic and reformed.” (MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, p. xxiv.)
^ “Classification of Protestant Denominations” (PDF). Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life / U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Retrieved 27 September 2009.
^ McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, pp. 91ff.
^ “The Restorationist Movements”. Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
^ “LDS Statistics and Church Facts | Total Church Membership”. mormonnewsroom.org. Retrieved 27 April 2018.
^ Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (2004)
^ Melton’s Encyclopedia of American Religions (2009)
^ Fahlbusch, Erwin (2008). The Encyclodedia of Christianity. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 208. ISBN 978-0802824172.
^ Fleming, John A.; Rowan, Michael J.; Chambers, James Albert (2004). Folk Furniture of Canada’s Doukhobors, Hutterites, Mennonites and Ukrainians. University of Alberta. p. 4. ISBN 978-0888644183. The English Quakers, who had made contact with the Doukhobors earlier, as well as the Philadelphia Society of Friends, also determined to help with their emigration from Russia to some other country—the only action which seemed possible.
^ Ariel, Yaakov (2006). “Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism”. In Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael (eds.). Jewish and Christian Traditions. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America. 2. Westport, CN: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-275-98714-5. LCCN 2006022954. OCLC 315689134. Retrieved 9 September 2015. For example, Messianic Jews, without exception, believe that the way to eternal life is through the acceptance of Jesus as one’s personal savior and that no obedience to the Jewish law or “works” is necessary in order to obtain that goal….Remarkably, it has been exactly this adherence to the basic Christian evangelical faith that has allowed Messianic Jews to adopt and promote Jewish rites and customs. They are Christians in good standing and can retain whatever cultural attributes and rites they choose.
^ Western Esotericism and the Science of Religion: Selected Papers Presented at the 17th Congress
^ Besant, Annie (2001). Esoteric Christianity or the Lesser Mysteries. City: Adamant Media Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4021-0029-1.
^ From the Greek ἐσωτερικός (esôterikos, “inner”). The term esotericism itself was coined in the 17th century. (Oxford English Dictionary Compact Edition, Volume 1, Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 894.)
^ Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Antoine Faivre, Roelof van den Broek, Jean-Pierre Brach, Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, Brill 2005.
^ “Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: esotericism”. Webster.com. 13 August 2010. Archived from the original on 2 December 2008. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ “Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: esoteric”. Webster.com. Archived from the original on 7 September 2008. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ Dawson, Christopher; Glenn Olsen (1961). Crisis in Western Education (reprint ed.). p. 108. ISBN 978-0813216836.
^ a b Koch, Carl (1994). The Catholic Church: Journey, Wisdom, and Mission. Early Middle Ages: St. Mary’s Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-298-4.
^ Koch, Carl (1994). The Catholic Church: Journey, Wisdom, and Mission. The Age of Enlightenment: St. Mary’s Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-298-4.
^ Dawson, Christopher; Olsen, Glenn (1961). Crisis in Western Education (reprint ed.). ISBN 978-0-8132-1683-6.
^ Encyclopædia Britannica Forms of Christian education
^ Hough, Susan Elizabeth (2007), Richter’s Scale: Measure of an Earthquake, Measure of a Man, Princeton University Press, p. 68, ISBN 978-0-691-12807-8
^ Woods 2005, p. 109.
^ Encyclopædia Britannica Jesuit
^ Wallace, William A. (1984). Prelude, Galileo and his Sources. The Heritage of the Collegio Romano in Galileo’s Science. NJ: Princeton University Press.
^ Sztompka, 2003
^ Encyclopædia Britannica Church and social welfare
^ Encyclopædia Britannica Care for the sick
^ Encyclopædia Britannica Property, poverty, and the poor,
^ Weber, Max (1905). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
^ Hillerbrand, Hans J. (2016). Encyclopedia of Protestantism: 4-volume Set. Pickle Partners Publishing. p. 174. ISBN 1787203042. … In the centuries succeeding the REFORMATION the teaching of Protestantism was consistent on the nature of work. Some Protestant theologians also contributed to the study of economics, especially the nineteenth-century Scottish minister THOMAS CHALMERS….
^ Sir Banister Fletcher, History of Architecture on the Comparative Method.
^ Encyclopædia Britannica Church and state
^ Buringh, Eltjo; van Zanden, Jan Luiten: “Charting the ‘Rise of the West': Manuscripts and Printed Books in Europe, A Long-Term Perspective from the Sixth through Eighteenth Centuries”, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 69, No. 2 (2009), pp. 409–445 (416, table 1)
^ Eveleigh, Bogs (2002). Baths and Basins: The Story of Domestic Sanitation. Stroud, England: Sutton.
^ Henry Gariepy (2009). Christianity in Action: The History of the International Salvation Army. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-8028-4841-3.
^ Warsh, Cheryl Krasnick (2006). Children’s Health Issues in Historical Perspective. Veronica Strong-Boag. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. p. 315. ISBN 9780889209121. … From Fleming’s perspective, the transition to Christianity required a good dose of personal and public hygiene …
^ Encyclopædia Britannica The tendency to spiritualize and individualize marriage
^ Rawson, Beryl Rawson (2010). A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. John Wiley & Sons. p. 111. ISBN 9781444390759. …Christianity placed great emphasis on the family and on all members from children to the aged…
^ Hill, Donald. Islamic Science and Engineering. 1993. Edinburgh Univ. Press. ISBN 0-7486-0455-3, p. 4
^ Brague, Rémi (2009). The Legend of the Middle Ages. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-226-07080-3.
^ Kitty Ferguson (2011). Pythagoras: His Lives and the Legacy of a Rational Universe. Icon Books Limited. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-84831-250-0. It was in the Near and Middle East and North Africa that the old traditions of teaching and learning continued, and where Christian scholars were carefully preserving ancient texts and knowledge of the ancient Greek language
^ Kaser, Karl (2011). The Balkans and the Near East: Introduction to a Shared History. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 135. ISBN 978-3-643-50190-5.
^ Rémi Brague, Assyrians contributions to the Islamic civilization
^ Britannica, Nestorian
^ “Religion of History’s 100 Most Influential People”.
^ “Religion of Great Philosophers”.
^ A. Spinello, Richard (2012). The Encyclicals of John Paul II: An Introduction and Commentary. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 147. ISBN 1442219424. … The insights of Christian philosophy “would not have happened without the direct or indirect contribution of Christian faith” (FR 76). Typical Christian philosophers include St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The benefits derived from Christian philosophy are twofold….
^ Gilley, Sheridan (2006). The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 8, World Christianities C.1815-c.1914. Brian Stanley. Cambridge University Press. p. 164. ISBN 0521814561. … Many of the scientists who contributed to these developments were Christians…
^ Steane, Andrew (2014). Faithful to Science: The Role of Science in Religion. OUP Oxford. p. 179. ISBN 0191025135. … the Christian contribution to science has been uniformly at the top level, but it has reached that level and it has been sufficiently strong overall …
^ “Christian Influences in the Sciences”. rae.org. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015.
^ “World’s Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K”. creationsafaris.com. Archived from the original on 15 January 2016.
^ “100 Scientists Who Shaped World History”.
^ “50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God”. Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Alessandro Volta, Michael Faraday, William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin and James Clerk Maxwell.
^ “Religious Affiliation of the World’s Greatest Artists”.
^ Hall, p. 100.
^ “Wealthy 100 and the 100 Most Influential in Business”.
^ Baruch A. Shalev, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003), Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, p. 57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religions. Most (65%) have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. ISBN 978-0935047370
^ G.C. Oosthuizen. Postchristianity in Africa. C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd (1968). ISBN 0-903983-05-2
^ a b McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, pp. 581–584.
^ McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. pp. 413ff.
^ McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, p. 498.
^ a b The Oxford companion to Christian thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000. p. 694. ISBN 978-0-19-860024-4.
^ Oxford, “Encyclopedia of Christianity, p. 307.
^ McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, p. 373.
^ McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, p. 583.
^ “Methodist Statement” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 January 2010. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
^ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 1982 ISBN 0-8028-3782-4 p. 175
^ Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135 by James D.G. Dunn 1999 ISBN 0-8028-4498-7 pp. 112–113
^ Asher Norman Twenty-six Reasons why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus Feldheim Publishers 2007 ISBN 978-0-977-19370-7 p. 11
^ Keith Akers The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity. Lantern Books 2000 ISBN 978-1-930-05126-3 p. 103
^ Ferguson, Everett (1993). Backgrounds of Early Christianity (second ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. pp. 562–564. ISBN 978-0-8028-0669-7.
^ Thomas, Stephen (2004). “Celsus”. In McGuckin, John Anthony (ed.). The Westminster Handbook to Origen. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-0-664-22472-1.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
^ a b Olson, Roger E. (1999), The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, p. 101, ISBN 978-0-8308-1505-0CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
^ McGuckin, John Anthony (2004). “The Scholarly Works of Origen”. The Westminster Handbook to Origen. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 32–34. ISBN 978-0-664-22472-1.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
^ Ferguson, Everett (1993). Backgrounds of Early Christianity (second ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. pp. 556–561. ISBN 978-0-8028-0669-7.
^ Sherwin-White, A.N. (April 1964). “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? – An Amendment”. Past and Present. 27 (27): 23–27. doi:10.1093/past/27.1.23. JSTOR 649759.
^ The Encyclopedia of Christian Literature, Volume 1 by George Thomas Kurian and James Smith 2010 ISBN 0-8108-6987-X p. 527
^ Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition by Wayne Campbell Kannaday 2005 ISBN 90-04-13085-3 pp. 32–33
^ A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations by Edward Kessler, Neil Wenborn 2005 ISBN 0-521-82692-6 p. 168
^ The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche by Bernd Magnus, Kathleen Marie Higgins 1996 ISBN 0-521-36767-0 pp. 90–93
^ Russell on Religion: Selections from the Writings of Bertrand Russell by Bertrand Russell, Stefan Andersson and Louis Greenspan 1999 ISBN 0-415-18091-0 pp. 77–87
^ Christianity: An Introduction by Alister E. McGrath 2006 ISBN 1-4051-0899-1 pp. 125–126.
^ ” The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems “, published 2011 by American Atheist press, Cranford, NJ, ISBN 1-57884-017-1
^ Kaplan, S. (1 January 2005). “”Religious Nationalism”: A Textbook Case from Turkey”. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. 25 (3): 665–676. doi:10.1215/1089201x-25-3-665. ISSN 1089-201X.
^ Weber, Jeremy. “‘Worst year yet’: the top 50 countries where it’s hardest to be a Christian”. Christianity Today. 11 January 2017. Retrieved 7 October 2019.
^ Enos, Olivia. “North Korea is the world’s worst persecutor of Christians”. Forbes. 25 January 2017. Retrieved 7 October 2019.
^ Worldwatchlist2020, Most dangerous countries for Christians. “Serving Persecuted Christians – Open Doors USA”. www.opendoorsusa.org. Retrieved 24 March 2020.
^ Mounstephen, Philip. “Interim report”. Bishop of Truro’s Independent Review for the Foreign Secretary of FCO Support for Persecuted Christians. April 2019. Retrieved 7 October 2019.
^ a b Mounstephen, Philip. “Final Report and Recommendations”. Bishop of Truro’s Independent Review for the Foreign Secretary of FCO Support for Persecuted Christians. July 2019. Retrieved 7 October 2019.
^ Kay, Barbara. “Our politicians may not care, but Christians are under siege across the world”. National Post. 8 May 2019. Retrieved 7 October 2019.
^ ἀπολογητικός, ἀπολογέομαι in Liddell and Scott.
^ Dulles, Avery Robert Cardinal (2005). A History of Apologetics. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-89870-933-9.
^ L Russ Bush, ed. (1983). Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. p. 275. ISBN 978-0-310-45641-4.
^ “Why I Believe in Christianity – Society of Gilbert Keith Chesterton”.
^ Hauser, Chris (History major, Dartmouth College class of 2014) (Fall 2011). “Faith and Paradox: G.K. Chesterton’s Philosophy of Christian Paradox”. The Dartmouth Apologia: A Journal of Christian Thought. 6 (1): 16–20. Retrieved 29 March 2015.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ “Christianity”. 6 December 2010.
^ Howson, Colin (2011). Objecting to God. Cambridge University Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1139498562. Nor is the agreement coincidental, according to a substantial constituency of religious apologists, who regard the inflationary Big Bang model as direct evidence for God. John Lennox, a mathematician at the University of Oxford, tells us that ‘even if the non-believers don’t like it, the Big Bang fits in exactly with the Christian narrative of creation’. … William Lane Craig is another who claims that the Biblical account is corroborated by Big Bang cosmology. Lane Craig also claims that there is a prior proof that there is a God who created this universe.

Bibliography

.mw-parser-output .refbegin{font-size:90%;margin-bottom:0.5em}.mw-parser-output .refbegin-hanging-indents>ul{list-style-type:none;margin-left:0}.mw-parser-output .refbegin-hanging-indents>ul>li,.mw-parser-output .refbegin-hanging-indents>dl>dd{margin-left:0;padding-left:3.2em;text-indent:-3.2em;list-style:none}.mw-parser-output .refbegin-100{font-size:100%}

Albright, William F. From the Stone Age to Christianity.
Alexander, T. Desmond. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology.
Bahnsen, Greg. A Reformed Confession Regarding Hermeneutics (article 6).
Ball, Bryan; Johnsson, William (ed.). The Essential Jesus. Pacific Press (2002). ISBN 0-8163-1929-4.
Barrett, David; Kurian, Tom and others. (ed.). World Christian Encyclopedia. Oxford University Press (2001).
Barry, John F. One Faith, One Lord: A Study of Basic Catholic Belief. William H. Sadlier (2001). ISBN 0-8215-2207-8
Benton, John. Is Christianity True? Darlington, Eng.: Evangelical Press (1988). ISBN 0-85234-260-8
Bettenson, Henry (ed.). Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press (1943).
Bokenkotter, Thomas (2004). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-50584-0.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
Browning, Robert (1992). The Byzantine Empire. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. ISBN 978-0-8132-0754-4.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture.
Cameron, Averil (2006). The Byzantines. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9833-2.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
Chambers, Mortimer; Crew, Herlihy, Rabb, Woloch. The Western Experience. Volume II: The Early Modern Period. Alfred A. Knopf (1974). ISBN 0-394-31734-3.
Coffey, John. Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558–1689. Pearson Education (2000).
Cross, F.L.; Livingstone, E.A. (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press (1997). ISBN 0-19-211655-X.
Deppermann, Klaus. Melchior Hoffman: Social Unrest and Apocalyptic Vision in the Age of Reformation. ISBN 0-567-08654-2.
Dilasser, Maurice. The Symbols of the Church. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press (1999). ISBN 0-8146-2538-X
Duffy, Eamon. Saints and Sinners, a History of the Popes. Yale University Press (1997). ISBN 0-300-07332-1
Elwell, Walter; Comfort, Philip Wesley (2001). Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Tyndale House Publishers. ISBN 0-8423-7089-7.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
Esler, Philip F. The Early Christian World. Routledge (2004).
Farrar, F.W. Mercy and Judgment. A Few Last Words On Christian Eschatology With Reference to Dr. Pusey’s, “What Is Of Faith?”. Macmillan, London/New York (1904).
Ferguson, Sinclair; Wright, David, eds. New Dictionary of Theology. consulting ed. Packer, James. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press (1988). ISBN 0-85110-636-6
Foutz, Scott. Martin Luther and Scripture Martin Luther and Scripture.
Fowler, Jeaneane D. World Religions: An Introduction for Students, Sussex Academic Press (1997). ISBN 1-898723-48-6.
Fuller, Reginald H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology Scribners (1965). ISBN 0-684-15532-X.
Froehle, Bryan; Gautier, Mary, Global Catholicism, Portrait of a World Church, Orbis books; Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Georgetown University (2003) ISBN 1-57075-375-X
Funk, Robert. The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do?. Polebridge Press (1998). ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
Glenny, W. Edward. Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical Discussion.
González, Justo L. (1984). The Story of Christianity (1st ed.). Harper & Row. ISBN 0060633158.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
Hanegraaff, Hank. Resurrection: The Capstone in the Arch of Christianity. Thomas Nelson (2000). ISBN 0-8499-1643-7.
Harnack, Adolf von. History of Dogma (1894).
Hickman, Hoyt L. and others. Handbook of the Christian Year. Abingdon Press (1986). ISBN 0-687-16575-X
Hinnells, John R. The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion (2005).
Hitchcock, Susan Tyler. Geography of Religion. National Geographic Society (2004) ISBN 0-7922-7313-3
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines.
Kelly, J.N.D. The Athanasian Creed. Harper & Row, New York (1964).
Kirsch, Jonathan. God Against the Gods.
Kreeft, Peter. Catholic Christianity. Ignatius Press (2001) ISBN 0-89870-798-6
Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity in Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. P & R Publishing (2005). ISBN 0-87552-000-6.
Lorenzen, Thorwald. Resurrection, Discipleship, Justice: Affirming the Resurrection Jesus Christ Today. Smyth & Helwys (2003). ISBN 1-57312-399-4.
McLaughlin, R. Emmet, Caspar Schwenckfeld, reluctant radical: his life to 1540, New Haven: Yale University Press (1986). ISBN 0-300-03367-2.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid, The Reformation: A History. Viking Adult (2004).
MacCulloch, Diarmaid, A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. London, Allen Lane. 2009. ISBN 978-0-7139-9869-6
Marber, Peter. Money Changes Everything: How Global Prosperity Is Reshaping Our Needs, Values and Lifestyles. FT Press (2003). ISBN 0-13-065480-9
Marthaler, Berard. Introducing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Traditional Themes and Contemporary Issues. Paulist Press (1994). ISBN 0-8091-3495-0
Mathison, Keith. The Shape of Sola Scriptura (2001).
McClintock, John, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Harper &Brothers, original from Harvard University (1889)
McGrath, Alister E. Christianity: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing (2006). ISBN 1-4051-0899-1.
McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology.
McManners, John. Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. Oxford University Press (1990). ISBN 0-19-822928-3.
Meconi, David Vincent. “Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity”, in: Journal of Early Christian Studies.
Metzger, Bruce M., Michael Coogan (ed.). Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-504645-5.
Mullin, Robert Bruce. A short world history of Christianity. Westminster John Knox Press (2008).
Norman, Edward. The Roman Catholic Church, An Illustrated History. University of California (2007) ISBN 978-0-520-25251-6
Olson, Roger E., The Mosaic of Christian Belief. InterVarsity Press (2002). ISBN 978-0-8308-2695-7.
Orlandis, Jose, A Short History of the Catholic Church. Scepter Publishers (1993) ISBN 1-85182-125-2
Ott, Ludwig. Grundriß der Dogmatik. Herder, Freiburg (1965).
Otten, Herman J. Baal or God? Liberalism or Christianity, Fantasy vs. Truth: Beliefs and Practices of the Churches of the World Today…. Second ed. New Haven, Mo.: Lutheran News, 1988.
Pelikan, Jaroslav; Hotchkiss, Valerie (ed.) Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. Yale University Press (2003). ISBN 0-300-09389-6.
Putnam, Robert D. Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. Oxford University Press (2002).
Ricciotti, Giuseppe (1999). Julian the Apostate: Roman Emperor (361-363). TAN Books. ISBN 978-1505104547.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades. New York: Oxford University Press, (1999).
Robinson, George (2000). Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs and Rituals. New York: Pocket Books. ISBN 978-0-671-03481-8.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
Schama, Simon . A History of Britain. Hyperion (2000). ISBN 0-7868-6675-6.
Servetus, Michael. Restoration of Christianity. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press (2007).
Simon, Edith. Great Ages of Man: The Reformation. Time-Life Books (1966). ISBN 0-662-27820-8.
Smith, J.Z. (1998).
Spitz, Lewis. The Protestant Reformation. Concordia Publishing House (2003). ISBN 0-570-03320-9.
Sproul, R.C. Knowing Scripture.
Spurgeon, Charles. A Defense of Calvinism.
Sykes, Stephen; Booty, John; Knight, Jonathan. The Study of Anglicanism. Augsburg Fortress Publishers (1998). ISBN 0-8006-3151-X.
Talbott, Thomas. Three Pictures of God in Western Theology” (1995).
Ustorf, Werner. “A missiological postscript”, in: McLeod, Hugh; Ustorf, Werner (ed.). The Decline of Christendom in Western Europe, 1750–2000. Cambridge University Press (2003).
Walsh, Chad. Campus Gods on Trial. Rev. and enl. ed. New York: Macmillan Co., 1962, t.p. 1964. xiv, , 154 p.
White, James F. (2010). Introduction to Christian Worship Third Edition: Revised and Expanded (3rd ed.). Abingdon Press. ISBN 1426722850.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
Woodhead, Linda (2004). Christianity: a very short introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280322-1.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
Woods, Thomas E. (2005). How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington, DC: Regnery.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)

External links

Christianityat Wikipedia’s sister projects

Definitions from Wiktionary
Media from Wikimedia Commons
News from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Travel guide from Wikivoyage
Resources from Wikiversity
Data from Wikidata

Christianity at Curlie
“Christianity”. Encyclopædia Britannica
Religion & Ethics – Christianity A number of introductory articles on Christianity from the BBC

v t e Jesus
Historicity	Chronology of Jesus Genealogy of Jesus Historical Jesus Quest for the historical Jesus sources Josephus on Jesus Tacitus mention Mara bar Serapion letter Historicity Gospels race and appearance
Life events	Nativity Virgin birth Mary Joseph Flight into Egypt Childhood Unknown years Baptism Temptation Apostles selecting Great Commission Ministry disciples Sermon on the Mount/Plain Beatitudes Prayers Lord’s Prayer Parables Miracles Transfiguration Homelessness Great Commandment Olivet Discourse Anointing Passion Entry into Jerusalem Last Supper Farewell Discourse Agony in the garden Arrest Trial Crucifixion sayings on the cross Tomb Resurrection appearances Ascension
New Testament	Gospels Matthew Mark Luke John Gospel harmony Oral gospel traditions Five Discourses of Matthew Life of Jesus in the New Testament Historical background of the New Testament New Testament places associated with Jesus Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament
Culture	Language of Jesus
Depictions	Bibliography Artworks statues Films
Christianity	Christ Christianity timeline 1st century Christology Jesus in Christianity pre-existence incarnation Relics associated with Jesus Scholastic Lutheran Christology Second Coming Session of Christ
Related	Brothers of Jesus Christ myth theory Contemporaries rejection of Jesus Cosmic Christ Criticism Date of birth Holy Family Jesus’ interactions with women Mary Magdalene Jesuism Jesus in comparative mythology Jesus in Islam Ahmadiyya Jesus in Scientology Jesus the Splendour Judaism’s view of Jesus in the Talmud Master Jesus Mental health Religious perspectives on Jesus

Patriarchates in Christianity

Traditional ecclesiastical jurisidictions of primates in Christianity, sorted according to earliest apostolic legacy (branched where multiple denominational claimants) Legend: in bold blue: Catholic Church, light blue: Eastern Orthodox Church, green: Oriental Orthodoxy, italic: Nestorianism

EarlyChristianity(Antiquity)(30–325/476)

Pentarchy(fiveapostolicsees*,as orderedby theCouncilof Ephesusin 431)

Patriarch of Rome (1st century)	Holy See (since 1st century)
Patriarch of Constantinople (451)	Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (since 330) Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople (1204-1964) Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople (since 1461)
Patriarch of Antioch (1st century)	Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (since 518) Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (since 518) Maronite Patriarchate (since 685) Syriac Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch (since 1668) Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch (since 1724) Latin Patriarchate of Antioch (1099-1964)
Patriarch of Alexandria (1st century)	Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria (since 451) · Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria (since 451) · Latin Patriarchate of Alexandria (1219-1964) · Coptic Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria (since 1824)
Patriarch of Jerusalem (451)	Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem (since 451) · Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (since 638) · Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem (since 1099)

Other

Patriarch of Carthage (2nd century-1076)	Latin Catholic titular episcopate (1518-1964) · Archbishop of Tunis (since 1884)
Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (280-1552)	Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate of Babylon (since 1553) Assyrian Church of the East Patriarchateof Seleucia-Ctesiphon (since 1830) Ancient Church of the East Patriarchateof Seleucia-Ctesiphon (since 1968)
Patriarch of Cilicia (294)	Catholicos of All Armenians (since 301) Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia (since 1058) Patriarchate of Cilicia (since 1742)

Middle Ages(476–1517)

Patriarchate of Aquileia (568-1751)
Patriarchate of Grado (725-1451)
Patriarchate of Bulgaria (since 919)
Patriarchate of Georgia (since 1010)
Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate of Peć (since 1346)
Patriarchate of Venice (since 1451)

Early Modern era(1517-1789)

Patriarchate of the West Indies (since 1524)
Latin Patriarchate of Ethiopia (1555-1663)
Patriarchate of the East Indies (since 1572)
Patriarchate of Moscow (since 1589)
Patriarchate of Lisbon (since 1716)

Late Modern era(1789–present)

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Catholicos of the East (since 1912)
Autocephalous Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate (since 1922)
Patriarchate of Romania (since 1925)
Ethiopian Orthodox Patriarchate of Ethiopia (since 1988)
Patriarchate of Kiev (1992–2018; 2019–)
Eritrean Orthodox Patriarchate of Eritrea (since 1994)

Apostolic sees:¨
Rome: Peter, Paul
Constantinople: Andrew
Antioch: Peter
Alexandria: Mark
Jerusalem: James
Babylon: Thomas, Bartholomew, and Thaddeus
Cilicia: Bartholomew, and Jude
Christianity portal

History of Christianity

Centuries

1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th • 5th • 6th • 7th • 8th • 9th • 10th • 11th • 12th • 13th • 14th • 15th • 16th • 17th • 18th • 19th • 20th • 21st

Origins andApostolic Age

Background
Jesus
- Baptism
- Ministry
- Crucifixion
- Resurrection
- Great Commission
Holy Spirit
Apostles
Paul the Apostle
Council of Jerusalem
Split with Judaism
New Testament
- Gospels
- Acts
- Pauline epistles
- General epistles
- Revelation

Ante-Niceneperiod

Diversity
- Arianism
- Donatism
- Marcionism
- Montanism
Canon development
Persecution
Church / Apostolic Fathers
- Pope Clement I
- Polycarp
- Ignatius
- Irenaeus
- Justin Martyr
- Tertullian
- Origen

Late antiquity(Great Church)

Constantine
- Constantinian shift
Monasticism
Councils
Nicaea I
- Nicene Creed
Athanasius
Jerome
Augustine
Constantinople I
Ephesus I
Chalcedon
Biblical canon

EasternChristianity

Eastern Orthodoxy
Church of the East
Oriental Orthodoxy
Chrysostom
Nestorianism
Icons
- Iconoclasm
Great Schism
Fall of Constantinople
Armenia
Georgia
Greece
Egypt
Syria
Ethiopia
Bulgaria
Ottoman Empire
Russia
America

Catholicism

Papacy
- Development of primacy
- Eastern Orthodox opposition
Lateran IV
Art patronage of Julius II
Leo X
Counter-Reformation
- Trent
- Art
- Catholic Reformation
- Jesuits
  - Xavier
Thomas More
Monastery dissolution
Wars
Mass rocks and priest holes
Guadalupe
Jansenists
Molinists
Neo-Scholasticism
Teresa
Modernism
Independent Catholics
Vatican I and Vatican II
- Ecclesial community
Timeline

Middle Ages

Pelagianism
Gregory I
Celtic
Germanic
Scandinavian
Kievan Rus’
Investiture
Anselm
Abelard
Bernard
Bogomils
Bosnian
Cathars
Apostolic Brethren
Dulcinian
Crusades
Waldensians
Inquisition
Early Scholasticism
Christian mysticism
Dominic
Francis
Bonaventure
Aquinas
- Five Ways
Wycliffe
Avignon
Papal Schism
Bohemian Reformation
Hus
Conciliarism
- Synods

ReformationandProtestantism

Erasmus
Eucharist
Calvinist–Arminian debate
Arminianism
Wars
- Resistance theories
Separation of church and state
Nicodemites
Hymnody of continental Europe
Formal and material principles
Literature
Protestant work ethic

Lutheranism	Luther 95 Theses Diet of Worms Theology Bible Melanchthon Book of Concord Orthodoxy Scholasticism Eucharist Art
Calvinism	Zwingli Calvin Huguenots Presbyterianism Scotland Knox TULIP Baptism Law and Gospel Dort Three Forms of Unity Westminster Scholasticism Metrical psalters
Anglicanism	Timeline Henry VIII Cranmer Elizabethan 39 Articles Puritans Civil War Church music Book of Common Prayer King James Version
Anabaptism	Theology Radical Reformation Grebel Swiss Brethren Müntzer Martyrs’ Synod Menno Simons Smyth Martyrs Mirror Ausbund

1640–1789

Revivalism
Missionaries
Baptists
- Separation of church and state
Edicts of toleration
Congregationalism
First Great Awakening
Methodism
Millerism
Pietism
- Fostering of early experimental science
Neo- and Old Lutherans

1789–present

Camp meeting
Holiness movement
Second Great Awakening
Restorationists
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Mormonism
Seventh-day Adventist
Adventism
Oxford Movement
Laestadianism
Finnish Awakening
Christian existentialism
Third Great Awakening
Azusa Revival
Gospel music
Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy
Pacifism
Ecumenism
Five solae
Jesus movement
Pentecostalism
Charismatics
Liberation theology
Reformed epistemology
Fourth Great Awakening
Evangelical and Mainline Protestants
Christian right and left
Persecution by ISIL

Timeline
- Missions
- Martyrs
Theology
Eastern Orthodoxy
Oriental Orthodoxy
Protestantism
Catholicism

Christianity

Index
Outline
Glossary
Lists of Christians
By country

Bible

Books
Canon
Old Testament
New Testament

Foundations

Church
Creed
Gospel
New Covenant
Christian tradition
Worship

HistoryTimeline

Early Christianity	Jesus Nativity Baptism Ministry Sermon on the Mount Crucifixion Resurrection Great Commission Apostles Church fathers Apostolic fathers
Great Church	Ante-Nicene period Late antiquity Constantine First seven ecumenical councils Nicaea I Chalcedon State church of the Roman Empire Biblical canon
Middle Ages	Monasticism Papal States East–West Schism Investiture Controversy Crusades Age of Discovery
Modern era	Protestant Reformation Catholic Reformation Thirty Years’ War Enlightenment French Revolution Persecution: Communism Islam

Denominations(List)

Western	Adventist Anabaptist Anglican Baptist Calvinist Catholic Charismatic Evangelical Holiness Lutheran Methodist Pentecostal Protestant Quakers
Eastern	Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) Church of the East (Nestorian) Eastern Catholic
Nontrinitarian	Jehovah’s Witnesses Latter Day Saint movement Unitarianism

Theology

God
- Trinity
- Father
- Son
- Holy Spirit
Christology
Nicene Creed
Tradition
Original sin
Salvation
Born again
Worship
Mariology
- Theotokos
Saints
Ecclesiology
- Four marks
- Body of Christ
- One true church
- People of God
- Canon law
Sacraments
- Baptism
- Lord’s Supper
- Marriage
- Confirmation
- Penance
- Anointing of the Sick
- Holy orders
Mission

Philosophy

Natural law
Ethics
Science
- Evolution
Politics

OtherFeatures

Culture	Art Jesus Marian Literature Music Church buildings Cathedrals Role in civilization See also: Other religions Criticism Persecution
Movements	Asceticism Charismatic Christian democracy Environmentalism Existentialism Fundamentalism Liberation Left/Right Pacifism Prosperity
Cooperation	Christendom Ecumenism Charta Oecumenica World Council of Churches World Evangelical Alliance Nondenominationalism

Christianity portal
Book
Category

Religion

Major religious groups and denominations1

Abrahamic

Judaism	Orthodox Haredi Hasidic Modern Conservative Reform Karaite Samaritanism Haymanot Reconstructionist Renewal Humanistic
Christianity	Catholicism Latin Eastern Eastern Orthodoxy Oriental Orthodoxy Nestorianism Assyrian Ancient Proto-Protestantism Waldensians Czech Brethren/Moravians Protestantism Lutheranism Calvinism Reformed Presbyterianism Congregationalism Anabaptism Amish Brethren Hutterites Mennonites Schwenkfelders Anglicanism Methodism Holiness Baptists Quakerism Plymouth Brethren Restorationism Irvingism Adventism Pentecostalism/Charismatic Evangelicalism Nondenominational Independent Catholicism Nontrinitarianism Unitarianism Swedenborgianism Mormonism Christadelphians Bible Students/Jehovah’s Witnesses Anglo-Israelism Oneness Pentecostalism Spiritual Tolstoyan Judaizers Esoteric
Islam	Sunni Ashʿari Maturidi Traditionalist theology Salafism Wahhabism Modernist Salafism Shia Twelver Zaidiyyah Isma’ilism Alawis Sufism Khawarij Ibadism Alevism Ahmadi Mahdavia Quranism Non-denominational
Others	Bábism Azali Bahá’í Druze Ali-Illahism Mandaeism Rastafarianism

Dharmic

Hinduism	Vaishnavism Sri Vaishnavism Brahma Sampradaya Nimbarka Sampradaya Pushtimarg Mahanubhava Ramanandi Varkari Shaivism Siddhantism Kashmir Kapalika Kaumaram Lingayatism Nath Balinese Shaktism Smartism Śrauta Sant Mat Neo-Hinduism
Buddhism	Theravada Mahayana Chan/Zen Amidism Nichiren Vajrayana Tibetan Neo-Buddhism
Others	Ayyavazhi Jainism Digambara Śvētāmbara Ravidassia Sikhism Khalsa Sects

Mazdans

Zoroastrianism
Yazidism
Yarsanism

Indo-European

Armenian
Baltic
Celtic
- Druidry
Germanic
Hellenism
Italo-Roman
Romanian
Slavic
Ossetian
Kalash

Uralic

Estonian
Finnish
Hungarian
Mari
Mordvin
Sámi
Udmurt

Altaic

Turko-Mongolic
- Tengrism
- Burkhanism
- Vattisen Yaly
Tungusic
- Manchu
- Evenki

Chinese

Confucianism
Taoism
- Folk Taoism
- Yao Taoism
Nuo
Salvationist
- Xiantiandao
- Yiguandao
Luoism

Tibeto-Burmese

Bon
Burmese
Benzhuism
Bimoism
Bathouism
Bongthingism
Donyi-Polo
Heraka
Kiratism
Qiang
Sanamahism

Korean

Sindoism
Cheondoism
Jeungsanism

Japanese

Shinto
Tenrikyo
Ryukyuan

Tai and Miao

Ahom
Hmongism
Mo
Satsana Phi

Austroasiatic

Vietnamese
- Caodaism
- Đạo Mẫu
- Hoahaoism
Sarnaism

Austronesian

Batak Parmalim
Dayak
- Kaharingan
- Momolianism
Javanese Kejawèn
Karo Pemena
Malaysian
Philippine Dayawism
- Tagalog
Polynesian
- Hawaiian
- Māori
Sumbese Marapu
Sundanese Wiwitan

African

Traditional	Akan Akamba Baluba Bantu Kongo Zulu Berber Guanche church Bushongo Dinka Dogon Efik Fon and Ewe Igbo Ik Lotuko Lozi Lugbara Maasai Mbuti San Serer Tumbuka Urhobo Waaq Yoruba Ifá
Diasporic	Candomblé Bantu Jejé Ketu Comfa Convince Espiritismo Kumina Obeah Palo Quimbanda Santería Tambor de Mina Trinidad Orisha Umbanda Vodou Voodoo Winti

NativeAmerican

Abenaki
Anishinaabe
Blackfoot
Californian
- Miwok
- Ohlone
- Pomo
Cherokee
Chilote
Choctaw
Creek
Guarani
Haida
Ho-Chunk
Hopi
Iroquois
- Seneca
- Wyandot
- Longhouse Religion
Jivaroan
Kwakwakaʼwakw
Lakota
Lenape
Mapuche
Mesoamerican
- Aztec
- Maya
- Purépecha
Midewiwin
Muisca
Native American Church
Navajo
Nuu-chah-nulth
Pawnee
Tsimshian
Ute
Zuni

Other ethnic

Aboriginal Australian
Caucasian
- Abkhaz
- Circassian
Inuit
Papuan
Siberian

Recent

Adi Dharm/Brahmoism
Anthroposophy
Discordianism
Eckankar
Falun Gong
Fourth Way
Goddess
Japanese
Jediism
Modekngei
Neopaganism
- Reconstructionism
- Wicca
Neoshamanism
New Acropolis
New Age
New Thought
Rajneesh
Satanism
Spiritualism
Subud
Tensegrity
Thelema
Theosophy
- Neo-Theosophy
- Agni Yoga
Transcendental Meditation
UFO religion
- Raëlism
- Scientology
Unitarian Universalism
White Brotherhood

Note: 1 The main source: Eliade, Mircea, ed. (1987). The Encyclopedia of Religion. 1–16. New York: MacMillan.

Historical religions

Prehistoric
- Paleolithic
Harappan
Dravidian
Egyptian
- Atenism
Mesopotamian
- Sumerian
- Babylonian
Semitic
- Canaanite
- Yahwism
Arabian
Somali
Hurrian
Urartu
Etruscan
Basque
Georgian
Vainakh
Proto-Indo-European
Proto-Indo-Iranian
Vedic
Mazdaism
Hittite
Armenian
Paleo-Balkan
- Albanian
- Illyrian
- Thracian
- Dacian
Greek
- Mysteries
- Orphism
- Gnosticism
- Hermeticism
- Greco-Buddhism
Roman
- Imperial cult
- Gallo-Roman
- Mithraism
Manichaeism
- Mazdakism
Scythian
Germanic
- Anglo-Saxon
- Continental
- Frankish
- Norse
Celtic
Baltic
Slavic
Finnish
Hungarian
Ainu
Melanesian
Micronesian
- Nauruan
Cook Islands
Rapa Nui
Tongan
Inca
Olmec
Zapotec
Fuegian
- Selk’nam
Guanche
Jamaican Maroon

Topics

Aspects	Apostasy / Disaffiliation Behaviour Beliefs Clergy Conversion Deities Entheogens Ethnic religion Denomination Faith Fire Folk religion God Meditation Monasticism monk nun Mysticism Mythology Nature Ordination Orthodoxy Orthopraxy Prayer Prophecy Religious experience Ritual liturgy sacrifice Spirituality Supernatural Symbols Truth Water Worship
Theism	Animism Deism Dualism Henotheism Monotheism Nontheism Panentheism Pantheism Polytheism Transtheism
Religiousstudies	Anthropology Cognitive science Comparative Development Evolutionary origin Evolutionary psychology History Philosophy Neurotheology Psychology Sociology Theology Theories Women
Religion andsociety	Agriculture Business Clergy monasticism ordination Conversion evangelism missionary proselytism Disability Education Fanaticism Freedom pluralism syncretism toleration universalism Fundamentalism Growth Happiness Homosexuality Minorities National church National religiosity levels Religiocentrism Populations Schism Science State Theocracy Vegetarianism Video games Violence persecution terrorism war Wealth
Secularism andirreligion	Antireligion Deism Agnosticism Atheism Criticism LaVeyan Satanism Deconstruction Humanistic Judaism Irreligion by country Objectivism Secular humanism Secular theology Secularization Separation of church and state Unaffiliated
Overviewsand lists	Index Outline Timeline Abrahamic prophets Deification Deities Founders Mass gatherings New religious movements Organizations Religions and spiritual traditions Scholars

Category
Portal

v t e Western world and culture
Aspects	Canon Law Literature Media Music Painting Modern/Contemporary Painting Philosophy Religion Thought
History	Classical antiquity Late Antiquity Early Middle Ages Middle Ages Late Middle Ages Renaissance Reformation Age of Enlightenment Early modern period Great Divergence Modernism World Wars

Western world and culture

Aspects

Canon
Law
Literature
Media
Music
Painting
Modern/Contemporary Painting
Philosophy
Religion
Thought

History

Classical antiquity
Late Antiquity
Early Middle Ages
Middle Ages
Late Middle Ages
Renaissance
Reformation
Age of Enlightenment
Early modern period
Great Divergence
Modernism
World Wars

Authority control	GND: 4010074-1 HDS: 042730 LCCN: sh85025219 NARA: 10644483 NDL: 00565950 NKC: ph115073 NLI: 000661509 TDVİA: hiristiyanlik

Marcus Garvey

bear — Sat, 13 Jun 2020 09:26:25 +0000

Marcus Garvey
Garvey photographed in 1924
Born	(1887-08-17)17 August 1887Saint Ann’s Bay, Jamaica
Died	10 June 1940(1940-06-10) (aged 52)West Kensington, London, England, United Kingdom
Alma mater	Birkbeck, University of London
Occupation	Publisher, journalist
Known for	Activism, black nationalism, Pan-Africanism
Spouse(s)	Amy Ashwood(m. 1919; div. 1922) Amy Jacques (m. 1922)
Children	2
Parent(s)	Marcus Mosiah Garvey Sr.Sarah Anne Richards

H.E. The Right Honourable Marcus Mosiah Garvey Jr. ONH (17 August 1887 – 10 June 1940) was a Jamaican political activist, publisher, journalist, entrepreneur, and orator. He was the founder and first President-General of the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League (UNIA-ACL, commonly known as UNIA), through which he declared himself Provisional President of Africa. Ideologically a black nationalist and Pan-Africanist, his ideas came to be known as Garveyism.

Garvey was born to a moderately prosperous Afro-Jamaican family in Saint Ann’s Bay, Colony of Jamaica and apprenticed into the print trade as a teenager. Working in Kingston, he became involved in trade unionism before living briefly in Costa Rica, Panama, and England. Returning to Jamaica, he founded UNIA in 1914. In 1916, he moved to the United States and established a UNIA branch in New York City’s Harlem district. Emphasising unity between Africans and the African diaspora, he campaigned for an end to European colonial rule across Africa and the political unification of the continent. He envisioned a unified Africa as a one-party state, governed by himself, that would enact laws to ensure black racial purity. Although he never visited the continent, he was committed to the Back-to-Africa movement, arguing that many African-Americans should migrate there. Garveyist ideas became increasingly popular and UNIA grew in membership. However, his black separatist views—and his collaboration with white racists such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) to advance their shared interest in racial separatism—divided Garvey from other prominent African-American civil rights activists such as W. E. B. Du Bois who promoted racial integration.

Committed to the belief that African-Americans needed to secure financial independence from white-dominant society, Garvey launched various businesses in the U.S., including the Negro Factories Corporation and Negro World newspaper. In 1919, he became President of the Black Star Line shipping and passenger company, designed to forge a link between North America and Africa and facilitate African-American migration to Liberia. In 1923 Garvey was convicted of mail fraud for selling the company’s stock and imprisoned in the United States Penitentiary Atlanta for nearly two years. Many commentators have argued that the trial was politically motivated; Garvey blamed Jewish people, claiming that they were prejudiced against him because of his links to the KKK. Deported to Jamaica in 1927, where he settled in Kingston with his wife Amy Jacques, Garvey continued his activism and established the People’s Political Party in 1929, briefly serving as a city councillor. With UNIA in increasing financial difficulty, in 1935 he relocated to London, where his anti-socialist stance distanced him from many of the city’s black activists. He died there in 1940, although in 1964 his body was returned to Jamaica for reburial in Kingston’s National Heroes Park.

Garvey was a controversial figure. Some in the African diasporic community regarded him as a pretentious demagogue and were highly critical of his collaboration with white supremacists, his violent rhetoric, and his prejudice against mixed-race people and Jews. He nevertheless received praise for encouraging a sense of pride and self-worth among Africans and the African diaspora amid widespread poverty, discrimination, and colonialism. He is seen as a national hero in Jamaica, and his ideas exerted a considerable influence on such movements as Rastafari, the Nation of Islam, and the Black Power Movement.

1 Early life
- 1.1 Childhood: 1887–1904
- 1.2 Early career in Kingston: 1905–1909
- 1.3 Travels abroad: 1910–1914
2 Organization of UNIA
- 2.1 Forming UNIA: 1914–1916
- 2.2 To the United States: 1916–1918
- 2.3 The growth of UNIA: 1918–1921
  - 2.3.1 Success and obstacles
  - 2.3.2 Assassination attempts, marriage, and divorce
  - 2.3.3 The Black Star Line
- 2.4 Criminal charges: 1922–1923
- 2.5 Trial: 1923
  - 2.5.1 Out on bail: 1923–1925
- 2.6 Imprisonment: 1925–1927
3 Later years
- 3.1 Back to Jamaica: 1927–1935
- 3.2 Life in London: 1935–1940
- 3.3 Death and burial: 1940
4 Ideology
- 4.1 Racial separatism
- 4.2 Pan-Africanism
- 4.3 Economic views
- 4.4 Black Christianity
5 Personality and personal life
6 Reception and legacy
- 6.1 Influence on political movements
- 6.2 Influence on religious movements
- 6.3 Memorials
7 See also
8 References
- 8.1 Footnotes
- 8.2 Sources
9 Further reading
- 9.1 Works by Garvey
- 9.2 Books
10 External links

Early life

Childhood: 1887–1904

A statue of Garvey now stands in Saint Ann’s Bay, the town where he was born

Marcus Mosiah Garvey was born on 17 August 1887 in Saint Ann’s Bay, a town in the Colony of Jamaica.[1] In the context of colonial Jamaican society, which had a colourist social hierarchy, Garvey was considered at the lowest end, being a black child who believed he was of full African ancestry;[2] later genetic research nevertheless revealed that he had some Iberian ancestors.[3] Garvey’s paternal great-grandfather had been born into slavery prior to its abolition in the British Empire.[4] His surname, which was of Irish origin, had been inherited from his family’s former owners.[4]

His father, Malchus Garvey, was a stonemason;[5] his mother, Sarah Richards, was a domestic servant and the daughter of peasant farmers.[6] Malchus had had two previous partners before Sarah, siring six children between them.[7] Sarah bore him four additional children, of whom Marcus was the youngest, although two died in infancy.[7] Because of his profession, Malchus’ family were wealthier than many of their peasant neighbours;[8] they were petty bourgeoise.[9] Malchus was however reckless with his money and over the course of his life lost most of the land he owned to meet payments.[10] Malchus had a book collection and was self-educated;[11] he also served as an occasional layman at a local Wesleyan church.[12] Malchus was an intolerant and punitive father and husband;[13] he never had a close relationship with his son.[14]

Up to the age of 14, Garvey attended a local church school; further education was unaffordable for the family.[15] When not in school, Garvey worked on his maternal uncle’s tenant farm.[16] He had friends, with whom he once broke the windows of a church, resulting in his arrest.[17] Some of his friends were white, although he found that as they grew older they distanced themselves from him;[18] he later recalled that a close childhood friend was a white girl: “We were two innocent fools who never dreamed of a race feeling and problem.”[9] In 1901, Marcus was apprenticed to his godfather, a local printer.[19] In 1904, the printer opened another branch at Port Maria, where Garvey began to work, traveling from Saint Ann’s Bay each morning.[20]

Early career in Kingston: 1905–1909

In 1905 he moved to Kingston, where he boarded in Smith Village, a working-class neighbourhood.[20] In the city, he secured work with the printing division of the P.A. Benjamin Manufacturing Company. He rose quickly through the company ranks, becoming their first Afro-Jamaican foreman.[21] His sister and mother, by this point estranged from his father, moved to join him in the city.[22] In January 1907, Kingston was hit by an earthquake that reduced much of the city to rubble.[23] He, his mother, and his sister were left to sleep in the open for several months.[24] In March 1908, his mother died.[22] While in Kingston, Garvey converted to Roman Catholicism.[25]

Garvey became a trade unionist and took a leading role in the November 1908 print workers’ strike. The strike was broken several weeks later and Garvey was sacked.[26] Henceforth branded a troublemaker, Garvey was unable to find work in the private sector.[27] He then found temporary employment with a government printer.[28] As a result of these experiences, Garvey became increasingly angry at the inequalities present in Jamaican society.[29]

Garvey involved himself with the National Club, Jamaica’s first nationalist organization, becoming its first assistant secretary in April 1910.[30] The group campaigned to remove the British Governor of Jamaica, Sydney Olivier, from office, and to end the migration of Indian “coolies”, or indentured workers, to Jamaica, as they were seen as a source of economic competition by the established population.[31] With fellow Club member Wilfred Domingo he published a pamphlet expressing the group’s ideas, The Struggling Mass.[31] In early 1910, Garvey began publishing a magazine, Garvey’s Watchman—its name a reference to George William Gordon’s The Watchman—although it only lasted three issues.[32] He claimed it had a circulation of 3000, although this was likely an exaggeration.[33] Garvey also enrolled in elocution lessons with the radical journalist Robert J. Love, whom Garvey came to regard as a mentor.[34] With his enhanced skill at speaking in a Standard English manner, he entered several public speaking competitions.[35]

Travels abroad: 1910–1914

Economic hardship in Jamaica led to growing emigration from the island.[36] In mid-1910, Garvey travelled to Costa Rica, where an uncle had secured him employment as a timekeeper on a large banana plantation in the Limón Province owned by the United Fruit Company (UFC).[37] Shortly after his arrival, the area experienced strikes and unrest in opposition to the UFC’s attempts to cut its workers’ wages.[38] Although as a timekeeper he was responsible for overseeing the manual workers, he became increasingly angered at how they were treated.[39] In the spring of 1911 be launched a bilingual newspaper, Nation/La Nación, which criticised the actions of the UFC and upset many of the dominant strata of Costa Rican society in Limón.[40] His coverage of a local fire, in which he questioned the motives of the fire brigade, resulted in him being brought in for police questioning.[41] After his printing press broke, he was unable to replace the faulty part and terminated the newspaper.[42]

In London, Garvey spent time in the Reading Room of the British Museum

Garvey then travelled through Central America, undertaking casual work as he made his way through Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela.[43] While in the port of Colón in Panama, he set up a new newspaper, La Prensa (“The Press”).[44] In 1911, he became seriously ill with a bacterial infection and decided to return to Kingston.[45] He then decided to travel to London, the administrative centre of the British Empire, in the hope of advancing his informal education. In the spring of 1912 he sailed to England.[46] Renting a room along Borough High Street in South London,[47] he visited the House of Commons, where he was impressed by the politician David Lloyd George.[47] He also visited Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park and began speaking there.[48] There were only a few thousand black people in London at the time, and they were often viewed as exotic; most worked as labourers.[49] Garvey initially gained piecemeal work labouring in the city’s docks.[50] In August 1912, his sister Indiana joined him in London, where she worked as a domestic servant.[51]

In early 1913 he was employed as a messenger and handyman for the African Times and Orient Review, a magazine based in Fleet Street that was edited by Dusé Mohamed Ali.[52] The magazine advocated Ethiopianism and home rule for British-occupied Egypt.[53] In 1914, Mohamed Ali began employing Garvey’s services as a writer for the magazine.[54] He also took several evening classes in law at Birkbeck College in Bloomsbury.[55] Garvey planned a tour of Europe, spending time in Glasgow, Paris, Monte Carlo, Boulogne, and Madrid.[56] During the trip, he was briefly engaged to a Spanish-Irish heiress.[57] Back in London, he wrote an article on Jamaica for the Tourist magazine,[58] and spent time reading in the library of the British Museum. There he discovered Up from Slavery, a book by the African-American entrepreneur and activist Booker T. Washington.[59] Washington’s book heavily influenced him.[60] Now almost financially destitute and deciding to return to Jamaica, he unsuccessfully asked both the Colonial Office and the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines’ Protection Society to pay for his journey.[61] After managing to save the funds for a fare, he boarded the SS Trent in June 1914 for a three-week journey across the Atlantic.[62] En route home, Garvey talked with an Afro-Caribbean missionary who had spent time in Basutoland and taken a Basuto wife. Discovering more about colonial Africa from this man, Garvey began to envision a movement that would politically unify black people of African descent across the world.[63]

Organization of UNIA

Forming UNIA: 1914–1916

To the cultured mind the bulk of our [i.e. black] people are contemptible[…] Go into the country parts of Jamaica and you will see there villainy and vice of the worst kind, immorality, obeah and all kinds of dirty things[…] Kingston and its environs are so infested with the uncouth and vulgar of our people that we of the cultured class feel positively ashamed to move about. Well, this society [UNIA] has set itself the task to go among the people[…] and raise them to the standard of civilised approval.

— Garvey, from a 1915 Collegiate Hall speech published in the Daily Chronicle[64]

Garvey arrived back in Jamaica in July 1914.[65] There, he saw his article for Tourist republished in The Gleaner.[66] He began earning money selling greeting and condolence cards which he had imported from Britain, before later switching to selling tombstones.[67]

Also in July 1914, Garvey launched the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League, commonly abbreviated as UNIA.[68] Adopting the motto of “One Aim. One God. One Destiny”,[69] it declared its commitment to “establish a brotherhood among the black race, to promote a spirit of race pride, to reclaim the fallen and to assist in civilising the backward tribes of Africa.”[70] Initially, it had only few members.[71] Many Jamaicans were critical of the group’s prominent use of the term “Negro”, a term which was often employed as an insult:[70] Garvey, however, embraced the term in reference to black people of African descent.[72]

Garvey became UNIA’s president and travelling commissioner;[73] it was initially based out of his hotel room in Orange Street, Kingston.[66] It portrayed itself not as a political organization but as a charitable club,[74] focused on work to help the poor and to ultimately establish a vocational training college modelled on Washington’s Tuskegee Institute in Alabama.[75] Garvey wrote to Washington and received a brief, if encouraging reply; Washington died shortly after.[76] UNIA officially expressed its loyalty to the British Empire, King George V, and the British effort in the ongoing First World War.[77] In April 1915 Brigadier General L. S. Blackden lectured to the group on the war effort;[78] Garvey endorsed Blackden’s calls for more Jamaicans to sign up to fight for the Empire on the Western Front.[78] The group also sponsored musical and literary evenings as well as a February 1915 elocution contest, at which Garvey took first prize.[79]

In August 1914, Garvey attended a meeting of the Queen Street Baptist Literary and Debating Society, where he met Amy Ashwood, recently graduated from the Westwood Training College for Women.[80] She joined UNIA and rented a better premises for them to use as their headquarters, secured using her father’s credit.[81] She and Garvey embarked on a relationship, which was opposed by her parents. In 1915 they secretly became engaged.[67] When she suspended the engagement, he threatened to commit suicide, at which she resumed it.[82]

I was openly hated and persecuted by some of these colored men of the island who did not want to be classified as Negroes but as white.

— Garvey, on how he was received in Jamaica[83]

Garvey attracted financial contributions from many prominent patrons, including the Mayor of Kingston and the Governor of Jamaica, William Manning.[84] By appealing directly to Jamaica’s white elite, Garvey had skipped the brown middle-classes, comprising those who were classified as mulattos, quadroons, and octoroons. They were generally hostile to Garvey, regarding him as a pretentious social climber and being annoyed at his claim to be part of the “cultured class” of Jamaican society.[85] Many also felt that he was unnecessarily derogatory when describing black Jamaicans, with letters of complaint being sent into the Daily Chronicle after it published one of Garvey’s speeches in which he referred to many of his people as “uncouth and vulgar”.[86] One complainant, a Dr Leo Pink, related that “the Jamaican Negro can not be reformed by abuse”.[64] After unsubstantiated allegations began circling that Garvey was diverting UNIA funds to pay for his own personal expenses, the group’s support began to decline.[87] He became increasingly aware of how UNIA had failed to thrive in Jamaica and decided to migrate to the United States, sailing there aboard the SS Tallac in March 1916.[88]

To the United States: 1916–1918

The UNIA flag, a tricolour of red, black, and green. According to Garvey, the red symbolises the blood of martyrs, the black symbolises the skin of Africans, and the green represents the vegetation of the African land.[89]

Arriving in the United States, Garvey initially lodged with a Jamaican expatriate family living in Harlem, a largely black area of New York City.[90] He began lecturing in the city, hoping to make a career as a public speaker, although at his first public speech was heckled and fell off the stage.[91] From New York City, he embarked on a U.S. speaking tour, crossing 38 states.[92] At stopovers on his journey he listened to preachers from the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Black Baptist churches.[93] While in Alabama, he visited the Tuskegee Institute and met with its new leader, Robert Russa Moton.[94] After six months traveling across the U.S. lecturing, he returned to New York City.[95]

In May 1917, Garvey launched a New York branch of UNIA.[96] He declared membership open to anyone “of Negro blood and African ancestry” who could pay the 25 cents a month membership fee.[97] He joined many other speakers who spoke on the street, standing on step-ladders;[98] he often did so at Speakers’ Corner on 135th Street.[99] In his speeches, he sought to reach across to both Afro-Caribbean migrants like himself and native African-Americans.[100] Through this, he began to associate with Hubert Harrison, who was promoting ideas of black self-reliance and racial separatism.[101] In June, Garvey shared a stage with Harrison at the inaugural meeting of the latter’s Liberty League of Negro-Americans.[102] Through his appearance here and at other events organised by Harrison, Garvey attracted growing public attention.[103]

After the U.S. entered the First World War in April 1917, Garvey initially signed up to fight but was ruled physically unfit to do so.[104] He later became an opponent of African-American involvement in the conflict, following Harrison in accusing it of being a “white man’s war”.[105] In the wake of the East St. Louis Race Riots in May to July 1917, in which white mobs targeted black people, Garvey began calling for armed self-defense.[106] He produced a pamphlet, “The Conspiracy of the East St Louis Riots”, which was widely distributed; proceeds from its sale went to victims of the riots.[107] The Bureau of Investigation began monitoring him, noting that in speeches he employed more militant language than that used in print; it for instance reported him expressing the view that “for every Negro lynched by whites in the South, Negroes should lynch a white in the North.”[108]

By the end of 1917, Garvey had attracted many of Harrison’s key associates in his Liberty League to join UNIA.[109] Garvey also secured the support of the journalist John Edward Bruce, agreeing to step down from the group’s presidency in favor of Bruce.[110] Bruce then wrote to Dusé Mohamed Ali to learn more about Garvey’s past. Mohamed Ali responded with a negative assessment of Garvey, suggesting that he simply used UNIA as a money-making scheme. Bruce read this letter to a UNIA meeting and put pressure on Garvey’s position.[111] Garvey then resigned from UNIA, establishing a rival group that met at Old Fellows Temple.[112] He also launched legal proceedings against Bruce and other senior UNIA members, with the court ruling that UNIA’s name and membership—now estimated at around 600—belonged to Garvey, who resumed control over the organization.[113]

The growth of UNIA: 1918–1921

UNIA membership grew rapidly in 1918.[97] In June that year it was incorporated,[114] and in July a commercial arm, the African Communities’ League, filed for incorporation.[97] Garvey envisioned UNIA establishing an import-and-export business, a restaurant, and a launderette.[97] He also proposed raising the funds to secure a permanent building as a base for the group.[97] In April, Garvey launched a weekly newspaper, the Negro World,[115] which Cronon later noted remained “the personal propaganda organ of its founder”.[116] Financially, the Negro World was backed by philanthropists like Madam C. J. Walker,[117] but six months after its launch was pursuing a special appeal for donations to keep it afloat.[118] Various journalists took Garvey to court for his failure to pay them for their contributions, a fact much publicised by rival publications;[117] at the time, there were over 400 black-run newspapers and magazines in the U.S.[119] Unlike many of these, Garvey refused to feature adverts for skin-lightening and hair-straightening products,[120] urging black people to “take the kinks out of your mind, instead of out of your hair”.[121] By the end of its first year, the circulation of Negro World was nearing 10,000;[117] copies circulated not only in the U.S., but also in the Caribbean, Central, and South America.[122] Several British colonies in the Caribbean banned the publication.[123]

In April 1918, Garvey’s UNIA began publishing the Negro World newspaper

Garvey appointed his old friend Domingo, who had also arrived in New York City, as the newspaper’s editor.[124] However, Domingo’s socialist views alarmed Garvey, who feared that they would imperil UNIA.[125] Garvey had Domingo brought before UNIA’s nine-person executive committee, where the latter was accused of writing editorials professing ideas at odds with UNIA’s message. Domingo resigned several months later; he and Garvey henceforth became enemies.[126] In September 1918, Amy Ashwood sailed from Panama to be with Garvey, arriving in New York City in October.[127] In November, she became General Secretary of UNIA.[128] At UNIA gatherings, she was responsible for reciting black-authored poetry, as was the actor Henrietta Vinton Davis, who had also joined the movement.[129]

After the First World War ended, President Woodrow Wilson declared his intention to present a 14-point plan for world peace at the forthcoming Paris Peace Conference. Garvey joined various African-Americans in forming the International League for Darker People, a group which sought to lobby Wilson and the conference to give greater respect to the wishes of people of colour; their delegates nevertheless were unable to secure the travel documentation.[130] At Garvey’s prompting, UNIA sent a young Haitian, Eliezer Cadet, as its delegate to the conference.[131] Despite these efforts, the political leaders who met in Paris largely ignored the perspectives of non-European peoples, instead reaffirming their support for European colonialism.[132]

In the U.S., many African-Americans who had served in the military refused to return to their more subservient role in society and throughout 1919 there were various racial clashes throughout the country.[133] The government feared that African-Americans would be encouraged toward revolutionary behavior following the October Revolution in Russia,[134] and in this context, military intelligence ordered Major Walter Loving to investigate Garvey.[135] Loving’s report concluded that Garvey was a “very able young man” who was disseminating “clever propaganda”.[136] The BOI’s J. Edgar Hoover decided that Garvey was politically subversive and should be deported from the U.S., adding his name to the list of those to be targeted in the forthcoming Palmer Raids. To ratify the deportation, the BOI presented Garvey’s name to the Labor Department under Louis F. Post, however Post’s department refused to do so, stating that the case against Garvey was not proven.[137]

Success and obstacles

Garvey speaking at Liberty Hall in 1920

UNIA grew rapidly and in just over 18 months it had branches in 25 U.S. states, as well as divisions in the West Indies, Central America, and West Africa.[138] The exact membership is not known, although Garvey—who often exaggerated numbers—claimed that by June 1919 it had two million members.[138] It remained smaller than the better established National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),[138] although there was some crossover in membership of the two groups.[139] The NAACP and UNIA differed in their approach; while the NAACP was a multi-racial organization which promoted racial integration, UNIA had a black-only membership policy. The NAACP focused its attention on what it termed the “talented tenth” of the African-American population, such as doctors, lawyers, and teachers, whereas UNIA included many poorer people and Afro-Caribbean migrants in its ranks, seeking to project an image of itself as a mass organization.[140] To promote his views to a wide audience, Garvey took to shouting slogans from a megaphone as he was driven through Harlem in a Cadillac.[141]

There were tensions between UNIA and the NAACP and the latter’s supporters accused Garvey of stymieing their efforts at bringing about racial integration in the U.S.[142] Garvey was dismissive of the NAACP leader W. E. B. Du Bois, and in one issue of the Negro World called him a “reactionary under [the] pay of white men”.[143] Du Bois generally tried to ignore Garvey,[144] regarding him as a demagogue,[145] but at the same time wanted to learn all he could about Garvey’s movement.[146] In 1921, Garvey twice reached out to DuBois, asking him to contribute to UNIA publications, but the offer was rebuffed.[147] Their relationship became acrimonious; in 1923, DuBois described Garvey as “a little fat black man, ugly but with intelligent eyes and big head”.[148] By 1924, Grant suggested, the two hated each other.[148]

UNIA established a restaurant and ice cream parlour at 56 West 135th Street,[149] and also launched a millinery store selling hats.[150] With an increased income coming in through UNIA, Garvey moved to a new residence at 238 West 131st Street;[140] in 1919, a young middle-class Jamaican migrant, Amy Jacques, became his personal secretary.[151] UNIA also obtained a partially-constructed church building at 114 West 138 Street in Harlem, which Garvey named “Liberty Hall” after its namesake in Dublin, Ireland, which had been established during the Easter Rising of 1916.[152] The adoption of this name reflected Garvey’s fascination for the Irish independence movement.[153] Liberty Hall’s dedication ceremony was held in July 1919.[154] Garvey also organised the African Legion, a group of uniformed men who would attend UNIA parades;[155] a secret service was formed from Legion members, providing Garvey with intelligence about group members.[156] The formation of the Legion further concerned the BOI, who sent their first full-time black agent, James Wormley Jones, to infiltrate UNIA.[157] In January 1920, Garvey incorporated the Negro Factories League,[158] through which he opened a string of grocery stores, a restaurant, a steam laundry, and publishing house.[159] According to Grant, a personality cult had grown up around Garvey within the UNIA movement;[160] life-size portraits of him hung in the UNIA headquarters and phonographs of his speeches were sold to the membership.[161]

A UNIA parade through Harlem in 1920

In August 1920, UNIA organized the First International Conference of the Negro Peoples in Harlem.[162] This parade was attended by Gabriel Johnson, the Mayor of Monrovia in Liberia.[163] As part of it, an estimated 25,000 people assembled in Madison Square Gardens.[164] At the conference, UNIA delegates declared Garvey to be the Provisional President of Africa, charged with heading a government-in-exile that could take power in the continent when European colonial occupation ended.[165] Some of the West Africans attending the event were angered by this, believing it wrong that an Afro-Jamaican, rather than a native African, was taking this role.[166] Many outside the movement ridiculed Garvey for giving himself this title.[167] The conference then elected other members of the African government-in-exile,[168] resulting in the production of a “Declaration of the Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World” which condemned colonial rule across Africa.[169] In August 1921, UNIA held a banquet in Liberty Hall, at which Garvey gave out honors to various supporters, including such titles as the Order of the Nile and the Order of Ethiopia.[170]

UNIA established growing links with the Liberian government, hoping to secure land in the West African nation onto which it could settle African-American migrants.[171] Liberia was in heavy debt, with UNIA launching a fundraising campaign to raise $2 million towards a Liberian Construction Loan.[171] In 1921, Garvey sent a UNIA team to assess the prospects of mass African-American settlement in Liberia.[172] Internally, UNIA experienced various feuds. Garvey pushed out Cyril Briggs and other members of the African Blood Brotherhood from UNIA, wanting to place growing distance between himself and black socialist groups.[173] In the Negro World, Garvey then accused Briggs—who was of mixed heritage—of being a white man posing as a black man. Briggs successfully sued Garvey for criminal libel.[174] This was not the only time he faced this charge; in July 1919 Garvey had been arrested for comments made about Edwin Kilroe in the Negro World.[175] When this case eventually came to court, the court ordered Garvey to provide a printed retraction.[176]

Assassination attempts, marriage, and divorce

In October 1919, George Tyler, a part-time vendor of the Negro World, entered the UNIA office and tried to assassinate Garvey. The latter received two bullets in his legs but survived. Tyler was soon apprehended but died in an escape attempt from jail; it was never revealed why he tried to kill Garvey.[177] Garvey soon recovered from his wounds; five days later he gave a public speech in Philadelphia.[178] After the assassination attempt, Garvey hired a bodyguard, Marcellus Strong.[179] Shortly after the incident, Garvey proposed marriage to Amy Ashwood and she accepted.[180] On Christmas Day, they had a private Roman Catholic church wedding, followed by a major ceremonial celebration in Liberty Hall, attended by 3000 UNIA members.[181] Jacques was Ashwood’s maid of honour.[180] After the wedding, Garvey moved into Ashwood’s apartment.[182]

“Explanation of the Objects of the Universal Negro Improvement Association”

Complete 1921 speech

Problems playing this file? See media help.

The newlyweds embarked on a two-week honeymoon in Canada, accompanied by a small UNIA retinue, including Jacques. There, Garvey spoke at two mass meetings in Montreal and three in Toronto.[183] Returning to Harlem, the couple’s marriage was soon strained. Ashwood complained of Garvey’s growing closeness with Jacques.[182] Garvey was upset by his inability to control his wife, particularly her drinking and her socialising with other men.[184] She was pregnant, although the child was possibly not his; she did not inform him of this, and the pregnancy ended in miscarriage.[185]

Three months into the marriage, Garvey sought an annulment, on the basis of Ashwood’s alleged adultery and the claim that she had used “fraud and concealment” to induce the marriage.[186] She launched a counter-claim for desertion, requesting $75 a week alimony. The court rejected this sum, instead ordering Garvey to pay her $12 a week. It refused to grant him the divorce.[187] The court proceedings continued for two years.[187] Now separated, Garvey moved into a 129th Street apartment with Jacques and Henrietta Vinton Davis, an arrangement that at the time could have caused some social controversy.[188] He was later joined there by his sister Indiana and her husband, Alfred Peart.[189] Ashwood, meanwhile, went on to become a lyricist and musical director for musicals amid the Harlem Renaissance.[190]

The Black Star Line

From 56 West 135th, UNIA also began selling shares for a new business, the Black Star Line.[149] The Black Star Line based its name on the White Star Line.[191] Garvey envisioned a shipping and passenger line travelling between Africa and the Americas, which would be black-owned, black-staffed, and utilised by black patrons.[192] He thought that the project could be launched by raising $2 million from African-American donors,[193] publicly declaring that any black person who did not buy stock in the company “will be worse than a traitor to the cause of struggling Ethiopia”.[194] He incorporated the company and then sought about trying to purchase a ship.[195] Many African-Americans took great pride in buying company stock, seeing it as an investment in their community’s future;[196] Garvey also promised that when the company began turning a profit they would receive significant financial returns on their investment.[197] To advertise this stock, he travelled to Virginia,[197] and then in September 1919 to Chicago, where he was accompanied by seven other UNIA members. In Chicago, he was arrested and fined for violating the Blue Sky Laws which banned the sale of stock in the city without a license.[198]

A certificate for stock of the Black Star Line

With growing quantities of money coming in, a three-man auditing committee was established, which found that UNIA’s funds were poorly recorded and that the company’s books were not balanced.[199] This was followed by a breakdown in trust between the directors of the Black Star Line, with Garvey discharging two of them, Richard E. Warner and Edgar M. Grey, and publicly humiliating them at the next UNIA meeting.[200] People continued buying stock regardless and by September 1919, the Black Star Line company had accumulated $50,000 by selling stock. It could thus afford a thirty-year old tramp ship, the SS Yarmouth.[201] The ship was formally launched in a ceremony on the Hudson River on 31 October.[202] The company had been unable to find enough trained black seamen to staff the ship, so its initial chief engineer and chief officer were white.[203]

The ship’s first assignment was to sail to Cuba and then to Jamaica, before returning to New York.[204] After that first voyage, the Yarmouth was found to contain many problems and the Black Star Line had to pay $11,000 for repairs.[205] On its second voyage, again to the Caribbean, it hit bad weather shortly after departure and had to be towed back to New York by the coastguard for further repairs.[206] Garvey planned to obtain and launch a second ship by February 1920,[144] with the Black Star Line putting down a $10,000 down payment on a paddle ship called the SS Shadyside.[207] In July 1920, Garvey sacked both the Black Star Line’s secretary, Edward D. Smith-Green, and its captain, Joshua Cockburn; the latter was accused of corruption.[208] In early 1922, the Yarmouth was sold for scrap metal.[209]

In 1921, Garvey travelled to the Caribbean aboard a new BSL ship, the Antonio Maceo, which they had renamed the Kanawha.[210] While in Jamaica, he criticised its inhabitants as being backward and claimed that “Negroes are the most lazy, the most careless and indifferent people in the world”.[211] His comments in Jamaica earned many enemies who criticised him on multiple fronts, including the fact he had left his destitute father to die in an almshouse.[212] Attacks back-and-forth between Garvey and his critics appeared in the letters published by The Gleaner.[213] From Jamaica, Garvey travelled to Costa Rica, where the United Fruit Company assisted his transportation around the country, hoping to gain his favour. There, he met with President Julio Acosta.[214] Arriving in Panama, at one of his first speeches, in Almirante, he was booed after doubling the advertised entry price; his response was to call the crowd “a bunch of ignorant and impertinent Negroes. No wonder you are where you are and for my part you can stay where you are.”[215] He received a far warmer reception at Panama City,[216] after which he sailed to Kingston. From there he sought a return to the U.S., but was repeatedly denied an entry visa. This was only granted after he wrote directly to the State Department.[217]

Criminal charges: 1922–1923

Garvey with his wife Amy Jacques in 1922

In January 1922, Garvey was arrested and charged with mail fraud for having advertised the sale of stocks in a ship, the Orion, which the Black Star Line did not yet own.[218] He was bailed for $2,500.[218] Hoover and the BOI were committed to securing a conviction;[219] they had also received complaints from a small number of the Black Star Line’s stock owners, who wanted them to pursue the matter further.[220] Garvey spoke out against the charges he faced, but focused on blaming not the state, but rival African-American groups, for them.[219] As well as accusing disgruntled former members of UNIA, in a Liberty Hall speech, he implied that the NAACP were behind the conspiracy to imprison him.[221] The mainstream press picked up on the charge, largely presenting Garvey as a con artist who had swindled African-American people.[222]

After his arrest, he made plans for a tour of the western and southern states.[223] This included a parade in Los Angeles, partly to woo back members of UNIA’s California branch, which had recently splintered off to become independent.[224] In June 1922, Garvey met with Edward Young Clarke, the Imperial Wizard pro tempore of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) at the Klan’s offices in Atlanta.[225] Garvey made a number of incendiary speeches in the months leading up to that meeting; in some, he thanked the whites for Jim Crow.[226] Garvey once stated:

I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play. You may call me a Klansman if you will, but, potentially, every white man is a Klansman as far as the Negro in competition with whites socially, economically and politically is concerned, and there is no use lying.[227]

News of Garvey’s meeting with the KKK soon spread and it was covered on the front page of many African-American newspapers, causing widespread upset.[228] When news of the meeting was revealed, it generated much surprise and anger among African-Americans; Grant noted that it marked “the most significant turning point in his popularity”.[229] Several prominent black Americans—Chandler Owen, A. Philip Randolph, William Pickens, and Robert Bagnall—launched the “Garvey Must Go” campaign in the wake of the revelation.[230] Many of these critics played to nativist ideas by emphasising Garvey’s Jamaican identity and sometimes calling for his deportation.[231] Pickens and several other of Garvey’s critics claimed to have been threatened, and sometimes physically attacked, by Garveyites.[232] Randolph reported receiving a severed hand in the post, accompanied by a letter from the KKK threatening him to stop criticising Garvey and to join UNIA.[233]

Have this day interviewed Edward Young Clarke, acting Imperial Wizard Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. In conference of two ours he outlined the aims and objects of the Klan. He denied any hostility towards the Negro Improvement Association. He believes America to be a white man’s country, and also states that the Negro should have a country of his own in Africa[…] He has been invited to speak at [UNIA’s] forthcoming convention to further assure the race of the stand of the Klan.

—Garvey’s telegram to UNIA HQ, June 1922.[234]

1922 also brought some successes for Garvey. He attracted the country’s first black pilot, Hubert Fauntleroy Julian, to join UNIA and to perform aerial stunts to raise its profile.[235] The group also launched its Booker T. Washington University from the UNIA-run Phyllis Wheatley Hotel on West 136th Street.[236] He also finally succeeded in securing a UNIA delegation to the League of Nations, sending five members to represent the group to Geneva.[237] Garvey also proposed marriage to his secretary, Jacques. She accepted, although later stated: “I did not marry for love. I did not love Garvey. I married him because I thought it was the right thing to do.”[238] They married in Baltimore in July 1922.[239] She proposed that a book of his speeches be published; it appeared as The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey, although the speeches were edited to remove more inflammatory material.[240] That year, UNIA also launched a new newspaper, the Daily Negro Times.[241]

At UNIA’s August 1922 convention, Garvey called for the impeachment of several senior UNIA figures, including Adrian Johnson and J. D. Gibson, and declared that the UNIA cabinet should not be elected by the organization’s members, but appointed directly by him.[242] When they refused to step down, he resigned both as head of UNIA and as Provisional President of Africa, probably in an act designed to compel their own resignations.[243] He then began openly criticising another senior member, Reverend James Eason, and succeeded in getting him expelled from UNIA.[244] With Eason gone, Garvey asked the rest of the cabinet to resign; they did so, at which he resumed his role as head of the organization.[245] In September, Eason launched a rival group to UNIA, the Universal Negro Alliance.[231] In January 1923, Eason was assassinated by Garveyites while in New Orleans.[246] Hoover suspected that the killing had been ordered by senior UNIA members, although Garvey publicly denied any involvement; he nevertheless launched a defense fund campaign for Eason’s killers.[247]

Following the murder, eight prominent African-Americans signed a public letter calling Garvey “an unscrupulous demagogue who has ceaselessly and assiduously sought to spread among Negroes distrust and hatred of all white people”. They urged the Attorney-General to bring forth the criminal case against Garvey and disband UNIA.[248] Garvey was furious, publicly accusing them of “the greatest bit of treachery and wickedness that any group of Negroes could be capable of.”[249] In a pamphlet attacking them he focused on their racial heritage, lambasting the eight for the reason that “nearly all [are] Octoroons and Quadroons”.[250] DuBois—who was not among the eight—then wrote an article critical of Garvey’s activities in the U.S.[251] Garvey responded by calling DuBois “a Hater of Dark People”, an “unfortunate mulatto who bewails every drop of Negro blood in his veins”.[252]

Trial: 1923

The Black Star Line brochure for the SS Phyllis Wheatley, central exhibit in the Mail Fraud case of 1921. The SS Phyllis Wheatley, did not exist, this is a doctored photograph of an ex-German ship the SS Orion put up for sale by the United States Shipping Board. The Black Star Line had proposed to buy her but the transaction was never completed.[253]

Having been postponed at least three times,[234] in May 1923, the trial finally came to court, with Garvey and three other defendants accused of mail fraud.[254] The judge overseeing the proceedings was Julian Mack, although Garvey disliked his selection on the grounds that he thought Mack an NAACP sympathiser.[254] At the start of the trial, Garvey’s attorney, Cornelius McDougald, urged him to plead guilty to secure a minimum sentence, but Garvey refused, dismissing McDougald and deciding to represent himself in court.[255] The trial proceeded for over a month.[256] Throughout, Garvey struggled due to his lack of legal training.[257] In his three-hour closing address he presented himself as a selfless leader who was beset by incompetent and thieving staff who caused all the problems for UNIA and the Black Star Line.[258] On 18 June, the jurors retired to deliberate on the verdict, returning after ten hours. They found Garvey himself guilty, but his three co-defendants not guilty.[259]

Garvey was furious with the verdict, shouting abuse in the courtroom and calling both the judge and district attorney “damned dirty Jews”.[260] Imprisoned in The Tombs jail while awaiting sentencing, he continued to blame a Jewish cabal for the verdict; in contrast, prior to this he had never expressed anti-semitic sentiment and was supportive of Zionism.[261] When it came to sentencing, Mack sentenced Garvey to five years’ imprisonment and a $1000 fine.[261] The severity of the sentence—which was harsher than those given to similar crimes at the time—may have been a response to Garvey’s anti-Semitic outburst.[261] He felt that they had been biased because of their political objections to his meeting with the acting imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan the year before.[262] In 1928, Garvey told a journalist: “When they wanted to get me they had a Jewish judge try me, and a Jewish prosecutor. I would have been freed but two Jews on the jury held out against me ten hours and succeeded in convicting me, whereupon the Jewish judge gave me the maximum penalty.”[262]

A week after the sentence, 2000 Garveyite protesters met at Liberty Hall to denounce Garvey’s conviction as a miscarriage of justice.[263] However, with Garvey imprisoned, UNIA’s membership began to decline,[264] and there was a growing schism between its Caribbean and African-American members.[263] From jail, Garvey continued to write letters and articles lashing out at those he blamed for the conviction, focusing much of his criticism on the NAACP.[265]

Out on bail: 1923–1925

In September, Judge Martin Manton awarded Garvey bail for $15,000—which was duly raised by UNIA—while he appealed his conviction.[266] Again a free man, he toured the U.S., giving a lecture at the Tuskegee Institute.[267] In speeches given during this tour he further emphasised the need for racial segregation through migration to Africa, calling the United States “a white man’s country”.[268] He continued to defend his meeting with the KKK, describing them as having more “honesty of purpose towards the Negro” than the NAACP.[268] Although he previously avoided involvement with party politics, for the first time he encouraged UNIA to propose candidates in elections, often setting them against NAACP-backed candidates in areas with high black populations.[269]

The American Negro has endured this wretch [Garvey] too long with fine restraint and every effort of cooperation and understanding. But the end has come. Every man who apologises for or defends Marcus Garvey from this day forth writes himself down as unworthy of the countenance of decent Americans. As for Garvey himself, this open ally of the Ku Klux Klan should be locked up or sent home.

—DuBois, in Crisis, May 1924.[270]

In February 1924, UNIA put forward its plans to bring 3000 African-American migrants to Liberia. The latter’s President, Charles D. B. King, assured them that he would grant them area for three colonies.[271] In June, a team of UNIA technicians was sent to start work in preparing for these colonies.[272] When they arrived in Liberia, they were arrested and immediately deported. At the same time, Liberia’s government issued a press release declaring that it would refuse permission for any Americans to settle in their country.[273] Garvey blamed DuBois for this apparent change in the Liberian government’s attitude, for the latter had spent time in the country and had links with its ruling elite; DuBois denied the accusation.[274] Later examination suggested that, despite King’s assurances to the UNIA team, the Liberian government had never seriously intended to allow African-American colonization, aware that it would harm relations with the British and French colonies on their borders, who feared the political radicalism it could bring with it.[275]

UNIA faced further setbacks when Bruce died; the group organised a funeral procession ending in a ceremony at Liberty Hall.[276] In need of additional finances, Negro World dropped its longstanding ban on advertising skin lightening and hair straightening products.[211] The additional revenues allowed the Black Star Line to purchase a new ship, the SS General G W Goethals, in October 1924. It was then renamed the SS Booker T. Washington.[277]

Imprisonment: 1925–1927

A postcard depicting the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in 1920, a few years before Garvey was imprisoned there

In early 1925, the U.S. Court of Appeal upheld the original court decision.[278] Garvey was in Detroit at the time and was arrested while aboard a train back to New York City.[279] In February he was taken to the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary and incarcerated there.[280] Imprisoned, he was made to carry out cleaning tasks.[281] On one occasion he was reprimanded for insolence towards the white prison officers.[282] There, he became increasingly ill with chronic bronchitis and lung infections;[283] two years into his imprisonment he would be hospitalized with influenza.[284] He received regular letters from UNIA members and from his wife;[285] she also visited him every three weeks.[286] With his support, she assembled another book of his collected speeches, Philosophy and Opinions; these had often been edited to remove inflammatory comments about wielding violence against white people.[287] He also wrote The Meditations of Marcus Garvey, its name an allusion to The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.[288] From prison, Garvey continued corresponding with far-right white separatist activists like Earnest Sevier Cox of the White American Society and John Powell of the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America; the latter visited Garvey in prison.[289]

While Garvey was imprisoned, Ashwood launched a legal challenge against his divorce from her; had the divorce been found void then his marriage to Jacques would have been invalid.[285] The court nevertheless ruled in favor of Garvey, recognising the legality of his divorce.[290] With Garvey absent, William Sherrill became acting head of UNIA.[291] To deal with the organization’s financial problems, he re-mortgaged Liberty Hall to pay off debts and ended up selling off the SS Brooker T Washington at a quarter of what UNIA had paid for it.[292] Garvey was angry and in February 1926 wrote to the Negro World expressing his dissatisfaction with Sherrill’s leadership.[293] From prison, he organized an emergency UNIA convention in Detroit, where delegates voted to depose Sherrill.[294] The latter’s supporters then held a rival convention in Liberty Hall, reflecting the growing schism in the organization.[295] A subsequent court ruling determined that it was UNIA’s New York branch, then controlled by Sherrill, rather than the central UNIA leadership itself, that owned Liberty Hall.[296] The financial problems continued, resulting in Liberty Hall being repeatedly re-mortgaged and then sold.[297]

The Attorney General, John Sargent, received a petition with 70,000 signatures urging for Garvey’s release.[298] Sargeant warned President Calvin Coolidge that African-Americans were regarding Garvey’s imprisonment not as a form of justice against a man who had swindled them but as “an act of oppression of the race in their efforts in the direction of race progress”.[297] Eventually, Coolidge agreed to commute the sentence so that it would expire immediately, on 18 November 1927. He stipulated, however, that Garvey should be deported straight after release.[299] On being released, Garvey was taken by train to New Orleans, where around a thousand supporters saw him onto the SS Saramaca on 3 December.[300] The ship then stopped at Cristóbal in Panama, where supporters again greeted him, but where the authorities refused his request to disembark.[301] He then transferred to the SS Santa Maria, which took him to Kingston.[301]

Later years

Back to Jamaica: 1927–1935

In Kingston, Garvey was greeted by supporters.[302] UNIA members had raised $10,000 to help him settle in Jamaica,[301] with which he bought a large house in an elite neighbourhood, which he called the “Somali Court”.[303] His wife shipped over his belongings—which included 18,000 books and hundreds of antiques—before joining him.[304] In Jamaica, he continued giving speeches, including at a building in Kingston he had also named “Liberty Hall”.[305] He urged Afro-Jamaicans to raise their standards of living and rally against Chinese and Syrian migrants who had moved to the island.[306] Meanwhile, the U.S. UNIA had been taken over by E. B. Knox; the latter was summoned to Jamaica for a meeting with Garvey after Laura Kofey, the leader of a group that had broken from UNIA, was killed, bringing the organization into further disrepute.[307]

While in London, Garvey spoke at the Royal Albert Hall

Garvey attempted to travel across Central America but found his hopes blocked by the region’s various administrations, who regarded him as disruptive.[308] Instead, he travelled to England in April, where he rented a house in London’s West Kensington area for four months.[309] In May, he spoke at the Royal Albert Hall.[310] Later that year, he and his wife visited Paris, where he spoke at the Club du Fauborg, before traveling to Switzerland.[311] They then travelled to Canada, where Garvey was detained for one night before being barred from making speeches.[312]

Back in Kingston, UNIA obtained Edelweiss Park in Cross Roads, which it established as its new headquarters.[313] They held a conference there, opened by a parade through the city which attracted tens of thousands of onlookers.[314] At Edelweiss Park, UNIA also began putting on plays. One of these, Coronation of an African King, was written by Garvey and performed in August 1930. Its plot revolved around the crowning of Prince Cudjoe of Sudan, although it anticipated the crowning of Haile Selassie of Ethiopia later that year.[313] In Jamaica, Garvey became a de facto surrogate father to his niece, Ruth, whose father had recently died.[313] In September 1930, his first son, Marcus Garvey Junior, was born; three years later a second son, Julius, followed.[315]

In Kingston, Garvey was elected a city councillor and established the country’s first political party, the People’s Political Party (PPP), through which he intended to contest the forthcoming legislative council election.[316] In September 1929 he addressed a crowd of 1,500 supporters, launching the PPP’s manifesto, which included land reform to benefit tenant farmers, the addition of a minimum wage to the constitution, pledges to build Jamaica’s first university and opera house, and a proposed law to impeach and imprison corrupt judges.[317] The latter policy led to Garvey being charged with demeaning the judiciary and undermining public confidence in it. He pled guilty, and was sentenced to three months in a Spanish Town prison and a £100 fine.[318] While imprisoned, Garvey was removed from the Kingston council by other councillors. Garvey was furious and wrote an editorial against them, published in the Blackman journal.[319] This resulted in his being charged with seditious libel, for which he was convicted and sentences to six months in prison. His conviction was then overturned on appeal.[319] He then campaigned as the PPP’s candidate for the legislative assembly in Saint Andrew Parish, in which he secured 915 votes, being defeated by George Seymour-Jones.[319]

In increasingly strained finances amid the Great Depression, Garvey began working as an auctioneer, and by 1935 was supplementing this with his wife’s savings.[320] He re-mortgaged his house and personal properties and in 1934 Edelweiss Park was foreclosed and auctioned off.[320] Dissatisfied with life in Jamaica, Garvey decided to move to London, sailing aboard the SS Tilapa in March 1935.[321] Once in London, he told his friend Amy Bailey that he had “left Jamaica a broken man, broken in spirit, broken in health and broken in pocket… and I will never, never, never go back.”[322]

Life in London: 1935–1940

Blue plaque at 53 Talgarth Road installed in 2005

In London, Garvey sought to rebuild UNIA, although found there was much competition in the city from other black activist groups.[323] He established a new UNIA headquarters in Beaumont Gardens, West Kensington and launched a new monthly journal, Black Man.[324] Garvey returned to speaking at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park.[325] When he spoke in public, he was increasingly harangued by socialists for his conservative stances.[326] He also had hopes of becoming a Member of Parliament, although this amounted to nothing.[323]

In 1935, the Second Italo-Ethiopian War broke out as Italy invaded Ethiopia. Garvey spoke out against the Italians and praised the government of Haile Selassie.[327] By October, however, he was becoming increasingly critical of Selassie, blaming his lack of preparedness for Ethiopia’s failures in the war.[328] When Selassie fled his homeland and arrived in Britain, Garvey was among the black delegates who arranged to meet him at Waterloo railway station, but was rebuffed.[328] From that point he became more openly hostile to Selassie, describing him as a “feudal monarch who looks down upon his slaves and serfs with contempt” and “a great coward who ran away from his country to save his skin”.[329] Garvey’s vocal criticisms of Selassie further ostracised him from the broader black activist community—including many Garveyites—most of whom were rallying around Selassie as a symbol of Ethiopia’s struggle against colonialism.[330]

In June 1937, Garvey’s wife and children arrived in England, where the latter were sent to a school in Kensington Gardens.[331] Shortly after, Garvey embarked on a lecture and fundraising tour of Canada and the Caribbean, in which he attended the annual UNIA convention in Toronto.[331] In Trinidad, he openly criticised a recent oil workers’ strike; this probably exacerbated tensions between him and two prominent Trinidadian Marxists then living in London, C. L. R. James and George Padmore.[332] Once he had returned to London, Garvey took up a new family home in Talgarth Road, not far from UNIA’s headquarters.[333] In public debates, Garvey repeatedly clashed with Padmore, who was chair of the International African Service Bureau.[334] In the summer of 1938, Garvey returned to Toronto for the next UNIA conference.[333]

While Garvey was gone, his wife and sons returned to Jamaica. Doctors had recommended that Marcus Garvey Junior be moved to a warm climate to aid with his severe rheumatism; Jacques had not informed her husband of the decision.[335] When Garvey returned to London, he was furious with his wife’s decision.[336] Garvey was increasingly isolated, while UNIA was running out of funds as its international membership dwindled.[337] For the first time in many years, he met up with Ashwood, who was also living in London.[338]

Death and burial: 1940

In January 1940, Garvey suffered a stroke which left him largely paralysed.[339] His secretary, Daisy Whyte, took on responsibility for his care.[340] At this point, Padmore spread rumours of Garvey’s death; this led to many newspapers publishing premature obituaries, many of which he read.[341] Garvey then suffered a second stroke and died at the age of 52 on 10 June 1940.[342] His body was interred in a vault in the catacombs of St Mary’s Roman Catholic Church in Kensal Green Cemetery, West London.[343]

Various wakes and memorials were held for Garvey, especially in New York City and Kingston.[343] In Harlem, a procession of mourners paraded to his memorial service.[343] Some Garveyites refused to believe Garvey had died, even when confronted with photographs of his body in its coffin, insisting that this was part of a conspiracy to undermine his movement.[343] Both Ashwood and Jacques presented themselves as the “widow of Marcus Garvey” and Ashwood launched legal action against Jacques in an attempt to secure control over his body.[344]

The writer Richard Hart later noted that within a decade of his death “a veritable cult” had begun to grow around Garvey’s memory in Jamaica.[345] By the 1950s, Jamaican politicians of varied ideological backgrounds were invoking his name.[345] Leslie Alexander, a Kingston real estate agent, proposed the removal of Garvey’s body and its return to Jamaica.[346] Alexander’s campaign was successful and in 1964 Garvey’s remains were dug up and returned to Jamaica. The body lay in state at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Kingston while thousands of visitors came to see it.[347] It was then reburied in King George VI Memorial Park on 22 November 1964 with pomp and ceremony befitting a national hero; numerous foreign diplomats attended.[348] The monument, designed by G. C. Hodges, consists of a tomb at the center of a raised platform in the shape of a black star, a symbol often used by Garvey. Behind it, a peaked and angled wall houses a bust, by Alvin T. Marriot, of Garvey, which was added to the park in 1956 (before his reinterment) and relocated after the construction of the monument.[349]

Ideology

Ethiopia, thou land of our fathers,Thou land where the gods loved to be,As storm cloud at night suddenly gathersOur armies come rushing to thee.We must in the fight be victoriousWhen swords are thrust outward to gleam;For us will the vict’ry be gloriousWhen led by the red, black, and green.

— Lyrics from the UNIA anthem[350]

Ideologically, Garvey was a black nationalist.[351] Generally referring to dark-skinned peoples of African descent as “Negroes”, he and UNIA insisted that that term be capitalised, thus according dignity and respect to those whom it described.[352] His ideas were influenced by a range of sources. According to Grant, while in London Garvey displayed “an amazing capacity to absorb political tracts, theories of social engineering, African history and Western Enlightenment.”[70] Garvey was exposed to the ideas about race that were prevalent at the time;[353] his ideas on race were also heavily informed by the writings of Edward Wilmot Blyden.[354]

During the late 1910s and 1920s, Garvey was also influenced by the ideas of the Irish independence movement, to which he was sympathetic.[355] He saw strong parallels between the British subjugation of Ireland and the broader subjugation of black people,[153] and identified strongly with the Irish independence leader Éamon de Valera.[356] In 1922, he sent a message to Valera stating that “We believe Ireland should be free even as Africa shall be free for the Negroes of the world. Keep up the fight for a free Ireland.”[357] For Garvey, Ireland’s Sinn Féin and the Irish independence movement served as a blueprint for his own black nationalist cause.[356] In July 1919 he stated that “the time has come for the Negro race to offer up its martyrs upon the altar of liberty even as the Irish [had] given a long list from Robert Emmet to Roger Casement.”[358] He also admired the Indian independence movement then seeking freedom from the British Empire, describing Mahatma Gandhi as “one of the noblest characters of the day”.[359]

Racial separatism

While in the U.S., ideas about the need for black racial purity became central to Garvey’s thought.[353] He promoted racial separatism, but did not stress the idea of racial superiority.[360] He argued that mixed-race people would be bred out of existence;[361] this hostility to black people not deemed of “pure” African blood was an idea that Garvey shared with Blyden.[362] Cronon believed that Garvey exhibited “antipathy and distrust for any but the darkest-skinned Negroes”.[363] He also rallied against Eurocentric beauty standards among blacks, seeing it as an impediment to black self-respect.[364]

Garvey vehemently denounced miscegenation.[365] He accused Du Bois and NAACP of promoting “amalgamation or general miscegenation”.[366] He rallied against what he called the “race destroying doctrine” of those African-Americans calling for racial integration in the U.S., instead maintaining that his UNIA stood for “the pride and purity of race. We believe that the white race should uphold its racial pride and perpetuate itself, and that the black race should do likewise. We believe that there is room enough in the world for the various race groups to grow and develop by themselves without seeking to destroy the Creator’s plan by the constant introduction of mongrel types.”[364]

He argued that the European-American population of the U.S. would never tolerate the social integration proposed by activists like DuBois and that campaigns for such integration would only encourage anti-black riots and lynchings.[365] He openly conceded that the U.S. was a white man’s country and thus did not think African-Americans could expect equality within it. He thus opposed attempts at social and economic integration of the races within the country.[364]

Garvey’s belief in racial separatism, the migration of African-Americans to Africa, and opposition to miscegenation all endeared him to the KKK, who supported many of the same policies.[365] He was willing to collaborate with U.S. white supremacists to achieve his aims. They were willing to work with him because his approach effectively acknowledged the idea that the U.S. should be a country exclusively for white people and would abandon campaigns for advanced rights for African-Americans within the U.S.[367] Garvey called for black collaboration with the white separatist Anglo-Saxon Clubs, stating that they shared the same ideals: “the purification of the races, their autonomous separation and the unbridled freedom of self-development and self-expression. Those who are against this are enemies of both races, and rebels against morality, nature and God.”[368]

Pan-Africanism

Garvey adopted a Pan-Africanist view,[369] and in the wake of the First World War called for the formation of “a United Africa for the Africans of the World”.[370] UNIA promoted the view that Africa was the natural homeland of the African diaspora.[371] While imprisoned, he penned an editorial for the Negro World entitled “African Fundamentalism”, in which he called for “the founding of a racial empire whose only natural, spiritual and political aims shall be God and Africa, at home and abroad.”[372]

Garvey supported the Back-to-Africa movement, which had been influenced by Edward Wilmot Blyden, who migrated to Liberia in 1850.[373] However, Garvey did not believe that all African-Americans should migrate to Africa. Instead, he thought that only an elite selection, namely those African-Americans of the purest African blood, should do so. The rest of the African-American population, he believed, should remain in the United States, where they would be extinct within fifty years.[367] A proponent of the Back-to-Africa movement, Garvey called for a vanguard of educated and skilled African-Americans to travel to West Africa, a journey facilitated by his Black Star Line.[374] Garvey stated that “The majority of us may remain here, but we must send our scientists, our mechanics and our artisans and let them build railroads, let them build the great educational and other institutions necessary”, after which other members of the African diaspora could join them.[374] He was aware that the majority of African-Americans would not want to move to Africa until it had the more modern comforts that they had become accustomed to in the U.S.[374]

Wheresoever I go, whether it is England, France or Germany, I am told, “This is a white man’s country.” Wheresoever I travel throughout the United States of America, I am made to understand that I am a “nigger”. If the Englishman claims England as his native habitat, and the Frenchman claims France, the time has come for 400 million Negroes to claim Africa as their native land… If you believe that the Negro should have a place in the sun; if you believe that Africa should be one vast empire, controlled by the Negro, then arise.

— Garvey, August 1920 [375]

In the 1920s, Garvey referred to his desire for a “big black republic” in Africa.[376] Garvey’s envisioned Africa was to be a one-party state in which the president could have “absolute authority” to appoint “all his lieutenants from cabinet ministers, governors of States and Territories, administrators and judges to minor offices”.[361] According to the scholar of African-American studies Wilson S. Moses, the future African state which Garvey envisioned was “authoritarian, elitist, collectivist, racist, and capitalistic”,[361] suggesting that it would have resembled the later Haitian government of François Duvalier.[377] Garvey told the historian J. A. Rogers that he and his followers were “the first fascists”, adding that “Mussolini copied Fascism from me, but the Negro reactionaries sabotaged it”.[378]

In 1920, Garvey began discussions through his emissary Ellie Garcia with the president of Liberia, Charles D.B. King, to relocated the UNIA headquarters to that West African country. Further visits to Liberia took place in 1921 and 1923, but by 1924 the relationship between Garvey and King had soured, and the Liberian government confiscated their property, proscribed the UNIA, and deported the UNIA representatives.[379]

Garvey never visited Africa himself,[380] and did not speak any African languages.[381] He knew very little about the continent’s varied customs, languages, and religions, or of its traditional social structures,[382] with his critics often thinking that his views of the continent were romanticised and ignorant.[383] It has been speculated that the Western colonial authorities would not have given permission to Garvey to visit colonies where he would be calling for decolonisation.[384] The Jamaican writer and poet Claude McKay for instance noted that Garvey “talks of Africa as if it were a little island in the Caribbean Sea.”[383] Garvey shared negative stereotypes about Africa as a backwards continent that was in need of the civilizing influence of Western, Christian states.[385] Among his stated aims were “to assist in civilising the backward tribes of Africa” and “to promote a conscientious Christian worship among” them.[385] His idea that Africans would ultimately be liberated by the efforts of the African diaspora living outside the continent has been considered condescending.[386]

Moses stated that rather than respecting indigenous African cultures, Garvey’s views of an ideal united Africa were based on “the imperial model of Victorian England”.[387] When extolling the glories of Africa, Garvey cited the ancient Egyptians and Ethiopians who had built empires and monumental architecture, which he saw as evidence of civilization, rather than the smaller-scale societies of other parts of the continent.[388] Moses thought that Garvey “had more affinity for the pomp and tinsel of European imperialism than he did for black African tribal life”.[388] The writer Richard Hart similarly noted that Garvey was “much attracted by the glamour of the British nobility”, as reflected in the way he gave prominent supporters such British-derived titles as “Lords”, “Ladies”, and “Knights”.[389]

Economic views

Economically, Garvey supported capitalism,[390] stating that “capitalism is necessary to the progress of the world, and those who unreasonably and wantonly oppose or fight against it are enemies to human advancement.”[361] He proposed that no individual should be allowed to control more than one million dollars and no company more than five million.[361] Under Garvey, UNIA’s focus was on achieving economic independence for the African diaspora.[391] In Garvey’s opinion, “without commerce and industry, a people perish economically. The Negro is perishing because he has no economic system”.[360]

In the U.S., Garvey promoted a capitalistic ethos for the economic development of the African-American community.[392] He wanted to achieve greater financial independence for the African-American community, believing that this would ensure greater protection from discrimination.[360] In his view, European-American employers would always favor European-American employees, and thus to gain more security, African-Americans needed their own businesses.[368] He admired Booker T. Washington’s economic endeavours although was critical of his individualistic focus: Garvey believed African-American interests would best be advanced if businesses included collective decision making and group profit sharing.[392] While in Harlem, he envisioned the formation of a global network of black people trading amongst themselves, believing that his Black Star Line would contribute to this aim.[393] His emphasis on capitalist ventures meant, according to Grant, that Garvey “was making a straight pitch to the petit-bourgeois capitalist instinct of the majority of black folk.”[160]

There is no evidence that Garvey was ever sympathetic to socialism.[394] While in the U.S., he strongly opposed attempts by socialist and communist groups to recruit African-Americans into the trade union movement,[395] and urged African-Americans not to support the Communist Party.[396] He viewed the communist movement as a white person’s creation that was not in the interests of African-Americans.[396] He stated that communism was “a dangerous theory of economic or political reformation because it seeks to put government in the hands of an ignorant white mass who have not been able to destroy their natural prejudices towards Negroes and other non-white people. While it may be a good thing for them, it will be a bad thing for the Negroes who will fall under the government of the most ignorant, prejudiced class of the white race.”[396] In response, the Communist International characterised Garveyism as a reactionary bourgeoise philosophy.[368]

Black Christianity

Whilst our God has no color, yet it is human to see everything through one’s own spectacles, and since the white people have seen their God through white spectacles, we have only now started out (late though it be) to see our God through our own spectacles.

— Garvey, on viewing God as black, 1923[397]

Grant noted that “Garveyism would always remain a secular movement with a strong under-tow of religion”.[398] Garvey envisioned a unified religion for black African people, one that was a variant of Christianity.[389] Reflecting his own Catholicism, he wanted this black-centric Christianity to be as close to Roman Catholicism as possible.[397] Garvey sought to create a black religion,[388] with Cronon suggesting that Garvey promoted “racist ideas about religion”.[399]

Garvey emphasised the idea of black people worshipping a God who was also depicted as black.[397] He called for black people to worship images of Jesus of Nazareth and the Virgin Mary that depicted these figures as black Africans.[389] In doing so, he did not make use of pre-existing forms of black-dominant religion. Garvey had little experience with these, having attended a white-run Wesleyan congregation as a child and later converting to Roman Catholicism.[400]

Personality and personal life

Garvey photographed in 1922

Physically, Garvey was short and stocky.[401] He suffered from asthma,[402] and was prone to lung infections;[124] throughout his adult life he was affected by bouts of pneumonia.[403] Tony Martin called Garvey a “restless young man”,[404] while Grant thought that in his early years Garvey had a “naïve but determined personality”.[405] Grant noted that Garvey “possessed a single-mindedness of purpose that left no room for the kind of spectacular failure that was always a possibility”.[124]

He was eloquent and a good orator,[406] with Cronon suggesting that his “peculiar gift of oratory” stemmed from “a combination of bombast and stirring heroics”.[407] Grant described Garvey’s public speeches as “strange and eclectic – part evangelical […] partly formal King’s English, and part lilting Caribbean speechifying”.[408] Garvey enjoyed arguing with people,[22] and wanted to be seen as a learned man;[409] he read widely, particularly in history.[410] Cronon suggested that “Garvey’s florid style of writing and speaking, his fondness for appearing in a richly colored cap and gown, and his use of the initials “D.C.L.” after his name were but crude attempts to compensate” for his lack of formal academic qualifications.[409] Grant thought Garvey was an “extraordinary salesman who’d developed a philosophy where punters weren’t just buying into a business but were placing a down payment on future black redemption.”[411] Even his enemies acknowledged that he was a skilled organiser and promoter.[412]

For Grant, Garvey was “a man of grand, purposeful gestures”.[72] He thought that the black nationalist leader was an “ascetic” who had “conservative tastes”.[413] Garvey was a teetotaller who regarded alcohol consumption as morally reprehensible.[183] He placed value on courtesy and respect, discouraging loutishness among his supporters.[414] He enjoyed dressing up in military costumes,[415] and adored regal pomp and ceremony;[389] he believed that pageantry would stir the black masses out of their apathy, despite the accusations of buffoonery made by the African-American intelligentsia.[389] Grant noted that Garvey had a “tendency to overstate his achievements”.[402] In 1947, the Jamaican historian J. A. Rogers included Garvey in his book, the World’s Great Men of Colour, where he noted that “had [Garvey] ever come to power, he would have been another Robespierre”, resorting to violence and terror to enforce his ideas.[416]

In 1919, he married Amy Ashwood in a Roman Catholic ceremony,[181] although they separated after three months.[186] The New York court would not grant Garvey a divorce, but he later obtained one in Jackson County, Missouri.[187] Ashwood contested the legitimacy of this divorce and for the rest of her life maintained that she was Garvey’s legitimate spouse.[187]

Garvey was a Roman Catholic.[417] Garvey collected antique ceramics and enjoyed going around antique shops and flea markets searching for items to add to his collection.[418]

Reception and legacy

Garvey was a polarizing figure,[419] an individual both revered and reviled.[72] Grant noted that views on him divided largely between two camps, one portraying him as a charlatan and the other as a saint;[347] similarly, Cronon noted that Garvey was varyingly perceived as “strident demagogue or dedicated prophet, martyred visionary or fabulous con man”.[420] Martin noted that by the time Garvey returned to Jamaica in the 1920s, he was “just about the best known Black man in the whole world”.[421] The size and scope of UNIA has also attracted attention; Mark Christian described Garvey as the leader of “the largest Black mass movement in modern history,”[422] while John Henrik Clarke termed it “the first Black mass protest crusade in the history of the United States”.[423] His ideas influenced many black people who never became paying members of UNIA.[424]

Garvey attracted attention chiefly because he put into powerful ringing phrases the secret thoughts of the Negro world. He told his listeners what they wanted to hear—that a black skin was not a badge of shame but rather a glorious symbol of national greatness. He promised a Negro nation in the African homeland that would be the marvel of the modern world. He pointed to Negro triumphs in the past and described in glowing syllables the glories of the future. When Garvey spoke of the greatness of the race, Negroes everywhere could forget for a moment the shame of discrimination and the horrors of lynching.

— Edmund David Cronon 1955[407]

In Jamaica, Garvey is often regarded as a national hero.[425] The scholar of African-American studies Molefi Kete Asante included Garvey on his 2002 list of 100 Greatest African Americans,[426] while in 2008, the American writer Ta-Nehisi Coates described Garvey as the “patron saint” of the black nationalist movement.[427] Grant thought that Garvey, along with Du Bois, deserved to be seen as the “father of Pan-Africanism”,[344] while the Nigerian historian B. Steiner Ifekwe called Garvey “one of the greatest Pan-African leaders of the time”.[428] Garvey has received praise from those who see him as a “race patriot”,[429] and many African-Americans see him as having encouraged a sense of self-respect and pride among black people.[430] While living in the U.S., Garvey was often referred to—sometimes sarcastically—as the “Negro Moses”, implying that like the eponymous Old Testament figure, he would lead his people out of the oppressive situation they lived in.[240]

In 1955, Cronon stated that while Garvey “achieved little in the way of permanent improvement” for black people, he “awakened fires of Negro nationalism that have yet to be extinguished”.[407] In Cronon’s view, Garvey’s importance was in giving African-descended peoples a new feeling of collective pride and a sense of individual worth.[431] Hart believed that Garvey’s importance lay in stirring millions of people who were otherwise apathetic into action. In this way, Hart thought, Garvey had helped lay the groundwork for the U.S. civil rights movement during the 1950s and 1960s, even if that movement’s calls for racial integration and equality within the U.S. ran contrary to Garvey’s own beliefs in racial separation and migration to Africa.[432]

Kwame Nkrumah, the first president of Ghana, wrote in his autobiography that of all the literature he had studied, the book that did more than any other to inspire him was the “Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey, or Africa for the Africans”.[433] Nkrumah went on to name Ghana’s national shipping line the “Black Star Line”, while there’s a Black Star Square in Accra, and a black star in the Ghanaian flag. The national football team is also nicknamed the Black Stars.[434]

While in the U.S., Garvey faced strong opposition from many prominent figures in the African-American community as well as from leading progressive and left-wing organisations.[364] Critics regarded him as an idealist.[435] Garvey obtained a reputation for failing to pay his debts,[436] and his detractors accused him of dishonesty.[436] Critics like Du Bois often mocked Garvey for his outfits and the grandiose titles he gave to himself;[437] in their view, he was embarrassingly pretentious.[72] According to Grant, much of the established African-American middle-class were “perplexed and embarrassed” by Garvey, who thought that the African-American working classes should turn to their leadership rather than his.[374] Concerns were also raised that his violent language was inflaming many Garveyites to carry out violent acts against his critics.[438] Grant noted that in the years following Garvey’s death, his life was primarily presented by his political opponents.[415]

Writing for The Black Scholar in 1972, the scholar of African-American studies Wilson S. Moses expressed concern about the “uncritical adulation” of Garvey within African-American political circles. In Moses’ opinion, this adulation led to “red baiting” and “divisive rhetoric” about being “Blacker-than-thou”.[439] Moses argued that it was wrong for people to regard Garvey as a “man of the people” because the latter came from a petty bourgeoise background and had “enjoyed cultural, economic, and educational advantages few of his black contemporaries” had enjoyed.[9]

Influence on political movements

The Flag of Ghana adopted the same colours used by UNIA[344]

In Jamaica, Garvey was largely forgotten in the years after his death, but interest in him was revived by the Rastafari religious movement.[440] Jacques wrote a book about her late husband, Garvey and Garveyism, and after finding that no publishers were interested in it she self-published the volume in 1963.[440] In 1975 the reggae artist Burning Spear released the album Marcus Garvey.[440]

Interest in Garvey’s ideas would also be revived in the 1960s through the growth of independent states across Africa and the emergence of the Black Power movement in the United States.[441] Mark Christian suggested that Garveyism gave an important psychological boost to African leaders campaigning for independence from European colonial rule,[442] while Claudius Fergus proposed that it played an important role in encouraging Africans to see the African diaspora as an “integral constituent of their own political destiny.”[443] In his autobiography, Kwame Nkrumah, the prominent Pan-Africanist activist who became Ghana’s first president, acknowledged having been influenced by Garvey.[440] The flag that Ghana adopted when it became independent adopted the colours of UNIA.[344] In November 1964, Garvey’s body was removed from West Kensal Green Cemetery and taken to Jamaica. There, it lay in state in Kingston’s Roman Catholic Cathedral before a motorcade took it to King George VI Memorial Park, where it was re-buried.[347]

During a trip to Jamaica, Martin Luther King and his wife Coretta Scott King visited Garvey’s shrine on 20 June 1965 and laid a wreath.[444] In a speech he told the audience that Garvey “was the first man of color to lead and develop a mass movement. He was the first man on a mass scale and level to give millions of Negroes a sense of dignity and destiny. And make the Negro feel he was somebody.”[445] Vietnamese Communist revolutionary Ho Chi Minh said Garvey and Korean nationalists shaped his political outlook during his stay in America.[446] Thandeka K. Chapman believed that Garveyism contributed to the formation of the multicultural education movement during the 1960s.[447] Chapman believed that both “Garveyism and multicultural education share the desire to see students of color learning and achieving academic success”,[391] and both allotted significant attention to generating racial pride.[448]

Influence on religious movements

Garvey never regarded himself as a religious visionary although was perceived as such by some of his followers.[449] Various Bedwardites for example regarded him as the reincarnation of Moses.[449] The Moorish Science Temple of America regarded Garvey as a prophet akin to John the Baptist in relation to their prophet Noble Drew Ali, who they regarded as a Jesus figure.[450] Garvey’s ideas were a significant influence on the Nation of Islam, a religious group for African-Americans established in the U.S. in 1930.[451]

Garvey and Garveyism was a key influence on Rastafari, a new religious movement that appeared in 1930 Jamaica.[452] According to the scholar of religion Maboula Soumahoro, Rastafari “emerged from the socio-political ferment inaugurated by Marcus Garvey”,[453] while for the sociologist Ernest Cashmore, Garvey was the “most important” precursor of the Rastafari movement.[454] Rastafari does not promote all of the views that Garvey espoused, but nevertheless shares many of the same perspectives.[455] Garvey knew of the Rastas from his time in Jamaica during the 1930s but his view of them, according to the scholar Barry Chevannes, “bordered on scorn”.[456] According to Chevannes, Garvey would have regarded the Rastas’ belief in the divinity of Haile Selassie as blasphemy.[457] Many Rastas regarding Garvey as a prophet,[458] believing that he prophesied the crowning of Haile Selassie in a similar manner to how John the Baptist prophesied the coming of Jesus Christ.[459] Many legends and tales are told about him within Jamaica’s Rasta community.[460] Many attribute him with supernatural attributes, for instance there is a tale told about him—and also independently told about the pioneering Rasta Leonard Howell—that Garvey miraculously knew that his bath had been poisoned and refused to get into it.[461] Other stories among Jamaica’s Rastas hold that Garvey never really died and remained alive, perhaps living in Africa.[462] Some Rastas also organise meetings, known as Nyabinghi Issemblies, to mark Garvey’s birthday.[463]

Memorials

A statue of Garvey along the Harris Promenade in San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago

Garvey’s birthplace, 32 Market Street, St. Ann’s Bay, Jamaica, has a marker signifying it as a site of importance in the nation’s history.[464] His likeness was on the 20-dollar coin and 25-cent coin of the Jamaican dollar.[465] In 2012 the Jamaican government declared August 17 as Marcus Garvey Day. The Governor General’s proclamation stated “from here on every year this time, all of us here in Jamaica will be called to mind to remember this outstanding National Hero and what he has done for us as a people, and our children will call this to mind also on this day” and went on to say “to proclaim and make known that the 17th Day of August in each year shall be designated as Marcus Garvey Day and shall so be observed.”[466]

The Brownsville neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York City, is home to Marcus Garvey Village, whose construction was completed in 1976.[467] This building complex is home to the first energy storage microgrid at an affordable housing property in the country. It will use the energy storage system to cut electricity costs, improve grid reliability, and provide backup power during extended outages.[468]

In the 1980s, Garvey’s two sons launched a campaign requesting that the U.S. government issue a pardon for their father. In this they had the support of Harlem Congressman Charles Rangel.[347] In 2006, Jamaican Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller tasked various Jamaican lawyers with investigating how they could assist this campaign.[347] The Obama Administration declined to pardon Garvey in 2011, writing that its policy is not to consider requests for posthumous pardons.[469]

There have been several proposals to make a biopic of Garvey’s life. Those mentioned in connection with the role of Garvey have included the Jamaican-born actor Kevin Navayne[470][471] and the British-born actor of Jamaican descent Delroy Lindo.[472][473]

Marcus Garvey appears in Jason Overstreet’s The Strivers’ Row Spy[474][475], a historical fiction novel about of the Harlem Renaissance. The novel also includes W. E. B Du Bois, James Weldon Johnson, Adam Clayton Powell, among other historically significant figures.[476]

References

Footnotes

^ Cronon 1955, p. 4; Hart 1967, p. 218; Martin 1983, p. 8; Grant 2008, pp. 8, 9.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 5; Grant 2008, p. 55.
^ “DNA used to reveal MLK and Garvey’s European Lineage”. The Gio. 13 January 2011. Retrieved 16 May 2019..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”\”””\”””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background-image:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”);background-image:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg”);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:9px;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background-image:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”);background-image:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg”);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:9px;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background-image:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”);background-image:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg”);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:9px;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background-image:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”);background-image:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg”);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:12px;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflink{font-weight:inherit}
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 168.
^ Grant 2008, p. 8.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 8–9.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 9.
^ Moses 1972, p. 38; Martin 1983, p. 8; Grant 2008, p. 9.
^ a b c Moses 1972, p. 39.
^ Cronon 1955, pp. 6–7; Grant 2008, p. 12.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 7; Grant 2008, p. 9.
^ Moses 1972, p. 38; Grant 2008, p. 9.
^ Grant 2008, p. 10.
^ Martin 1983, p. 8.
^ Grant 2008, p. 13.
^ Grant 2008, p. 11.
^ Martin 1983, p. 9; Grant 2008, p. 10.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 8; Moses 1972, pp. 39–40; Martin 1983, p. 9.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 11; Martin 1983, p. 10; Grant 2008, p. 13.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 14.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 12; Hart 1967, p. 219; Martin 1983, p. 11; Grant 2008, p. 16.
^ a b c Grant 2008, p. 17.
^ Cronon 1955, pp. 12–13; Grant 2008, p. 4.
^ Grant 2008, p. 6.
^ Grant 2008, p. 18.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 13; Hart 1967, p. 219; Martin 1983, p. 11; Grant 2008, p. 18.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 13; Grant 2008, p. 19.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 13; Martin 1983, p. 11; Grant 2008, p. 20.
^ Grant 2008, p. 19.
^ Cronon 1955, pp. 13–4; Martin 1983, p. 14; Grant 2008, pp. 20–21.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 21.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 13; Martin 1983, p. 13; Grant 2008, p. 23; Fergus 2010, p. 30.
^ Grant 2008, p. 23.
^ Martin 1983, p. 12; Grant 2008, pp. 21–22.
^ Martin 1983, pp. 12–13; Grant 2008, pp. 21–22.
^ Grant 2008, p. 24.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 14; Hart 1967, p. 220; Martin 1983, p. 15; Grant 2008, pp. 24–25.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 27–28.
^ Grant 2008, p. 29.
^ Martin 1983, p. 16; Grant 2008, p. 30.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 30–31.
^ Grant 2008, p. 31.
^ Hart 1967, p. 220; Grant 2008, p. 31.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 15; Hart 1967, p. 220; Martin 1983, p. 16; Grant 2008, p. 31.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 15; Grant 2008, p. 32.
^ Hart 1967, p. 220; Grant 2008, pp. 34–35.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 36.
^ Martin 1983, p. 19; Grant 2008, p. 36.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 36–37.
^ Martin 1983, p. 18; Grant 2008, p. 38.
^ Grant 2008, p. 45.
^ Hart 1967, p. 220; Grant 2008, p. 40.
^ Grant 2008, p. 40.
^ Martin 1983, pp. 20; Grant 2008, p. 43.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 7; Martin 1983, p. 19; Grant 2008, p. 45.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 45–46.
^ Grant 2008, p. 46.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 48–49.
^ Grant 2008, p. 49.
^ Martin 1983, pp. 25–26; Grant 2008, p. 49.
^ Martin 1983, pp. 19, 22; Grant 2008, pp. 47–48.
^ Martin 1983, p. 22; Grant 2008, p. 49.
^ Martin 1983, pp. 26–27; Grant 2008, p. 52.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 64.
^ Martin 1983, p. 27; Grant 2008, p. 53.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 56.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 61.
^ Martin 1983, pp. 27–28; Grant 2008, p. 53.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 18; Martin 1983, p. 33; Grant 2008, p. 54.
^ a b c Grant 2008, p. 54.
^ Grant 2008, p. 59.
^ a b c d Grant 2008, p. xii.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 18; Martin 1983, p. 30; Grant 2008, p. 56.
^ Martin 1983, pp. 33, 34; Grant 2008, p. 56.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 18; Martin 1983, p. 33; Grant 2008, p. 60.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 19; Martin 1983, pp. 36–37; Grant 2008, p. 69.
^ Martin 1983, p. 34; Grant 2008, p. 59.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 63.
^ Martin 1983, pp. 33–34; Grant 2008, p. 62.
^ Martin 1983, p. 30; Grant 2008, p. 57.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 57–58.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 61–62.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 18.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 18; Martin 1983, p. 34; Grant 2008, p. 60.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 65–66.
^ Martin 1983, pp. 35–36; Grant 2008, p. 64.
^ Grant 2008, p. 66.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 71–72.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 67; Cashmore 1983, p. 160; Barrett 1997, p. 143; Grant 2008, pp. 214–215.
^ Martin 1983, pp. 38–39; Grant 2008, pp. 72–73.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 77–79.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 40; Martin 1983, p. 39; Grant 2008, p. 80.
^ Grant 2008, p. 83.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 83–84.
^ Martin 1983, p. 42; Grant 2008, p. 86.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 42; Hart 1967, p. 222; Martin 1983, p. 46; Grant 2008, p. 87.
^ a b c d e Grant 2008, p. 117.
^ Martin 1983, p. 46; Grant 2008, pp. 88–89.
^ Grant 2008, p. 90.
^ Grant 2008, p. 91.
^ Martin 1983, p. 43; Grant 2008, pp. 91–93.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 41; Grant 2008, p. 93.
^ Grant 2008, p. 93.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 96–97.
^ Grant 2008, p. 98.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 98–100.
^ Martin 1983, p. 45; Grant 2008, p. 102.
^ Grant 2008, p. 104.
^ Grant 2008, p. 105.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 105–106.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 43; Grant 2008, p. 108.
^ Grant 2008, p. 108.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 108–109.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 43; Grant 2008, p. 117.
^ Grant 2008, p. 135.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 46.
^ a b c Grant 2008, p. 138.
^ Grant 2008, p. 137.
^ Grant 2008, p. 136.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 48; Grant 2008, p. 139.
^ Grant 2008, p. 139.
^ Grant 2008, p. 148.
^ Elkins 1972, p. 64.
^ a b c Grant 2008, p. 143.
^ Grant 2008, p. 153.
^ Grant 2008, p. 154.
^ Grant 2008, p. 146.
^ Grant 2008, p. 147.
^ Grant 2008, p. 166.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 128, 174.
^ Grant 2008, p. 172.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 177–178, 182.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 122–123.
^ Grant 2008, p. 125.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 126–127.
^ Grant 2008, p. 158.
^ Grant 2008, p. 157.
^ a b c Grant 2008, p. 164.
^ Grant 2008, p. 299.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 165.
^ Grant 2008, p. 174.
^ Grant 2008, p. 303.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 181-182.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 223.
^ Grant 2008, p. 326.
^ Grant 2008, p. 248.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 302–303.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 298.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 155.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 61; Grant 2008, p. 186.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 210–212.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 49; Grant 2008, p. 197.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 197.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 49; Grant 2008, p. 198.
^ Grant 2008, p. 219.
^ Grant 2008, p. 360.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 219–220.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 60; Grant 2008, p. 230.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 60.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 234.
^ Grant 2008, p. 345.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 62; Grant 2008, pp. 242–243.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 69; Grant 2008, p. 243.
^ Grant 2008, p. 245.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 67; Grant 2008, p. 243.
^ Grant 2008, p. 262.
^ Grant 2008, p. 243.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 67; Grant 2008, p. 266.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 66; Grant 2008, p. 261; Fergus 2010, p. 36.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 315–317.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 276.
^ Grant 2008, p. 281.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 311–313.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 312–313.
^ Grant 2008, p. 199.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 254–255.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 212–214.
^ Grant 2008, p. 214.
^ Grant 2008, p. 218.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 224.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 225.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 236.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 226.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 236–238.
^ Grant 2008, p. 238.
^ a b Grant 2008, pp. 238–239.
^ a b c d Grant 2008, p. 239.
^ Grant 2008, p. 240.
^ Grant 2008, p. 278.
^ Grant 2008, p. 257.
^ Grant 2008, p. 187.
^ Cronon 1955, pp. 50–51; Grant 2008, p. 187.
^ Grant 2008, p. 188.
^ Grant 2008, p. 210.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 192–193.
^ Grant 2008, p. 194.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 195.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 207–210.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 190–191.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 195–197.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 53; Grant 2008, pp. 204–205.
^ Grant 2008, p. 215.
^ Grant 2008, p. 222.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 217, 225.
^ Grant 2008, p. 227.
^ Grant 2008, p. 228.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 57; Grant 2008, p. 233.
^ Grant 2008, p. 241.
^ Grant 2008, p. 321.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 284–285.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 289.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 289–290.
^ Grant 2008, p. 290.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 292–293.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 293–294.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 294–295.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 295–296.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 324.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 328.
^ Grant 2008, p. 327.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 325–326.
^ Grant 2008, p. 325.
^ Grant 2008, p. 329.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 322, 330.
^ Grant 2008, p. 320.
^ Stein, Judith (1991). The world of Marcus Garvey : race and class in modern society. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP. pp. 154–56. ISBN 978-0-8071-1670-8.
^ Compiled by Amy Jacques Garvey; with a new intro. by Essien-Udom (2013). The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey Africa for the Africans (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. p. 71. ISBN 978-1-136-23106-3.
^ Grant 2008, p. 334.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 320–321.
^ Grant 2008, p. 336.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 355.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 358–359.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 349–351.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 333.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 338–340.
^ Grant 2008, p. 352.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 340–341.
^ Grant 2008, p. 305.
^ Grant 2008, p. 306.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 354.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 49; Grant 2008, pp. 352–353.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 341–343.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 343–344.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 345–347.
^ Grant 2008, p. 347.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 360–361.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 361–362.
^ Grant 2008, p. 363.
^ Grant 2008, p. 364.
^ Grant 2008, p. 365.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 365–366.
^ Grant 2008, p. 366.
^ Martin 2001, p. 160.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 367.
^ Grant 2008, p. 368.
^ Grant 2008, p. 369.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 369–370.
^ Grant 2008, p. 370.
^ Grant 2008, p. 371.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 371–372.
^ a b c Grant 2008, p. 372.
^ a b Hill, Robert A., ed. (1987). Marcus Garvey: Life and Lessons. University of California Press. p. lvii. ISBN 9780520908710. Retrieved 10 May 2010.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 374.
^ Grant 2008, p. 376.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 375–376.
^ Grant 2008, p. 378.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 378–379.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 379.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 380–381.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 381–382.
^ Grant 2008, p. 383.
^ Grant 2008, p. 385.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 385–386.
^ Grant 2008, p. 386.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 383, 386–387.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 388–389.
^ Grant 2008, p. 389.
^ Grant 2008, p. 390.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 390–391.
^ Grant 2008, p. 391.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 395–396.
^ Grant 2008, p. 395.
^ Grant 2008, p. 307.
^ Grant 2008, p. 408.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 394.
^ Grant 2008, p. 397.
^ Grant 2008, p. 399.
^ Grant 2008, p. 407.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 401–402.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 405–407.
^ Grant 2008, p. 396.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 396, 403.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 402–403.
^ Grant 2008, p. 403.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 403–404.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 404–405.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 410.
^ Grant 2008, p. 400.
^ Elkins 1972, p. 76; Grant 2008, pp. 410–411.
^ Grant 2008, p. 411.
^ a b c Grant 2008, p. 413.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 413–414.
^ Grant 2008, p. 416.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 416–417.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 417–418.
^ Grant 2008, p. 415.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 418–421.
^ Grant 2008, p. 421.
^ Grant 2008, p. 422.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 422–423.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 423–425.
^ Grant 2008, p. 425.
^ a b c Grant 2008, p. 426.
^ Grant 2008, p. 427.
^ Grant 2008, p. 432.
^ Hart 1967, p. 223; Grant 2008, p. 428.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 428–429.
^ Hart 1967, p. 224; Grant 2008, p. 429.
^ a b c Grant 2008, p. 430.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 433.
^ Grant 2008, p. 434.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 434–435.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 437.
^ Grant 2008, p. 438.
^ Grant 2008, p. 436.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 447–448.
^ Grant 2008, p. 439.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 440.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 440–441.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 441–442.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 442.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 443–444.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 444.
^ Grant 2008, p. 441.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 444–445.
^ Grant 2008, p. 446.
^ Grant 2008, p. 447.
^ Grant 2008, p. 448.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 1, 448–449.
^ Grant 2008, p. 449.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 1–2, 449.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 2, 450.
^ a b c d Grant 2008, p. 451.
^ a b c d Grant 2008, p. 452.
^ a b Hart 1967, p. 217.
^ Hart 1967, p. 218.
^ a b c d e Grant 2008, p. 454.
^ Hart 1967, p. 218; Grant 2008, p. 454.
^ Monument to the Rt. Excellent Marcus Garvey” Archived 2007-12-30 at the Wayback Machine, Georgia Brown, The Jamaica National Heritage Trust, 2006, accessed January 03 2018.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 68.
^ Grant 2008, p. 173.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 67.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 300.
^ Grant 2008, p. 169.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 173–174.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 198.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 64; Grant 2008, p. 246.
^ Hill, Robert A.; Garvey, Marcus (1983). The Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers: The Caribbean diaspora, 1920-1921. ISBN 9780520044562.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 331–332.
^ a b c Carter 2002, p. 2.
^ a b c d e Moses 1972, p. 46.
^ Grant 2008, p. 275.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 11.
^ a b c d Hart 1967, p. 232.
^ a b c Hart 1967, p. 233.
^ Moses 1972, p. 41.
^ a b Moses 1972, p. 45.
^ a b c Hart 1967, p. 234.
^ Fergus 2010, p. 31.
^ Grant 2008, p. 176.
^ Fergus 2010, p. 35.
^ Grant 2008, p. 401.
^ “Spirit of Garvey Lives on Even Now”, The Voice, February 2020, p. 12.
^ a b c d Grant 2008, p. 264.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 246–247.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 66.
^ Moses 1972, p. 47.
^ Moses 1972, p. 46; Grant 2008, p. 439.
^ “Spirit of Garvey Lives on Even Now”, The Voice, February 2020, p. 12.
^ Hart 1967, p. 230; Clarke 1974, p. 18; Grant 2008, p. 453.
^ Clarke 1974, p. 18.
^ Hart 1967, p. 230.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 265.
^ “Spirit of Garvey Lives on Even Now”, The Voice, February 2020, p. 12.
^ a b Hart 1967, p. 229.
^ Christian 2008, p. 323.
^ Moses 1972, p. 42.
^ a b c Moses 1972, p. 43.
^ a b c d e Hart 1967, p. 231.
^ Moses 1972, p. 46; Carter 2002, p. 3.
^ a b Chapman 2004, p. 425.
^ a b Carter 2002, p. 1.
^ Grant 2008, p. 230.
^ Grant 2008, p. 141.
^ Hart 1967, p. 226.
^ a b c Carter 2002, p. 4.
^ a b c Moses 1972, p. 44.
^ Grant 2008, p. 156.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 215.
^ Moses 1972, pp. 43–44.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 4; Grant 2008, p. xii.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. 32.
^ Grant 2008, p. 89.
^ Martin 1983, p. 14.
^ Grant 2008, p. 70.
^ Martin 1983, p. 46; Grant 2008, p. xi.
^ a b c Cronon 1955, p. 4.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 88–89.
^ a b Cronon 1955, p. 8.
^ Grant 2008, p. 314.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 155–156.
^ Grant 2008, p. 351.
^ Grant 2008, p. 206.
^ Grant 2008, p. 431.
^ a b Grant 2008, p. xi.
^ Grant 2008, p. 455.
^ Hart 1967, p. 222.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 257–258.
^ Grant 2008, p. xiv.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 202.
^ Martin 1983, p. 37.
^ Christian 2008, p. 322.
^ Clarke 1974, p. 17.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 204.
^ Clarke 1974, p. 19; Grant 2008, p. 3.
^ Asante 2002.
^ Coates 2008.
^ Ifekwe 2008, p. 109.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 218.
^ Moses 1972, p. 38; Chapman 2004, p. 431.
^ Cronon 1955, p. 222.
^ Hart 1967, p. 235.
^ “Spirit of Garvey Lives on Even Now”, The Voice, February 2020, p. 13.
^ “Spirit of Garvey Lives on Even Now”, The Voice, February 2020, p. 13.
^ Christian 2008, p. 317.
^ a b Hart 1967, p. 228.
^ Grant 2008, pp. xiii–ix.
^ Grant 2008, p. 362.
^ Moses 1972, p. 38.
^ a b c d Grant 2008, p. 453.
^ Grant 2008, pp. 453–454.
^ Christian 2008, p. 325.
^ Fergus 2010, p. 32.
^ “Martin Luther King Jr. visits Jamaica” Archived 8 October 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Jamaica Gleaner, 20 June 1965.
^ Salley, Columbus, “The Black 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential African-Americans, Past and Present”, Citadel Press, 1999, p. 82.
^ Debolt, Abbe A; Baugess, James S (12 December 2011). Encyclopedia of the Sixties: A Decade of Culture and Counterculture [2 volumes]: A Decade of Culture and Counterculture. ISBN 9781440801020.
^ Chapman 2004, p. 424.
^ Chapman 2004, p. 426.
^ a b Chevannes 1994, p. 99.
^ cit.
^ Barnett 2006, pp. 879-880.
^ Chevannes 1994, p. 87; Ifekwe 2008, p. 110.
^ Soumahoro 2007, p. 39.
^ Cashmore 1983, p. 3.
^ Clarke 1986, p. 44.
^ Chevannes 1994, p. 109.
^ Chevannes 1994, p. 110.
^ Clarke 1986, p. 35; Grant 2008, p. 453; Edmonds 2012, p. 7.
^ Chevannes 1994, pp. 102–103.
^ Chevannes 1994, p. 100.
^ Chevannes 1994, pp. 100–101.
^ Chevannes 1994, p. 101.
^ Edmonds 2012, p. 60.
^ 32 Market Street, 16 March 2013.
^ “Bank of Jamaica | Coins”. Boj.org.jm. Retrieved 22 February 2019.
^ “Gov’t Declares August 17 Marcus Garvey Day”. Jamaican Information Service. Government of Jamaica. 17 August 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2018.
^ Bellafante, Ginia (1 June 2013). “In Marcus Garvey Village, a Housing Solution Gone Awry”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 6 July 2017.
^ “Marcus Garvey Apartments – Clean Energy Group”. Clean Energy Group. Retrieved 6 July 2017.
^ Walker, Karyl, “No Pardon for Garvey Archived 8 November 2011 at the Wayback Machine”, Jamaica Observer, 21 August 2011.
^ Castle, Stan (3 April 2012). “Marcus Garvey Movie Biopic In The Works”. Atlanta Black Star. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
^ “Kevin Navayne to Star in Marcus Garvey Biopic”. The Reel Network. 21 May 2014. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
^ Rao, Sameer (7 December 2015). “Delroy Lindo to Star as Marcus Garvey in Upcoming Biopic”. ColorLines. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
^ Taylor, F. (16 December 2015). “Actor Delroy Lindo to Play the Great Marcus Garvey in Upcoming Biographical Movie to Be Released..When?”. Urban Intellectuals. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
^ “a book review by E. Ethelbert Miller: The Strivers’ Row Spy”. www.nyjournalofbooks.com. Retrieved 20 April 2020.
^ THE STRIVERS’ ROW SPY | Kirkus Reviews.
^ “Author Interview – Jason Overstreet, author of The Strivers’ Row Spy”. BookPage.com. Retrieved 20 April 2020.

Sources

Asante, Molefi Kete (2002). 100 Greatest African Americans: A Biographical Encyclopedia. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-963-8.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Barnett, Michael (2006). “Differences and Similarities Between the Rastafari Movement and the Nation of Islam”. Journal of Black Studies. 36 (6): 873–893. doi:10.1177/0021934705279611. JSTOR 40034350.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Barrett, Leonard E. (1997) . The Rastafarians. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807010396.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Carter, Shawn (2002). “The Economic Philosophy of Marcus Garvey”. Western Journal of Black Studies. 26 (1): 1–5.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Cashmore, E. Ellis (1983). Rastaman: The Rastafarian Movement in England (second ed.). London: Counterpoint. ISBN 978-0-04-301164-5.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Chapman, Thandeka K. (2004). “Foundations of Multicultural Education: Marcus Garvey and the United Negro Improvement Association”. The Journal of Negro Education. 73 (4): 424–434. doi:10.2307/4129626. JSTOR 4129626.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Chevannes, Barry (1994). Rastafari: Roots and Ideology. Utopianism and Communitarianism Series. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0815602965.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Christian, Mark (2008). “Marcus Garvey and African Unity: Lessons for the Future From the Past”. Journal of Black Studies. 39 (2). pp. 316–331.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Clarke, John Henrik (1974). “Marcus Garvey: The Harlem Years”. Transition (46). pp. 14–19. JSTOR 2934951.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Clarke, Peter B. (1986). Black Paradise: The Rastafarian Movement. New Religious Movements Series. Wellingborough: The Aquarian Press. ISBN 978-0-85030-428-2.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Coates, Ta-Nehisi (May 2008). “This Is How We Lost to the White Man”. The Atlantic. Retrieved 13 June 2019.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Cronon, Edmund David (1955). Black Moses: The Story of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Edmonds, Ennis B. (2012). Rastafari: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199584529.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Elkins, W. F. (1972). “Marcus Garvey, the “Negro World”, and the British West Indies: 1919-1920″. Science & Society. 36 (1). pp. 63–77. JSTOR 40401615.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Fergus, Claudius (2010). “From Prophecy to Policy: Marcus Garvey and the Evolution of Pan-African Citizenship”. The Global South. 4 (2). pp. 29–48. JSTOR . 10.2979/globalsouth.4.2.29 .CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Grant, Colin (2008). Negro with a Hat: The Rise and Fall of Marcus Garvey. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 978-0099501459.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Hart, Richard (1967). “The Life and Resurrection of Marcus Garvey”. Race. ix (2). pp. 217–237.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Ifekwe, B. Steiner (2008). “Rastafarianism in Jamaica as a Pan-African Protest Movement”. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria. 17: 106–122. JSTOR 41857150.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Martin, Tony (1983). Marcus Garvey: Hero. Dover, Mass.: Majority Press. ISBN 978-0912469058.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Martin, Tony (2001). Race First: The Ideological and Organizational Struggles of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association (Revised ed.). Dover, Mass.: Majority Press. ISBN 978-0912469232.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Moses, Wilson S. (1972). “Marcus Garvey: A Reappraisal”. The Black Scholar. 4 (3): 38–49. doi:10.1080/00064246.1972.11431283. JSTOR 41163608.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Soumahoro, Maboula (2007). “Christianity on Trial: The Nation of Islam and the Rastafari, 1930–1950″. In Theodore Louis Trost (ed.). The African Diaspora and the Study of Religion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 35–48. ISBN 978-1403977861.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)

External links

Marcus Garveyat Wikipedia’s sister projects

Media from Wikimedia Commons
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Data from Wikidata

BBC Radio 4 programme about Marcus Garvey – listen online:
Lanset, Andy, “Marcus Garvey: 20th Century Pan-Africanist”. A Public Radio Documentary online
Marcus Garvey at Find a Grave
Ayanna Gillian, “Garvey’s Legacy in Context: Colourism, Black Movements and African Nationalism”, Race and History, 17 August 2005
Marcus Garvey: Look for Me in the Whirlwind. PBS documentary film
UNIA website.
Marcus Garvey economic principles
Marcus Garvey speaks – text and audio
Poem – Ras Nasibu of the Ogaden
“Information – People: Marcus Garvey”, Black Atlantic Rersource, University of Liverpool.
Gunning for the Negro Moses from The Literary Digest, August, 1922
Newspaper clippings about Marcus Garvey in the 20th Century Press Archives of the ZBW

Pan-Africanism

Ideology

Variants	Afrocentrism African nationalism African socialism Black nationalism Garveyism Nkrumaism Sankarism Uhuru Movement Zikism
Concepts	African century Black Power Négritude Ubuntu Ujamaa United States of Africa

Proponents

Politicians

Nnamdi Azikiwe
Amílcar Cabral
David Comissiong
Jean-Jacques Dessalines
Anténor Firmin
Muammar Gaddafi
Marcus Garvey
Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof
Kenneth Kaunda
Modibo Keïta
Jomo Kenyatta
Toussaint Louverture
Patrice Lumumba
Samora Machel
Thabo Mbeki
Robert Mugabe
Abdias do Nascimento
Gamal Abdel Nasser
Kwame Nkrumah
Julius Nyerere
John Nyathi Pokela
Thomas Sankara
Ahmed Sékou Touré
Haile Selassie
Robert Sobukwe
I. T. A. Wallace-Johnson

Others

Marimba Ani
Molefi Kete Asante
Steve Biko
Edward Wilmot Blyden
Stokely Carmichael
Aimé Césaire
John Henrik Clarke
Martin R. Delany
Cheikh Anta Diop
W. E. B. Du Bois
Frantz Fanon
John G. Jackson
Leonard Jeffries
Yosef Ben-Jochannan
Maulana Karenga
Fela Kuti
Malcolm X
Zephania Mothopeng
George Padmore
Motsoko Pheko
Runoko Rashidi
Paul Robeson
Randall Robinson
Walter Rodney
Burning Spear
Issa Laye Thiaw
Frances Cress Welsing
Henry Sylvester Williams
Amos N. Wilson
Omali Yeshitela

Organizations

African Union
African Unification Front
All-African People’s Revolutionary Party
Conseil de l’Entente
Convention People’s Party
East African Community
Economic Freedom Fighters
International African Service Bureau
Organisation of African Unity
Pan African Association
Pan Africanist Congress of Azania
Rassemblement Démocratique Africain
Pan-African Freedom Movement for East and Central Africa
Popular and Social League of the Great Sahara Tribes
UNIA-ACL
ZANU–PF

Symbols

Black Star of Africa
Lion of Judah
Pan-African colours
Pan-African flag
The Unknown Maroon

African philosophy
African-American leftism
Africanization
All-African Peoples’ Conference
East African Federation
Kwanzaa
Union of African States
United States of Africa
United States of Latin Africa
Year of Africa

Pan-Africanism category · Africa category · Pan-Africanism portal · Africa portal

v t e Season of Emancipation in Barbados (April 14 to August 23)
Anniversary of Bussa’s rebellion National Heroes Day Crop Over Africa Day Day of National Significance Emancipation Day birthday of Marcus Garvey International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition

Season of Emancipation in Barbados (April 14 to August 23)

Anniversary of Bussa’s rebellion
National Heroes Day
Crop Over
Africa Day
Day of National Significance
Emancipation Day
birthday of Marcus Garvey
International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition

Authority control	BNF: cb11904225q (data) GND: 118716468 ISNI: 0000 0001 2127 2214 LCCN: n79074501 MusicBrainz: 074d02d9-570f-42e6-b08f-fc2270c2bc5a NARA: 10582472 NKC: kup19970000030489 NLI: 000292256 NTA: 068437935 SELIBR: 278633 SNAC: w6vt1sg1 SUDOC: 026882914 Trove: 830758 VIAF: 34456975 WorldCat Identities: lccn-n79074501

Sykes and Picot Agreement

bear — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:45:03 +0000

Sykes–Picot Agreement
Sykes Picot Agreement Map. It was an enclosure in Paul Cambon’s letter to Sir Edward Grey, 9 May 1916.
Created	May 1916
Author(s)	Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot
Signatories	Edward Grey and Paul Cambon
Purpose	Defining proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire

Excerpt from the Manchester Guardian, Monday, November 26, 1917, This was the first English-language reference to what became known as the Sykes Picot Agreement.

The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916. The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.

The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence. The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and Briton Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, “the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.”

1 Territorial allocations
2 British–Zionist discussions during the negotiations
3 Conflicting promises
4 Events after public disclosure of the plan
5 Release of classified records
6 Lloyd George’s explanation
7 Consequences of the agreement
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading

Territorial allocations

Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets. The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas. Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including the Sharif of Mecca.

British–Zionist discussions during the negotiations

Following the outbreak of World War I, Zionism was first discussed at a British Cabinet level on 9 November 1914, four days after Britain’s declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire. At a Cabinet meeting David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, “referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine.” Lloyd George’s law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionists to work on the Uganda Scheme. In a discussion after the meeting with fellow Zionist Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board, Lloyd George assured him that “he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine.” Samuel then outlined the Zionist position more fully in a conversation with Foreign Secretary Edward Grey. He spoke of Zionist aspirations for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish state, and of the importance of its geographical position to the British Empire. Samuel’s memoirs state: “I mentioned that two things would be essential—that the state should be neutralized, since it could not be large enough to defend itself, and that the free access of Christian pilgrims should be guaranteed. … I also said it would be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European power as neighbour than the Turk” The same evening, Prime Minister H. H. Asquith announced that the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire had become a war aim in a speech for the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at the Mansion House, “It is the Ottoman Government, and not we who have rung the death knell of Ottoman dominion not only in Europe but in Asia.”

In January 1915, Samuel submitted a Zionist memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine to the Cabinet after discussions with Weizmann and Lloyd George. On 5 February 1915, Samuel had another discussion with Grey: “When I asked him what his solution was he said it might be possible to neutralize the country under international guarantee … and to vest the government of the country in some kind of Council to be established by the Jews” After further conversations with Lloyd George and Grey, Samuel circulated a revised text to the Cabinet in mid-March 1915.

Zionism or the Jewish question were not considered by the report of the De Bunsen Committee, prepared to determine British wartime policy toward the Ottoman Empire, submitted in June 1915.

Prior to Sykes’s departure to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov in Petrograd on 27 February 1916, Sykes was approached with a plan by Samuel. The plan Samuel put forward was in the form of a memorandum which Sykes thought prudent to commit to memory and then destroy.[citation needed] Commenting on it, Sykes wrote to Samuel suggesting that if Belgium should assume the administration of Palestine it might be more acceptable to France as an alternative to the international administration which she wanted and the Zionists did not. Of the boundaries marked on a map attached to the memorandum he wrote:

“By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing centre of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd.”

Conflicting promises

Main article: The territorial reservations in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence

Lord Curzon said the Great Powers were still committed to the Reglement Organique Agreement regarding the Lebanon Vilayet of June 1861 and September 1864, and that the rights granted to France in the blue area under the Sykes–Picot Agreement were not compatible with that agreement. The Reglement Organique was an international agreement regarding governance and non-intervention in the affairs of the Maronite, Orthodox Christian, Druze, and Muslim communities.

In May 1917, W. Ormsby-Gore wrote

“French intentions in Syria are surely incompatible with the war aims of the Allies as defined to the Russian Government. If the self-determination of nationalities is to be the principle, the interference of France in the selection of advisers by the Arab Government and the suggestion by France of the Emirs to be selected by the Arabs in Mosul, Aleppo, and Damascus would seem utterly incompatible with our ideas of liberating the Arab nation and of establishing a free and independent Arab State. The British Government, in authorising the letters despatched to King Hussein [Sharif of Mecca] before the outbreak of the revolt by Sir Henry McMahon, would seem to raise a doubt as to whether our pledges to King Hussein as head of the Arab nation are consistent with French intentions to make not only Syria but Upper Mesopotamia another Tunis. If our support of King Hussein and the other Arabian leaders of less distinguished origin and prestige means anything it means that we are prepared to recognise the full sovereign independence of the Arabs of Arabia and Syria. It would seem time to acquaint the French Government with our detailed pledges to King Hussein, and to make it clear to the latter whether he or someone else is to be the ruler of Damascus, which is the one possible capital for an Arab State, which could command the obedience of the other Arabian Emirs.”

Many sources report that this agreement conflicted with the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence of 1915–1916. It has also been reported that the publication of the Sykes–Picot Agreement caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon. However the Sykes–Picot plan itself described how France and Great Britain were prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State, or Confederation of Arab States, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief within the zones marked A. and B. on the map. Nothing in the plan precluded rule through an Arab suzerainty in the remaining areas. The conflicts were a consequence of the private, post-war, Anglo-French Settlement of 1–4 December 1918. It was negotiated between British Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau and rendered many of the guarantees in the Hussein–McMahon agreement invalid. That settlement was not part of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Sykes was not affiliated with the Cairo office that had been corresponding with Sherif Hussein bin Ali, but Picot and Sykes visited the Hejaz in 1917 to discuss the agreement with Hussein. That same year he and a representative of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered a public address to the Central Syrian Congress in Paris on the non-Turkish elements of the Ottoman Empire, including liberated Jerusalem. He stated that the accomplished fact of the independence of the Hejaz rendered it almost impossible that an effective and real autonomy should be refused to Syria.

The greatest source of conflict was the Balfour Declaration, 1917 Lord Balfour wrote a memorandum from the Paris Peace Conference in which he asserted Britain’s rights suggested that other allies had implicitly rejected the Sykes–Picot agreement by adopting the system of mandates. It allowed for no annexations, trade preferences, or other advantages. He also stated that the Allies were committed to Zionism and had no intention of honoring their promises to the Arabs.

Eighty-five years later, in a 2002 interview with The New Statesman, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw observed “A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past. … The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one.”

Events after public disclosure of the plan

Russian claims in the Ottoman Empire were denied following the Bolshevik Revolution and the Bolsheviks released a copy of the Sykes–Picot Agreement (as well as other treaties). They revealed full texts in Izvestia and Pravda on 23 November 1917; subsequently, the Manchester Guardian printed the texts on November 26, 1917. This caused great embarrassment between the allies and growing distrust between them and the Arabs. The Zionists were similarly upset,[citation needed] with the Sykes–Picot Agreement becoming public only three weeks after the Balfour Declaration.

The Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918 pledged that Great Britain and France would “assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia by “setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations”. The French had reluctantly agreed to issue the declaration at the insistence of the British. Minutes of a British War Cabinet meeting reveal that the British had cited the laws of conquest and military occupation to avoid sharing the administration with the French under a civilian regime. The British stressed that the terms of the Anglo-French declaration had superseded the Sykes–Picot Agreement in order to justify fresh negotiations over the allocation of the territories of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine.

On 30 September 1918, supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to the Sharif of Mecca. He had been declared ‘King of the Arabs’ by a handful of religious leaders and other notables in Mecca. On 6 January 1920 Faisal initialed an agreement with Clemenceau which acknowledged ‘the right of Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation’. A Pan-Syrian Congress meeting in Damascus had declared an independent state of Syria on the 8th of March 1920. The new state included portions of Syria, Palestine, and northern Mesopotamia. King Faisal was declared the head of State. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal’s brother, was declared Regent of Mesopotamia.

The San Remo conference was hastily convened. Great Britain and France and Belgium all agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under customary international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention due to the lack of any League of Nations sanction for the mandates. In any event, its provisional independence was not mentioned, although it continued to be designated as a Class A Mandate.

France had decided to govern Syria directly, and took action to enforce the French Mandate of Syria before the terms had been accepted by the Council of the League of Nations. The French issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920. They deposed the indigenous Arab government, and removed King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. Great Britain also appointed a High Commissioner and established their own mandatory regime in Palestine, without first obtaining approval from the Council of the League of Nations, or obtaining the formal cession of the territory from the former sovereign, Turkey.

Attempts to explain the conduct of the Allies were made at the San Remo conference and in the Churchill White Paper of 1922. The White Paper stated the British position that Palestine was part of the excluded areas of “Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus”.

Release of classified records

Lord Grey had been the Foreign Secretary during the McMahon–Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, he made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British Government’s (Churchill’s) interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public.

Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were various assurances of Arab independence provided by Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener, the Viceroy of India, and others in the War Cabinet. The minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon, held on 5 December 1918 to discuss the various Palestine undertakings makes it clear that Palestine had not been excluded from the agreement with Hussein. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained:

“The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future … Great Britain and France – Italy subsequently agreeing—committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time … A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine ‘should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done—and this, of course, was a most important proviso—to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine.”

On 17 April 1964, The Times of London published excerpts from a secret memorandum that had been prepared by the Political Intelligence Department of the British Foreign Office for the British delegation to the Paris peace conference. The reference to Palestine said:

“With regard to Palestine, H.M.G. are committed by Sir Henry McMahon’s letter to the Sherif on October 24, 1915, to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab independence … but they have stated their policy regarding the Palestine Holy Place and Zionist colonization in their message to him of January 4, 1918.”

Another document, which was a draft statement for submission to the peace conference, but never submitted, noted:

“The whole of Palestine … lies within the limits which H.M.G. have pledged themselves to Sherif Husain that they will recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs.”

Lloyd George’s explanation

Zones of French (blue), British (red) and Russian (green) influence and control established by the Sykes–Picot Agreement. At a Downing Street meeting of 16 December 1915 Sykes had declared “I should like to draw a line from the e in Acre to the last k in Kirkuk.”

The British Notes taken during a ‘Council of Four Conference Held in the Prime Minister’s Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919, at 3 p.m.’ shed further light on the matter. Lord Balfour was in attendance, when Lloyd George explained the history behind the agreements. The notes revealed that:

‘[T]he blue area in which France was “allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they may desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States” did not include Damascus, Homs, Hama, or Aleppo. In area A. France was “prepared to recognise and uphold an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States’.
Since the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, the whole mandatory system had been adopted. If a mandate were granted by the League of Nations over these territories, all that France asked was that France should have that part put aside for her.
Lloyd George said that he could not do that. The League of Nations could not be used for putting aside our bargain with King Hussein. He asked if M. Pichon intended to occupy Damascus with French troops. If he did, it would clearly be a violation of the Treaty with the Arabs. M. Pichon said that France had no convention with King Hussein. Lloyd George said that the whole of the agreement of 1916 (Sykes–Picot), was based on a letter from Sir Henry McMahon’ to King Hussein.
Lloyd George, continuing, said that it was on the basis of the above quoted letter that King Hussein had put all his resources into the field which had helped us most materially to win the victory. France had for practical purposes accepted our undertaking to King Hussein in signing the 1916 agreement. This had not been M. Pichon, but his predecessors. He was bound to say that if the British Government now agreed that Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo should be included in the sphere of direct French influence, they would be breaking faith with the Arabs, and they could not face this.

Lloyd George was particularly anxious for M. Clemenceau to follow this. The agreement of 1916 had been signed subsequent to the letter to King Hussein. In the following extract from the agreement of 1916 France recognised Arab independence: “It is accordingly understood between the French and British Governments.-(1) That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognise and uphold an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States in the areas A. and B. marked on the annexed map under the suzerainty of an Arab Chief.” Hence France, by this act, practically recognised our agreement with King Hussein by excluding Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo from the blue zone of direct administration, for the map attached to the agreement showed that Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo were included, not in the zone of direct administration, but in the independent Arab State. M. Pichon said that this had never been contested, but how could France be bound by an agreement the very existence of which was unknown to her at the time when the 1916 agreement was signed? In the 1916 agreement France had not in any way recognised the Hejaz. She had undertaken to uphold “an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States”, but not the Kingdom of Hejaz. If France was promised a mandate for Syria, she would undertake to do nothing except in agreement with the Arab State or Confederation of States. This is the role which France demanded in Syria. If Great Britain would only promise her good offices, he believed that France could reach an understanding with Feisal.’

Consequences of the agreement

The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western–Arab relations. It negated the promises made to Arabs through Colonel T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire.

The agreement’s principal terms were reaffirmed by the inter-Allied San Remo Conference of 19–26 April 1920 and the ratification of the resulting League of Nations mandates by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claims one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. “This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders,” a jihadist from the ISIL warned in the video called End of Sykes-Picot. ISIL’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a July 2014 speech at the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul vowed that “this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes–Picot conspiracy”.

The Franco-German geographer Christophe Neff wrote that the geopolitical architecture founded by the Sykes–Picot Agreement has disappeared in July 2014 and with it the relative protection of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. He claims furthermore that Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has in some way restructured the geopolitical structure of the Middle East in summer 2014, particularly in Syria and Iraq. The former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has presented a similar geopolitical analysis in an editorial contribution for the French newspaper Le Monde.

References

^ Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Owl. pp. 286, 288. ISBN 0-8050-6884-8.
^ The Middle East in the twentieth century, Martin Sicker
^ http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS094.pdf p. 8.
^ Peter Mansfield, British Empire magazine, Time-Life Books, no 75, p. 2078
^ Peter Mansfield, The British Empire magazine, no. 75, Time-Life Books, 1973
^ a b c d e Text of the Sykes–Picot Agreement at the WWI Document Archive
^ a b c d Grooves Of Change: A Book Of Memoirs, Herbert Samuel
^ Britain’s Moment in the Middle East, 1914-1956, Elizabeth Monroe, p26
^ Conservative Party attitudes to Jews, 1900–1950, Harry Defries
^ a b A Broken Trust: Sir Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians, Sarah Huneidi, p261
^ Samuel, Grooves of Change, p174
^ J Schneers, “Balfour Declaration” (London 2012)[this quote needs a citation]
^ Samuel, Grooves of Change, p176
^ In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth, Elie Kedourie
^ The high walls of Jerusalem: a history of the Balfour Declaration and the birth of the British mandate for Palestine, 1984, p346
^ CAB 27/24, E.C. 41 War Cabinet Eastern Committee Minutes, December 5, 1918
^ See UK National Archives CAB/24/143, Eastern Report, No. XVIII, May 31, 1917
^ See CAB 24/271, Cabinet Paper 203(37)
^ see paragraph 1 of The Sykes–Picot Agreement
^ Allenby and British Strategy in the Middle East, 1917–1919, Matthew Hughes, Taylor & Francis, 1999, ISBN 0-7146-4473-0, pages 122–124
^ Isaiah Friedman, Palestine, a Twice-promised Land?: The British, the Arabs & Zionism, 1915–1920 (Transaction Publishers 2000), ISBN 1-56000-391-X, p.166
^ Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918. Supplement 1, The World War Volume I, Part I: The continuation and conclusion of the war—participation of the United States, p.243
^ Document 242, Memorandum by Mr.Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, 11 August 1919, in E.L.Woodward and Rohan Butler, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939. (London: HM Stationery Office, 1952), ISBN 0-11-591554-0, p.340–348,
^ New Statesman Interview – Jack Straw
^ http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS094.pdf p. 9.
^ See Allenby and General Strategy in the Middle East, 1917–1919, By Matthew Hughes, Taylor & Francis, 1999, ISBN 0-7146-4473-0, 113-118
^ Jordan: Living in the Crossfire, Alan George, Zed Books, 2005, ISBN 1-84277-471-9, page 6
^ Britain, the Hashemites and Arab Rule, 1920–1925, by Timothy J. Paris, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0-7146-5451-5, page 69
^ see for example International Law, Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, edited by Elihu Lauterpacht, CUP Archive, 1970, ISBN 0-521-21207-3, page 116 and Statehood and the Law of Self-determination, D. Raič, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, ISBN 90-411-1890-X, page 95
^ Report of a Committee Set Up To Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and The Sharif of Mecca
^ cited in “Palestine Papers, 1917–1922″, Doreen Ingrams, page 48 from the UK Archive files PRO CAB 27/24.
^ “Light on Britain’s Palestine Promise”. The Times. April 17, 1964. pp. 15–16.
^ Elie Kedourie (April 23, 1964). “Promises on Palestine (letter)”. The Times. p. 13.
^ A Line in the Sand, James Barr, p.12
^ ‘The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, page 1′
^ ‘The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, page 6′
^ The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, Page 7
^ The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, Page 8
^ Hawes, Director James (21 October 2003). Lawrence of Arabia: The Battle for the Arab World. PBS Home Video. Interview with Kamal Abu Jaber, former Foreign Minister of Jordan.
^ [“This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders,” a jihadist from …]”. www.theguardian.com. The Guardian. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
^ “Watch this English-speaking ISIS fighter explain how a 98-year-old colonial map created today’s conflict”. LA Daily News. 7 February 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
^ Phillips, David L. “Extremists in Iraq need a history lesson”. CNBC.
^ Tran, Mark and Weaver, Matthew (30 June 2014). “Isis announces Islamic caliphate in area straddling Iraq and Syria”. The Guardian. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
^ “Exclusive: First Appearance of ISIS Caliph in Iraq Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi (English Subtitles)”. LiveLeak.com. 5 July 2014. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
^ Zen, Eretz. “Is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi the Man in the Recent ISIL Video?”. YouTube.com. We have now trespassed the borders that were drawn by the malicious hands in lands of Islam in order to limit our movements and confine us inside them. And we are working, Allah permitting, to eliminate them (borders). And this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes-Picot conspiracy.(transl.)
^ “Bientôt le souvenir de l’église catholique chaldéenne et des églises syriaques (orthodoxes & catholiques) sera plus qu’un souffle de vent chaud dans le désert (In French)”. paysages in LeMonde.fr. Retrieved August 10, 2014.
^ “Yazidis d’Irak – le cri d’angoisse d’une députée du parlement irakien (In French)”. paysages in LeMonde.fr. Retrieved August 10, 2014.
^ “” Ne laissons pas le Moyen-Orient à la barbarie ! ” par Dominique de Villepin (In French)”. LeMonde.fr. Retrieved August 10, 2014.

Mark Sykes

bear — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:37:25 +0000

Sir Mark Sykes, Bt
Photo 1918 approximately
Born	Tatton Benvenuto Mark Sykes (1879-03-16)16 March 1879 England
Died	16 February 1919(1919-02-16) (aged 39) Hotel Lotti, Paris, France
Cause of death	Spanish Flu
Resting place	St Mary’s Church, Sledmere, East Riding of Yorkshire, England
Known for	Conservative Party politician, diplomatic adviser, and traveller
Spouse(s)	Edith Gorst; 6 children

Colonel Sir Mark Sykes, 6th Baronet (born Tatton Benvenuto Mark Sykes; 16 March 1879 – 16 February 1919) was an English traveller, Conservative Party politician and diplomatic adviser, particularly with regard to the Middle East at the time of the First World War. He is associated with the Sykes-Picot Agreement, drawn up while the war was in progress, regarding the apportionment of postwar spheres of interest in the Ottoman Empire to Britain, France and Russia.

1 Early life
2 The Boer War, travels and Parliament
3 Protégé of Kitchener
4 Britain’s strategic conundrum
5 The Balfour Declaration
6 Death
7 Exhumation for biological research
8 Media representation
9 Notes
- 9.1 Bibliography
  - 9.1.1 Manuscripts
  - 9.1.2 Sources
10 External links

Early life

Mark Sykes was the only child of Sir Tatton Sykes, 5th Baronet, who, when a 48-year-old wealthy bachelor, married Christina Anne Jessica Cavendish-Bentinck, 30 years his junior. Several accounts suggest that his future mother-in-law essentially trapped Tatton Sykes into marrying Christina. They were reportedly an unhappy couple. After spending large amounts of money paying off his wife’s debts, Tatton Sykes published a notice in the papers disavowing her future debts and legally separating from her.

Lady Sykes lived in London, and Mark divided his time between her home and his father’s 30,000 acre (120 km²) East Riding of Yorkshire estates. Their seat was Sledmere House. Lady Sykes converted to Roman Catholicism and Mark was brought into that faith from the age of three.

Mark Sykes was left much to his own devices and developed an imagination, without the corresponding self-discipline to make him a good scholar. Most winters he travelled with his father to the Middle East, especially the Ottoman Empire. In 1897 he was commissioned into the 3rd (Militia) Battalion, the Green Howards.

Sykes was educated at the Jesuit Beaumont College and St John’s College, Cambridge. By the age of twenty-five, Sykes had published at least four books; D’Ordel’s Pantechnicon (1904), a parody of the magazines of the period (illustrated by Edmund Sandars); D’Ordel’s Tactics and Military Training (1904), a parody of the Infantry Drill Book of 1896 (also with Sandars); and two travel books, Dar-Ul-Islam (The Home of Islam, 1904) and Through Five Turkish Provinces (1900). He also wrote The Caliphs’ Last Heritage: A Short History of the Turkish Empire, the first half of which is a brief overview of political geography of the Middle East up to the Ottoman Empire while the second half is an account of the author’s travels in Asia Minor and the Middle East between 1906 and 1913.

The Boer War, travels and Parliament

Heir to vast Yorkshire estates and a baronetcy, Sykes was not content to await his inheritance. He served with the 3rd (Militia) Battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment in the Second Boer War for two years, where he was engaged mostly in guard duty, but saw action on several occasions. Following the war, he was promoted to captain on 28 February 1902, and returned to the United Kingdom in May the same year. He travelled extensively, especially in the Middle East.

From 1904 to 1905 he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, George Wyndham. Later he served as honorary attaché to the British Embassy in Constantinople.

Sykes was very much a Yorkshire grandee, with his country seat at Sledmere House, breeding racehorses, sitting on the bench, raising and commanding a militia unit and fulfilling his social obligations. He married Edith Gorst, also a Roman Catholic. It was a happy union, and they had six children. Sykes succeeded to the baronetcy and the estates in 1913.

Sykes caricatured by WH for Vanity Fair, 1912

In 1911, Sykes was elected as Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Hull Central, after two close, but unsuccessful, tries in another constituency. He became close to Lord Hugh Cecil, another MP and was a contemporary of the volatile F. E. Smith, later Lord Birkenhead, and Hilaire Belloc, a naturalised British citizen from France.

Sykes was also a friend of Aubrey Herbert, another Englishman influential in Middle Eastern affairs, and was acquainted with Gertrude Bell, the pro-Arab Foreign Office advisor and Middle Eastern traveller. Sykes was never as single-minded an advocate of the Arab cause as Bell, and her friends T. E. Lawrence and Sir Percy Cox. His sympathies and interests later extended to Armenians, Arabs and Jews, as well as Turks. This is reflected in the Turkish Room he had installed in Sledmere House, using the noted Armenian ceramic artist David Ohannessian as designer.

Protégé of Kitchener

When the First World War broke out, Lieutenant-Colonel Sykes was commanding officer of a reserve unit, the 5th Battalion of the Green Howards. However he did not lead them into battle, as his particular talents were needed in the War Office working for Lord Kitchener, the Secretary of State for War. Kitchener placed him on the de Bunsen Committee advising the Cabinet on Middle Eastern affairs. Although Sykes never got to know Kitchener well, they shared a similar outlook, and Sykes had his confidence. He was soon the dominant person on the Committee, and so gained great influence on British Middle Eastern policy. Upon Sykes’s instigation, but not completely according to his wishes, the Arab Bureau was created. It was Sykes and his fellows in this group who revived ancient Greek and Roman names for Middle Eastern regions. Such terms in common use today include “Syria”, “Palestine”, “Iraq” and “Mesopotamia”. He also designed the Flag of the Arab Revolt, a combination of green, red, black and white. Variations on his design are today the flags of Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and the P.L.O which did not exist as nationalities before the First World War.

Britain’s strategic conundrum

Riflemen carrying the flag of the Arab Revolt

Sykes had long agreed with the traditional policy of British Conservatives in propping up the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) as a buffer against Russian expansion into the Mediterranean. Britain feared that Russia had designs on India, its most important colonial possession. A Russian fleet in the Mediterranean might cut British sea routes to India. British statesmen of the Conservative Party, such as Palmerston, Disraeli and Salisbury had held this view. The 19th century Liberal Party leader, William Ewart Gladstone, was much more critical of the Ottoman government, deploring its misgovernment and periodic slaughter of minorities, especially Christian ones. A Liberal successor, David Lloyd George, shared these views.

Since Britain was now at war with Turkey, a major rethinking of policy was needed. Sykes, through his connection with Kitchener, was at the centre of this. Two conflicting positions were soon apparent. Some favoured the Arab cause in postwar settlements at the expense of Turkey, seeing the value of friendly client states in the coastal areas along the sea route to India and in the Persian Gulf which was assuming a new importance now that the Royal Navy had converted its ships to oil from coal. Others saw the need to retain a strong Turkey lest Russia enter the vacuum and seize Constantinople and the Straits.

Compounding this was the desire of France to secure lands in the Middle East, especially in Syria, where there was a significant Christian minority. Another ally, Italy, advanced claims to Aegean Islands and protection of Christian minorities in Asia Minor. Then Russian claims had to be considered, particularly with respect to control of the Straits leading from the Black Sea to the Aegean and protection of the Christian population of Turkish Armenia and the Black Sea coast.

Another problem was the desire of Greece to acquire historic Byzantine territories in Asia Minor and Thrace, claims that conflicted with those of Russia and Italy, as well as Turkey. The British Prime Minister (1916–1922), David Lloyd George, favoured the Greek cause. Complicating this was the desire of Zionists to have a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

It was the special role of Sykes to hammer out an agreement with Britain’s most important ally, France, which was shouldering a disproportionate part of the effort against Germany in the First World War. His French counterpart was François Georges-Picot and it is generally felt that Picot got a better deal than expected. Sykes came to feel this as well and it bothered him (see Sykes-Picot Agreement).

The Balfour Declaration

Evidence suggests that Sykes had a hand in promoting the Balfour Declaration issued on 2 November 1917. It stated that: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine…”

He would, however, later write to Faisal I of Iraq in which he expressed this view of the Jews: “… this race, despised and weak, is universal and all powerful and cannot be put down.”

Death

Sykes was in Paris in connection with peace negotiations in 1919. At the conference, a junior diplomat present, Harold Nicolson, described Sykes’ effect: “It was due to his endless push and perservance, to his enthusiasm and faith, that Arab nationalism and Zionism became two of the most successful of our war causes.”

He died in his room at the Hotel Lotti near the Tuileries Garden on 16 February 1919, aged 39, a victim of the Spanish flu pandemic. His remains were transported back to his family home at Sledmere House (in the East Riding of Yorkshire) for burial. Although he had been a Roman Catholic, he was buried in the churchyard of the local Anglican St. Mary’s church in Sledmere. Nahum Sokolow, a Russian Zionist colleague of Chaim Weizmann in Paris at this time, wrote that he “… fell as a hero at our side.”

He was succeeded by his son, Sir Richard Sykes, 7th Baronet (1905–1978). Another son, Christopher Sykes (1907–1986), was a distinguished author and official biographer of Evelyn Waugh. Sir Mark’s great-grandchildren include the New York-based fashion writer and novelist Plum Sykes and her twin sister, Lucy Sykes (Mrs. Euan Rellie), and their brother, writer Thomas (Tom) Sykes.

Sledmere House is still in the possession of the family, with Sir Mark’s eldest grandson Sir Tatton Sykes, 8th Baronet, being the current occupant. A brother is the photographer and writer Christopher Sykes; he or his son will eventually inherit the baronetcy.

Sykes was, among others like D. G. Hogarth and Henry McMahon, one of the inspirations for the character of Mr. Dryden (played by Claude Rains) in the film Lawrence of Arabia (1962).

Exhumation for biological research

In 2007, 88 years after Sir Mark Sykes died, all the living descendants gave their permission to exhume his body for scientific investigation headed by virologist John Oxford. His remains were exhumed in mid-September 2008. His remains were of interest because he had been buried in a lead-lined coffin, and this was thought likely to have preserved Spanish Flu viral particles intact. Any samples taken are to be used for research in the quest to develop defences against future influenza pandemics. The Spanish Flu virus itself became a human infection by a mutation of an avian virus called H1N1. There are only five other extant samples of the Spanish Flu virus. Professor Oxford’s team was expecting to find a well-preserved cadaver. However, the coffin was found to be split because of the weight of soil over it, and the cadaver was found to be badly decomposed. Nonetheless, samples of lung and brain tissue were taken through the split in the coffin, with the coffin remaining in situ in the grave during this process. Soon afterwards, the open grave was sealed again by refilling it with earth.

Media representation

Sledmere Cross

Sykes is a major feature in Balfour to Blair, a documentary about the history of British involvement in the Middle East.

The ‘Sledmere Cross’ takes the form of an Eleanor Cross and is a true ‘folly’ that Sir Mark Sykes ‘converted’ into a war memorial in 1919. He added a series of brass portraits in commemoration of his friends and the local men who fell in the war. He also added a brass portrait himself in crusader armour with the inscription “Laetare Jerusalem (Rejoice Jerusalem)”.

Notes

^ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, “Sir Mark Sykes bart.” (Oxford 2002)
^ [“The Yorkshire Regiment, WW1 Remembrance]”.
^ “Sykes, Sir Mark”. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/36394. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
^ [“The Caliphs’ Last Heritage complete online text]”.
^ [“The Caliphs’ Last Heritage bibliographical information]”.
^ The London Gazette: no. 27422. p. 2282. 4 April 1902.
^ “The War – Troops returning home” The Times (London). Monday, 28 April 1902. (36753), p. 8.
^ Easterly, William (27 February 2007). The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Penguin (Non-Classics). p. 295. ISBN 0-14-303882-6.
^ Balfour Declaration. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 12 August 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
^ It was a commonly held view of the time. Book review, Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., Politicalreviewnet.com/Middle East Policy Journal, quoting ‘Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate’, Tom Segev, Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company, New York, 2000
^ Body exhumed in fight against flu, BBC online, 16 September 2008.
^ Michael Hanlon Could digging up a general in a lead-lined coffin save the world? Daily Mail 11 April 2007.
^ BBC Four documentary. In Search of Spanish Flu
^ “Balfour to Blair”. Aljazeera. Retrieved 5 August 2014.

Bibliography

Manuscripts

Mark Sykes Papers – Hull University
Sir Mark Sykes Papers – Middle East Centre, St Anthony’s College, Oxford.

Sources

Adelson, Roger D. (1975). Mark Sykes: Portrait of an Amateur. London: Jonathan Cape.
Barr, James (2011). A Line in the Sand: Britain, France, and the Struggle that Shaped The Middle East. London: Simon & Schuster.
Daly, M.W. (1997). The Sirdar: Sir Reginald Wingate and the British Empire in the Middle East. Philadelphia.
Darwin, John (1981). Egypt and the Middle East Imperial Policy in the Aftermath of the War, 1918-22. New York.
Fisher, John (2002). Gentleman Spies: Intelligence Agents in the British Empire and Beyond. Stroud.
Fromkin, David (1990). A Peace To End All Peace. New York: Avon Books.
Leslie, Shane (1923). Mark Sykes: His Life and Letters. New York.
Morris, Benny (2001). Righteous Victims. New York: Vintage Books.
Norton, W.W. (2008). Kingmakers: the Invention of the Modern Middle East, Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac. New York.
Schneer, Jonathan (2010). The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. London: Bloomsbury.
Sykes, Christopher Simon (2005). The Big House: The Story of a Country House and Its Family. London: Harper Perennial.
Wallach, Janet (1999). Desert Queen. New York: Anchor Books.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Mark Sykes.

The papers of Sir Mark Sykes, 1879–1919: the Sykes-Picot Agreement & the Middle East
Villages of the Yorkshire Wolds:Sledmere
D’Ordel’s Pantechnicon
“Dead aristocrat’s hidden flu clue”. BBC News. 27 February 2007. Retrieved 8 August 2008.
Body exhumed in fight against flu

Parliament of the United Kingdom
Preceded by Henry Seymour King	Member of Parliament for Hull Central 1911–1919	Succeeded by Joseph Kenworthy
Baronetage of Great Britain
Preceded by Tatton Sykes	Baronet(of Sledmere)1913–1919	Succeeded by Mark Tatton Richard Tatton-Sykes

Authority control	WorldCat VIAF: 3569384 LCCN: n87901568 ISNI: 0000 0001 2208 3212 GND: 130045837 SUDOC: 07572328X

McMahon–Hussein Correspondence

bear — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:27:32 +0000

The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, or the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence, was an exchange of letters (14 July 1915 to 30 January 1916) during World War I, between the Sharif of Mecca, Husayn bin Ali, and Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, concerning the political status of lands under the Ottoman Empire. The Arab side was already looking toward a large revolt against the Ottoman Empire; the British encouraged the Arabs to revolt and thus hamper the Ottoman Empire, which had become a German ally in the War after November 1914.

The letters declared that the Arabs would revolt in alliance with the United Kingdom, and in return the UK would recognize Arab independence. Later, the 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement between France and UK was exposed showing that the two countries were planning to split and occupy parts of the promised Arab country.

The matter is discussed in the Peel report of 1937.

1 Origins and ramifications
- 1.1 The Damascus Protocol
- 1.2 The territorial reservations
- 1.3 The Arab Revolt
- 1.4 The Hogarth Message
- 1.5 Declaration to the Seven
- 1.6 Allenby’s assurance to Faisal
- 1.7 Anglo-French Declaration of 1918
- 1.8 Following World War I
  - 1.8.1 Independent Kingdom of Syria
  - 1.8.2 The League of Nations Mandates
  - 1.8.3 Lawrence’s post-war advocacy
2 Debate about Palestine
- 2.1 About the McMahon letter
- 2.2 About contradictory promises
  - 2.2.1 British Cabinet Eastern Committee
  - 2.2.2 Position of the British government
  - 2.2.3 The 1939 committee
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links

Origins and ramifications

The Damascus Protocol

Emir Faisal’s party at Versailles, during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. At the centre, from left to right: Rustum Haidar, Nuri as-Said, Prince Faisal, Captain Pisani (behind Faisal) T. E. Lawrence (known as “Lawrence of Arabia”), Faisal’s assistant (name unknown), Captain Tahsin Qadri.

Main article: Damascus Protocol

On his return journey from Istanbul in 1914, where Faisal bin Hussein had confronted the Grand Vizier with evidence of an Ottoman plot to depose his father (Husayn bin Ali), he decided to visit Damascus to resume talks with the Arab secret societies al-Fatat and Al-‘Ahd that he had met in March/April. On this occasion, Faisal joined their revolutionary movement. During this visit, he was presented with the document that became known as the ‘Damascus Protocol’. The documents declared that the Arabs would revolt in alliance with the United Kingdom, and in return the UK would recognize the Arab independence in an area running from the 37th parallel near the Taurus Mountains on the southern border of Turkey, to be bounded in the east by Persia and the Persian Gulf, in the west by the Mediterranean Sea and in the south by the Arabian Sea.

Early in April 1914 Abdullah I bin al-Hussein (the second of three sons of Sherif Hussein bin Ali) asked the British High Commissioner in Cairo what would be the British attitude if the Arab Ottomans revolted. The British response based on its traditional policy of preserving “the integrity of the Ottoman Empire” was negative. However, the entry of the Ottomans on Germany’s side in World War I on 11 November 1914 brought about an abrupt shift in British political interests concerning an Arab revolt against the Ottomans.

Following deliberations at Ta’if between Hussein and his sons in June 1915, during which Faisal counselled caution, Sherif Husayn bin Ali argued against rebellion and Abdullah advocated action and encouraged his father to enter into correspondence with Sir Henry McMahon, the Sharif set a tentative date for armed revolt for June 1916 and commenced negotiations with the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon.

The territorial reservations

“Districts” according to the McMahon letter and their administrative category in the Ottoman Empire

The letter from McMahon to Hussein dated 24 October 1915 declared Britain’s willingness to recognize the independence of the Arabs subject to certain exemptions:

The districts of Mersina and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, cannot be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be excepted from the proposed limits and boundaries. With the above modification and without prejudice to our existing treaties concluded with Arab Chiefs, we accept these limits and boundaries, and in regard to the territories therein in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to interests of her ally France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurance and make the following reply to your letter: Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca.

Declassified British Cabinet Papers include a telegram dated 19 October 1915 from Sir Henry McMahon to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey, requesting instructions. McMahon said the clause had been suggested by a man named al Faroqi, a member of the Abd party, to satisfy the demands of the Syrian Nationalists for the independence of Arabia. Faroqi had said that the Arabs would fight if the French attempted to occupy the cities of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, but he thought they would accept some modification of the North-Western boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca. Faroqi suggested the language: “In so far as Britain was free to act without detriment to the interests of her present Allies, Great Britain accepts the principle of the independence of Arabia within limits propounded by the Sherif of Mecca.” Lord Grey authorized McMahon to pledge the areas requested by the Sherif subject to the reserve for the Allies.

In the areas with Maronite, Orthodox, and Druze populations the Great Powers were still bound by an international agreement regarding non-intervention, the Reglement Organique Agreements of June 1861 and September 1864. During a War Cabinet meeting on policy regarding Syria and Palestine held on 5 December 1918, it was stated that Palestine had been included in the areas the United Kingdom had pledged would be Arab and independent in the future. The Chair, Lord Curzon, also noted that the rights that had been granted to the French under the terms of the Sykes–Picot Agreement violated the provisions of the Reglement Organique Agreements and the war aims of the other Allies. (The publication of the Sykes–Picot Agreement caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon.)

In a Cabinet analysis of diplomatic developments prepared in May 1917, W. Ormsby-Gore argued that:

French intentions in Syria are surely incompatible with the war aims of the Allies as defined to the Russian Government. If the self-determination of nationalities is to be the principle, the interference of France in the selection of advisers by the Arab Government and the suggestion by France of the Emirs to be selected by the Arabs in Mosul, Aleppo, and Damascus would seem utterly incompatible with our ideas of liberating the Arab nation and of establishing a free and independent Arab State. The British Government, in authorising the letters despatched to King Hussein before the outbreak of the revolt by Sir Henry McMahon, would seem to raise a doubt as to whether our pledges to King Hussein as head of the Arab nation are consistent with French intentions to make not only Syria but Upper Mesopotamia another Tunis. If our support of King Hussein and the other Arabian leaders of less distinguished origin and prestige means anything it means that we are prepared to recognise the full sovereign independence of the Arabs of Arabia and Syria. It would seem time to acquaint the French Government with our detailed pledges to King Hussein, and to make it clear to the latter whether he or someone else is to be the ruler of Damascus, which is the one possible capital for an Arab State, which could command the obedience of the other Arabian Emirs.

The Arab Revolt

Main article: Arab Revolt

McMahon’s promises were seen by the Arabs as a formal agreement between them and the United Kingdom. Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour represented the agreement as a treaty during the post war deliberations of the Council of Four. On this understanding the Arabs established a military force under the command of Hussein’s son Faisal which fought, with inspiration from ‘Lawrence of Arabia’, against the Ottoman Empire during the Arab Revolt. In an intelligence memo written in January 1916 Lawrence described the Arab Revolt as

beneficial to us, because it marches with our immediate aims, the break up of the Islamic ‘bloc’ and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and because the states [Sharif Hussein] would set up to succeed the Turks would be … harmless to ourselves … The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If properly handled they would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of small jealous principalities incapable of cohesion (emphasis in original).

The Arab Revolt began in June 1916, when an Arab army of around 70,000 men moved against Ottoman forces. They participated in the capture of Aqabah and the severing of the Hejaz railway, a vital strategic link through the Arab peninsula which ran from Damascus to Medina. This enabled the Egyptian Expeditionary Force under the command of General Allenby to advance into the Ottoman territories of Palestine and Syria.

The British advance culminated in the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918 and the capitulation of Turkey on 31 October 1918.

The Hogarth Message

In January 1918 Commander David Hogarth, head of the Arab Bureau in Cairo, was dispatched to Jeddah to deliver a letter written by Sir Mark Sykes on behalf of the British Government to Hussein (now King of Hejaz). The message assured Hussein that

The Entente Powers are determined that the Arab race shall be given full opportunity of once again forming a nation in the world. This can only be achieved by the Arabs themselves uniting, and Great Britain and her Allies will pursue a policy with this ultimate unity in view.

and with respect to Palestine and in the light of the Balfour Declaration that

Since the Jewish opinion of the world is in favour of a return of Jews to Palestine and in as much as this opinion must remain a constant factor, and further as His Majesty’s Government view with favour the realisation of this aspiration, His Majesty’s Government are determined that insofar as is compatible with the freedom of the existing population both economic and political, no obstacle should be put in the way of the realisation of this ideal.

The meaning of the Hogarth message, and in particular whether it modified the commitments made in the Balfour Declaration is still debated, although Hogarth reported that Hussein “would not accept an independent Jewish State in Palestine, nor was I instructed to warn him that such a state was contemplated by Great Britain”.

The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement did not call for Arab sovereignty, but the French and British agreement did call for ‘suzerainty of an Arab chief’ and ‘an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the sheriff of mecca. Under the terms of that agreement, the Zionist Organization needed to secure an agreement along the lines of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement with the Sharif of Mecca.

Declaration to the Seven

Main article: Declaration to the Seven

In light of the existing McMahon–Hussein correspondence, but in the wake of the seemingly competing Balfour Declaration for the Zionists, as well as the publication weeks later by the Bolsheviks of the older and previously secret Sykes–Picot Agreement with the Russians and French, seven Syrian notables in Cairo, from the newly formed Party of Syrian Unity, issued a memorandum requesting some clarification from the British Government, including a “guarantee of the ultimate independence of Arabia”. In response, issued on 16 June 1918, the Declaration to the Seven, stated the British policy that the future government of the regions of the Ottoman Empire occupied by Allied forces in World War I should be based on the consent of the governed.

Allenby’s assurance to Faisal

On 19 October 1918, General Allenby reported to the British Government that he had given Faisal,

official assurance that whatever measures might be taken during the period of military administration they were purely provisional and could not be allowed to prejudice the final settlement by the peace conference, at which no doubt the Arabs would have a representative. I added that the instructions to the military governors would preclude their mixing in political affairs, and that I should remove them if I found any of them contravening these orders. I reminded the Amir Faisal that the Allies were in honour bound to endeavour to reach a settlement in accordance with the wishes of the peoples concerned and urged him to place his trust whole-heartedly in their good faith.

Anglo-French Declaration of 1918

Main article: Anglo-French Declaration

In the Anglo-French Declaration of 7 November 1918 the two governments stated that

The object aimed at by France and the United Kingdom in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by the ambition of Germany is the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.

According to civil servant Eyre Crowe who saw the original draft of the Declaration, “we had issued a definite statement against annexation in order (1) to quiet the Arabs and (2) to prevent the French annexing any part of Syria”.

Following World War I

During the war, thousands of proclamations were dropped in all parts of Palestine, which carried a message from the Sharif Hussein on one side and a message from the British Command on the other, to the effect ‘that an Anglo-Arab agreement had been arrived at securing the independence of the Arabs.’

It was a well known fact that France wanted a Syrian protectorate. At the Peace Conference in 1919, Prince Faisal, speaking on behalf of King Hussein, did not ask for immediate Arab independence. He recommended an Arab State under a British Mandate.

Independent Kingdom of Syria

On 6 January 1920 Prince Faisal initialed an agreement with French Prime Minister Clemenceau which acknowledged ‘the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation’. A Pan-Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus, declared an independent state of Syria on 8 March 1920. The new state included portions of Syria, Palestine, and northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes–Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state, or confederation of states. King Faisal was declared the head of State. The San Remo conference was hastily convened, and the United Kingdom and France both agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while ‘reluctantly’ claiming mandates to assist in their administration. Provisional recognition of Palestinian independence was not mentioned, despite the fact that it was designated a Class A Mandate.

France had decided to govern Syria directly, and took action to enforce the French Mandate of Syria before the terms had been accepted by the Council of the League of Nations. The French intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920. They deposed the indigenous Arab government, and removed King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. The United Kingdom also appointed a High Commissioner and established their own mandatory regime in Palestine, without first obtaining approval from the Council of the League of Nations.

The League of Nations Mandates

The Sykes–Picot Agreement between Britain, France and Russia of May 1916 (made public by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution) pre-dated the establishment of the League of Nations Mandate system. After the war, France and Britain continued to provide assurances of Arab independence, while planning to place the entire region under their own administration.

United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing was a member of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace at Paris in 1919. He explained that the system of mandates was simply a device created by the Great Powers to conceal their division of the spoils of war, under the color of international law. If the territories had been ceded directly, the value of the former German and Ottoman territories would have been applied to offset the Allies claims for war reparations. He also explained that Jan Smuts had been the author of the original concept.

At the Paris Peace Conference, US Secretary of State Lansing had asked Dr. Weizmann if the Jewish national home meant the establishment of an autonomous Jewish government. The head of the Zionist delegation had replied in the negative.

Lawrence’s post-war advocacy

Lawrence became increasingly guilt-ridden by the knowledge that Britain did not intend to abide by the commitments made to the Sharif, but still managed to convince Faisal that it would be to the Arabs’ advantage to go on fighting the Ottomans. At the Versailles peace conference in 1919 and the Cairo conference in 1921 Lawrence lobbied for Arab independence, but his belated attempts to maintain the territorial integrity of Arab lands, which he had promised to Hussein and Faisal, and in limiting France’s influence in what later became Syria and Lebanon were fruitless. However, as Churchill’s adviser on Arab affairs (1921–2) Lawrence was able to lobby for a considerable degree of autonomy for Mesopotamia and Transjordan. The British placed Palestine, promised to the Zionist Federation in 1917, under mandate with a civilian administration headed by Herbert Samuel, and divided their remaining territory in the Middle East into the kingdoms of Iraq and Transjordan, assigning them to Faisal and his brother Abdullah, respectively.

Debate about Palestine

About the McMahon letter

The debate regarding Palestine derived from the fact that it is not explicitly mentioned in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, but is included within the boundaries that were proposed by Hussein.

The Arab position was that “portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo…” could not refer to Palestine since that lay well to the south of the named places. In particular, the Arabs argued that the vilayet (province) of Damascus did not exist and that the district (sanjak) of Damascus covered only the area surrounding the city itself and furthermore that Palestine was part of the vilayet of ‘Syria A-Sham’, which was not mentioned in the exchange of letters. The British position, which it held consistently at least from 1916, was that Palestine was intended to be included in the phrase. Each side produced supporting arguments for their positions based on fine details of the wording and the historical circumstances of the correspondence. For example, the Arab side argued that the phrase “cannot be said to be purely Arab” did not apply to Palestine, while the British pointed to the Jewish and Christian minorities in Palestine.

Balfour had come under criticism in the House of Commons, when the Liberals and Labor Socialists moved a resolution ‘That secret treaties with the allied governments should be revised, since, in their present form, they are inconsistent with the object for which this country entered the war and are, therefore, a barrier to a democratic peace.’

In response to growing criticism arising from the mutually irreconcilable commitments undertaken by the United Kingdom in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, the Sykes–Picot Agreement and the Balfour declaration the 1922 Churchill White Paper stated that

it is not the case, as has been represented by the Arab Delegation, that during the war His Majesty’s Government gave an undertaking that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine. This representation mainly rests upon a letter dated 24 October 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, then His Majesty’s High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz. That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon’s pledge.

In a 1922 letter to Sir John Shuckburgh of the British Colonial Office, McMahon wrote the following: “It was my intention to exclude Palestine from independent Arabia, and I hoped that I had so worded the letter as to make this sufficiently clear for all practical purposes. My reasons for restricting myself to specific mention of Damascus, Hama, Homs and Aleppo in that connection in my letter were: 1) that these were places to which the Arabs attached vital importance and 2) that there was no place I could think of at the time of sufficient importance for purposes of definition further South of the above. It was as fully my intention to exclude Palestine as it was to exclude the more Northern coastal tracts of Syria.”[citation needed]

About contradictory promises

British Cabinet Eastern Committee

Historians and scholars searching through the declassified files in the National Archives discovered evidence that Palestine had been pledged to Hussein. The Eastern Committee of the Cabinet, previously known as the Middle Eastern Committee, had met on 5 December 1918 to discuss the government’s commitments regarding Palestine. Lord Curzon chaired the meeting. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained:

“The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . the United Kingdom and France – Italy subsequently agreeing – committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine ‘should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done – and this, of course, was a most important proviso – to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine.”

Position of the British government

In subsequent decades the British government maintained that the Balfour Declaration was not inconsistent with the McMahon pledges. This position was based an examination of the correspondence made in 1920 by Major Hubert Young. He noted that in the original Arabic text (the correspondence was conducted in Arabic on both sides), the word translated as “districts” in English was “vilayets”, a vilayet being the largest class of administrative district into which the Ottoman Empire was divided. He concluded that “district of Damascus”, i.e., “vilayet of Damascus”, must have referred to the vilayet of which Damascus was the capital, the Vilayet of Syria. This vilayet extended southward to the Gulf of Aqaba, but excluded most of Palestine. The weak points of the government’s interpretation were nevertheless acknowledged in a memorandum by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Halifax, in 1939:

(i) the fact that the word “district” is applied not only to Damascus, &c., where the reading of vilayet is at least arguable, but also immediately previously to Mersina and Alexandretta. No vilayets of these names exist…and it would be difficult to argue that the word “districts” can have two completely different meanings in the space of a few lines.
(ii) the fact that Horns and Hama were not the capitals of vilayets, but were both within the Vilayet of Syria.
(iii) the fact that the real title of the “Vilayet of Damascus” was “Vilayet of Syria.”
(iv) the fact that there is no land lying west of the Vilayet of Aleppo.

The Foreign Secretary’s analysis concluded “It may be possible to produce arguments designed to explain away some of these difficulties individually (although even this does not apply in the case of (iv)), but it is hardly possible to explain them away collectively. His Majesty’s Government need not on this account abjure altogether the counter-argument based on the meaning of the word “district,” which have been used publicly for many years, and the more obvious defects in which do not seem to have been noticed as yet by Arab critics.”

However in 1919 the Political Intelligence Department of the British Foreign Office drafted a confidential memorandum on the issue for the use of Britain’s delegation at the Versailles Peace Conference. With reference to Palestine, the memorandum read: “H.M.G. [His Majesty’s Government] are committed by Sir Henry McMahon’s letter to the Sherif on 24 October 1915, to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab independence.”

The 1939 committee

A committee established by the British in 1939 to clarify the various arguments observed that many commitments had been made during and after the war – and that all of them would have to be studied together. The Arab representatives submitted a statement to the committee from Sir Michael McDonnell which explained that whatever McMahon had intended to mean was of no legal consequence, since it was his actual statements that constituted the pledge from His Majesty’s Government. The Arab representatives also pointed out that McMahon had been acting as an intermediary for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, Lord Grey had made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the Churchill White Paper’s interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Husain in 1915. The Arab representatives suggested that a search for evidence in the files of the Foreign Office might throw light on the Secretary of State’s intentions. In a speech delivered in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, late Lord Grey had said:

” A considerable number of these engagements, or some of them, which have not been officially made public by the Government, have become public through other sources. Whether all have become public I do not know, but I seriously suggest to the Government that the best way of clearing our honour in this matter is officially to publish the whole of the engagements relating to the matter, which we entered into during the war.”

The committee concluded:

‘It is beyond the scope of the Committee to express an opinion upon the proper interpretation of the various statements mentioned in paragraph 19 and such an opinion could not in any case be properly expressed unless consideration had also been given to a number of other statements made during and after the war. In the opinion of the Committee it is, however, evident from these statements that His Majesty’s Government were not free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine, and that these statements must all be taken into account in any attempt to estimate the responsibilities which—upon any interpretation of the Correspondence—His Majesty’s Government have incurred towards those inhabitants as a result of the Correspondence.”

Notes

^ http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS094.pdf p.8
^ a b http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS094.pdf p.7
^ Report Of The Palestine Royal Commission, Chap. II.1, pp. 16-22
^ a b Paris, 2003, p. 24.
^ a b Biger, 2004, p. 47.
^ a b English version quoted in “Palestine: Legal Arguments Likely to be Advanced by Arab Representatives”, Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Halifax), January 1939, UK National Archives, CAB 24/282, CP 19 (39). The original correspondence was conducted in Arabic, and various slightly differing English translations are extant.
^ See UK National Archives CAB/24/214, CP 271 (30)
^ See UK National Archives CAB 27/24, EC-41
^ See CAB 24/271, Cabinet Paper 203(37)
^ See UK National Archives CAB/24/143, Eastern Report, No. XVIII, 31 May 1917
^ a b Waïl S. Hassan “Lawrence, T. E.” The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature. David Scott Kastan. Oxford University Press 2005.
^ “Arab Revolt” A Dictionary of Contemporary World History. Jan Palmowski. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
^ a b Report of a Committee Set up to Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca in 1915 and 1916, UNISPAL, Annex F.
^ Friedman, 2000, p. 328.
^ Kedourie, 2002, p. 257.
^ Huneidi, 2001, p. 66.
^ The Sykes–Picot Agreement : 1916, Avalon Project
^ Friedman, 2000, pp. 195–197.
^ Choueiri, 2000, p. 149.
^ Report of a Committee Set up to Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca in 1915 and 1916, UNISPAL, Annex H.
^ Report of a Committee Set up to Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca in 1915 and 1916, UNISPAL, Annex I.
^ Hughes, 1999, pp. 116–117.
^ Report of a Committee Set up to Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca in 1915 and 1916, UNISPAL, Annex A, paragraph 19.
^ DESIRES OF HEDJAZ STIR PARIS CRITICS; Arab Kingdom’s Aspirations Clash With French Aims in Asia Minor
^ [Britain, the Hashemites and Arab Rule, 1920-1925, by Timothy J. Paris, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0-7146-5451-5, Page 69]
^ “Faisal I” A Dictionary of World History. Oxford University Press, 2000.
^ Federal Research Division, 2004, p. 41.
^ Milton-Edwards, 2006, p. 57.
^ Project Gutenberg: The Peace Negotiations by Robert Lansing, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1921, Chapter XIII ‘THE SYSTEM OF MANDATES’If the advocates of the system intended to avoid through its operation the appearance of taking enemy territory as the spoils of war, it was a subterfuge which deceived no one. It seemed obvious from the very first that the Powers, which under the old practice would have obtained sovereignty over certain conquered territories, would not be denied mandates over those territories. The League of Nations might reserve in the mandate a right of supervision of administration and even of revocation of authority, but that right would be nominal and of little, if any, real value provided the mandatory was one of the Great Powers as it undoubtedly would be. The almost irresistible conclusion is that the protagonists of the theory saw in it a means of clothing the League of Nations with an apparent usefulness which justified the League by making it the guardian of uncivilized and semi-civilized peoples and the international agent to watch over and prevent any deviation from the principle of equality in the commercial and industrial development of the mandated territories.
It may appear surprising that the Great Powers so readily gave their support to the new method of obtaining an apparently limited control over the conquered territories, and did not seek to obtain complete sovereignty over them. It is not necessary to look far for a sufficient and very practical reason. If the colonial possessions of Germany had, under the old practice, been divided among the victorious Powers and been ceded to them directly in full sovereignty, Germany might justly have asked that the value of such territorial cessions be applied on any war indemnities to which the Powers were entitled. On the other hand, the League of Nations in the distribution of mandates would presumably do so in the interests of the inhabitants of the colonies and the mandates would be accepted by the Powers as a duty and not to obtain new possessions. Thus under the mandatory system Germany lost her territorial assets, which might have greatly reduced her financial debt to the Allies, while the latter obtained the German colonial possessions without the loss of any of their claims for indemnity. In actual operation the apparent altruism of the mandatory system worked in favor of the selfish and material interests of the Powers which accepted the mandates. And the same may be said of the dismemberment of Turkey. It should not be a matter of surprise, therefore, that the President found little opposition to the adoption of his theory, or, to be more accurate, of the Smuts theory, on the part of the European statesmen.
^ ‘The Secretary’s Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Thursday, 27 February 1919, at 3 p. m.’, United States Department of State Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919: Volume IV (1919), The Council of Ten: minutes of meetings 15 February – 17 June 1919, Page 169
^ “Lawrence, Thomas Edward, ‘Lawrence of Arabia'” A Dictionary of Contemporary World History. Jan Palmowski. Oxford University Press, 2003.
^ Biger, 2004, p. 48.
^ No Peace Basis Yet, Balfour Asserts, 21 June 1918
^ Zachary Lockman “Balfour Declaration” The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001.
^ British White Paper of June 1922, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School.
^ Palestine Papers 1917–1922, Doreen Ingrams, page 48 and UK Archives PRO. CAB 27/24
^ ‘Memorandum on British commitments to King Hussein’. Peace Congress file, 15 March 1919. The National Archives, London. Ref: FO 608/92.
^ Report of a Committee Set up to Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca in 1915 and 1916, UNISPAL, Annex C.
^ Report of a Committee Set up to Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca in 1915 and 1916, UNISPAL, enclosure to Annex A.
^ Report of a Committee Set up to Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca in 1915 and 1916, UNISPAL

References

Biger, Gideon. (2004). The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840–1947. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5654-2
Choueiri, Youssef M. (2000). Arab Nationalism: A History. Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 0-631-21729-0
Cleveland, William L. (2004). A History of the Modern Middle East. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4048-9 (see pp. 157–160).
Federal Research Division (2004). Syria: A Country Study. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 1-4191-5022-7
Friedman, Isaiah (2000). Palestine, A Twice-Promised Land. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1-56000-391-X
Hughes, Matthew (1999). Allenby and British Strategy in the Middle East, 1917–1919. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-4920-1
Huneidi, Sahar (2000). A Broken Trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians, 1920–1925. IB Tauris. ISBN 1-86064-172-5
Kedourie, Elie (2000). In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth: The McMahon-Husayn Correspondence and Its Interpretations, 1914–1939. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5097-8
Mansfield, Peter (2004). A History of the Middle East. London: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-303433-2 (see pp. 154–155).
Milton-Edwards, Beverley (2006). Contemporary Politics in the Middle East. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-7456-3594-6
Paris, Timothy J. (2003). Britain, the Hashemites and Arab Rule, 1920–1925: The Sherifian Solution. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5451-5

External links

The Hussein-McMahon Correspondence at the Jewish Virtual Library.

v t e Key documents of Mandate Palestine

1910s	Damascus Protocol McMahon–Hussein Correspondence Sykes–Picot Agreement Balfour Declaration Declaration to the Seven Anglo-French Declaration Faisal–Weizmann Agreement King–Crane Commission Report

1920s	San Remo Resolution Palin Commission Report Paulet–Newcombe Agreement Haycraft Commission Report Churchill White Paper League of Nations Mandate Palestine Order in Council

1930s	Shaw Commission Report Hope Simpson Report Passfield White Paper MacDonald Letter Peel Commission Report Woodhead Commission Report White Paper of 1939

1940s	Bilmore Programme Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Report Statement of Information Relating to Acts of Violence United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine American trusteeship proposal for Palestine Israeli Declaration of Independence

History Timeline Aftermath

Henry McMahon

bear — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:24:26 +0000

Sir Henry McMahon

Born	28 November 1862 Simla, Punjab, India
Died	29 December 1949 London, United Kingdom
Occupation	Diplomat, commissioner
Known for	McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, the McMahon Line

Lieutenant Colonel Sir Arthur Henry McMahon, GCMG, GCVO, KCIE, CSI, KStJ (28 November 1862 Simla, Indian Empire – 29 December 1949 London, United Kingdom), was a British diplomat and Indian Army officer who served as the High Commissioner in Egypt from 1915 to 1917. He was also an administrator in British India, and served twice as Chief Commissioner of Balochistan. McMahon is best known for the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, as well as the McMahon Line between Tibet and India. He also features prominently in T.E. Lawrence’s account of his role in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I, Seven Pillars of Wisdom. He is usually known as Sir Henry McMahon.

1 Background
2 Career
3 Titles
4 References
- 4.1 Bibliography
  - 4.1.1 Books
  - 4.1.2 Articles

Background

McMahon was the son of Lieutenant-General Charles Alexander McMahon, FRS, FGS (1830–1904), a geologist and Commissioner of both Lahore and Hisar in Punjab, India, and who, like his father Captain Alexander McMahon (born 1791 in Kilrea, County Londonderry, Ireland) had been an officer with the East India Company. The McMahons are the Gaelic clan of Mac Mathghamhna who had come originally from the medieval Irish kingdom of Airgíalla or Oriel in South Ulster/North Leinster, where they reigned from around 1250 until about 1600.

Sir Henry McMahon’s own family had settled in the Downpatrick area of County Down before his great-grandfather, The Rev. Arthur McMahon, moved to Kilrea, where he was minister to the local Presbyterian congregation between 1789 and 1794: a prominent Irish Republican, The Rev. McMahon was a member of the National Directory of the Society of United Irishmen and one of their colonels in Ulster during the Irish Rebellion of 1798. He apparently fought at the battles of Saintfield and Ballynahinch and after the rebels’ overall defeat had been able to flee to France where he served with Napoléon’s Irish Legion. It is said that he was captured by the British during the Walcheren Campaign of 1809, and though sent to England, was later able to return to France where in June 1815 he eventually died fighting, it is believed, at either Ligny or of Waterloo.

Career

McMahon was commissioned a Lieutenant in the Indian Staff Corps in the 1880s and was appointed a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire (CIE) in 1894. By 1897, he had been promoted to captain and was appointed a Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India (CSI) in that year. He was promoted Major in the army in July 1901. He was knighted as a Knight Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire (KCIE) in 1906 and promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in 1909. In 1911, on the occasion of the Delhi Durbar, he was foreign secretary of the British government in India. The King made him a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO), an award in his own gift. He spoke Persian, Afghan, and Hindoostani, an aptitude for languages that led also to Arabic.

Sir Henry was appointed to the post of High Commissioner in Egypt in 1915. When he arrived by train Sir Ronald Storrs described him as “quiet, friendly, agreeable, considerate and cautious,” although later in his career Storrs and others were not so charitable. He was made a Knight of Grace of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem (KStJ). McMahon replaced Sir Milne Cheetham, briefly acting for Kitchener. Although a temporary appointment it became a permanent post, for an experienced political administrator. McMahon hosted the meeting at Cairo in 1915 when Commissioner Sir George Sykes sought permission from Army Intelligence HQ to take the idea of Arabism and a revolt back to the Imperial General Staff. It was then that McMahon commenced a long and fruitful correspondence with Sheikh Sharif Hussein to put the Bedouin tribes in power to overthrow the Ottoman Sultanate in the desert. Gilbert Clayton, Aubrey Herbert, Storrs and others of the intelligence community approved of McMahon’s pro-Arabist policy from 1916 onwards. Although he understood T E Lawrence, McMahon sat on the plan for six months which was to use Sharif to put Ibn Saud on a pan-Arabian throne. But it was Sir Reginald Wingate who persuaded McMahon that the Arabs were ready, able and willing for Cairo to “mother” an Arabian empire for Hussein. He urged McMahon to communicate the decision to Grey and Kitchener. Lord Hardinge in India was deeply skeptical; the argument raged in the Foreign Office, but ultimately McMahon’s view prevailed. Hussein believed McMahon would accept his Damascus Protocol. Whilst Storrs thought the diplomacy was “in every way exaggerated.” He was appointed a Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George (GCMG) in 1916 upon his retirement from the Indian Army.

The British attitude was that the start of a revolt was down to the Arabs. By May 1916, Turkish troops had arrived in Mecca, McMahon received a telegram from Abdullah Hussein that the Movement was ready. McMahon despatched the oriental secretary, Storrs to London with a team of intelligence experts. The British decision to land at the Dardanelles, instead of Alexandretta, and to allow French Syria founded by the Sykes-Picot Treaty to exist at all, irritated McMahon.

In 1920, he was awarded the Order of El Nahda, 1st Class, from the King of the Hejaz. In 1925, he was promoted to a Knight of Justice of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem (KStJ).

Titles

1862-1882: Arthur Henry McMahon
1882-1894: Lieutenant Arthur Henry McMahon
1894-1895: Lieutenant Arthur Henry McMahon, CIE
1895-1897: Captain Arthur Henry McMahon, CIE
1897-1901: Captain Arthur Henry McMahon, CSI, CIE
1901-1906: Major Arthur Henry McMahon, CSI, CIE
1906-1909: Major Sir Arthur Henry McMahon, KCIE, CSI
1909-1911: Lieutenant Colonel Sir Arthur Henry McMahon, KCIE, CSI
1911-1916: Lieutenant Colonel Sir Arthur Henry McMahon, GCVO, KCIE, CSI
1916-1949: Lieutenant Colonel Sir Arthur Henry McMahon, GCMG, GCVO, KCIE, CSI

References

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Henry McMahon.

^ Rulers.org: Egypt, Countries E, High commissioners.
^ Rulers.org: Provinces of British India, Baluchistan, Chief commissioners.
^ Obituary of Lieut. General Charles Alexander McMahon, accessed April 2011 at http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FGEO%2FGEO5_1_05%2FS0016756800119685a.pdf&code=9eadff6364f30138215d621ee092fd38
^ Samuel McSkimin, The Annals of Ulster from 1790 to 1798 (1906), p 87, accessed April 2011 at https://archive.org/stream/annalsulsterfro00mccrgoog/annalsulsterfro00mccrgoog_djvu.txt
^ J.W. Kernohan, The Parishes of Kilrea and Tamlaght O‘Crilly (1912), p 37, accessed April 2011 at http://www.torrens.org.uk/Genealogy/BannValley/books/Kilrea/Kilrea03.html
^ The London Gazette: no. 27362. p. 6480. 4 October 1901.
^ J Schneers, “The Balfour Declaration”, p.56
^ J Schneers, p.54-60

Bibliography

Books

Articles

Friedman, Isaiah (1970). ‘The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence and the Question of Palestine’ 5. Journal of Contemporary History.

Political offices
Preceded by Sir Milne Cheetham	British High Commissioner in Egypt 9 January 1915 – 1 January 1917	Succeeded by Sir Reginald Wingate
Preceded by Alexander Lauzun Pendock Tucker	Chief Commissioner of Balochistan 2 April 1907 – 3 June 1909	Succeeded by Charles Archer
Preceded by Charles Archer	Chief Commissioner of Balochistan 6 September 1909 – 25 April 1911	Succeeded by John Ramsay

Authority control	WorldCat VIAF: 15854260 LCCN: n83138210 GND: 129646997

King Edward VII

bear — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:17:11 +0000

Edward VII

Coronation portrait by Sir Luke Fildes

King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, Emperor of India (more…)

Reign

22 January 1901 – 6 May 1910

Coronation

9 August 1902

Imperial Durbar

1 January 1903

Predecessor

Victoria

Successor

George V

Prime Ministers

See list

Spouse

Alexandra of Denmark

Issue Detail

Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale George V Louise, Princess Royal Princess Victoria Maud, Queen of Norway Prince Alexander John of Wales

Full name
Albert Edward

House

House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Father

Albert, Prince Consort

Mother

Queen Victoria

Born

(1841-11-09)9 November 1841 Buckingham Palace, London, United Kingdom

Died

6 May 1910(1910-05-06) (aged 68) Buckingham Palace, London, United Kingdom

Burial

20 May 1910 St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, United Kingdom

Religion

Anglican

Signature

Edward VII (Albert Edward; 9 November 1841 – 6 May 1910) was King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and Emperor of India from 22 January 1901 until his death.

The eldest son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Edward was related to royalty throughout Europe. Before his accession to the throne, he served as heir apparent and held the title of Prince of Wales for longer than any of his predecessors. During the long reign of his mother, he was largely excluded from political power, and came to personify the fashionable, leisured elite. He travelled throughout Britain performing ceremonial public duties, and represented Britain on visits abroad. His tours of North America in 1860 and the Indian subcontinent in 1875 were popular successes, but despite public approval his reputation as a playboy prince soured his relationship with his mother.

As king, Edward played a role in the modernisation of the British Home Fleet and the reorganisation of the British Army after the Second Boer War. He re-instituted traditional ceremonies as public displays and broadened the range of people with whom royalty socialised. He fostered good relations between Britain and other European countries, especially France, for which he was popularly called “Peacemaker”, but his relationship with his nephew, Kaiser Wilhelm II, was poor. The Edwardian era, which covered Edward’s reign and was named after him, coincided with the start of a new century and heralded significant changes in technology and society, including steam turbine propulsion and the rise of socialism. He died in 1910 in the midst of a constitutional crisis that was resolved the following year by the Parliament Act 1911, which restricted the power of the unelected House of Lords.

1 Early life and education
2 Early adulthood
3 Marriage
4 Heir apparent
5 Accession
6 “Uncle of Europe”
7 Political opinions
8 Constitutional crisis
9 Death
10 Legacy
11 Titles, styles, honours and arms
- 11.1 Titles and styles
- 11.2 Honours
- 11.3 Arms
12 Issue
13 Ancestry
14 See also
15 Notes and sources
16 References
17 Further reading
18 External links

Early life and education

Portrait of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, by Winterhalter, 1846

Edward was born at 10:48 in the morning on 9 November 1841 in Buckingham Palace. He was the eldest son and second child of Queen Victoria and her husband (and first cousin) Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. He was christened Albert Edward at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 25 January 1842. He was named Albert after his father and Edward after his maternal grandfather Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn. He was known as Bertie to the Royal Family throughout his life.

As the eldest son of the British sovereign, he was automatically Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay at birth. As a son of Prince Albert, he also held the titles of Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duke of Saxony. He was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on 8 December 1841, Earl of Dublin on 17 January 1850, a Knight of the Garter on 9 November 1858, and a Knight of the Thistle on 24 May 1867. In 1863, he renounced his succession rights to the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in favour of his younger brother, Prince Alfred.

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were determined that their eldest son should have an education that would prepare him to be a model constitutional monarch. At age seven, Edward embarked on a rigorous educational programme devised by Prince Albert, and supervised by several tutors. Unlike his elder sister Victoria, Edward did not excel in his studies. He tried to meet the expectations of his parents, but to no avail. Although Edward was not a diligent student—his true talents were those of charm, sociability and tact—Benjamin Disraeli described him as informed, intelligent and of sweet manner.

After an educational trip to Rome, undertaken in the first few months of 1859, he spent the summer of that year studying at the University of Edinburgh under, amongst others, the chemist Lyon Playfair. In October, he matriculated as an undergraduate at Christ Church, Oxford. Now released from the educational strictures imposed by his parents, he enjoyed studying for the first time and performed satisfactorily in examinations. In 1861, he transferred to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was tutored in history by Charles Kingsley, Regius Professor of Modern History. Kingsley’s efforts brought forth the best academic performances of Edward’s life, and Edward actually looked forward to his lectures.

Early adulthood

Edward at Niagara Falls, 1860

In 1860, Edward undertook the first tour of North America by an heir to the British throne. His genial good humour and confident bonhomie made the tour a great success. He inaugurated the Victoria Bridge, Montreal, across the St Lawrence River, and laid the cornerstone of Parliament Hill, Ottawa. He watched Charles Blondin traverse Niagara Falls by highwire, and stayed for three days with President James Buchanan at the White House. Buchanan accompanied the Prince to Mount Vernon, to pay his respects at the tomb of George Washington. Vast crowds greeted him everywhere. He met Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Prayers for the royal family were said in Trinity Church, New York, for the first time since 1776. The four-month tour throughout Canada and the United States considerably boosted Edward’s confidence and self-esteem, and had many diplomatic benefits for Great Britain.

Edward had hoped to pursue a career in the British Army, but his mother vetoed an active military career. His ranks were honorary; he was gazetted a lieutenant-colonel without experience or any examinations in 1858. In September 1861, Edward was sent to Germany, supposedly to watch military manoeuvres, but actually in order to engineer a meeting between him and Princess Alexandra of Denmark, the eldest daughter of Prince Christian of Denmark and his wife Louise. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert had already decided that Edward and Alexandra should marry. They met at Speyer on 24 September under the auspices of his elder sister, Victoria, who had married the Crown Prince of Prussia in 1858. Edward’s elder sister, acting upon instructions from their mother, had met Princess Alexandra at Strelitz in June; the young Danish princess made a very favourable impression. Edward and Alexandra were friendly from the start; the meeting went well for both sides, and marriage plans advanced.

From this time, Edward gained a reputation as a playboy. Determined to get some army experience, Edward attended manoeuvres in Ireland, during which he spent three nights with an actress, Nellie Clifden, who was hidden in the camp by his fellow officers. Prince Albert, though ill, was appalled and visited Edward at Cambridge to issue a reprimand. Albert died in December 1861 just two weeks after the visit. Queen Victoria was inconsolable, wore mourning clothes for the rest of her life and blamed Edward for his father’s death. At first, she regarded her son with distaste as frivolous, indiscreet and irresponsible. She wrote to her eldest daughter, “I never can, or shall, look at him without a shudder.”

Marriage

Once widowed, Queen Victoria effectively withdrew from public life. Shortly after Prince Albert’s death, she arranged for Edward to embark on an extensive tour of the Middle East, visiting Egypt, Jerusalem, Damascus, Beirut and Constantinople. The British Government wanted Edward to secure the friendship of Egypt’s ruler, Said Pasha, to prevent French control of the Suez Canal if the Ottoman Empire collapsed. It was the first royal tour on which an official photographer, Francis Bedford, was in attendance. As soon as Edward returned to Britain, preparations were made for his engagement, which was sealed at Laeken in Belgium on 9 September 1862. Edward married Alexandra at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 10 March 1863. He was 21; she was 18.

Edward and Alexandra on their wedding day, 1863

The couple established Marlborough House as their London residence and Sandringham House in Norfolk as their country retreat. They entertained on a lavish scale. Their marriage met with disapproval in certain circles because most of Queen Victoria’s relations were German, and Denmark was at loggerheads with Germany over the territories of Schleswig and Holstein. When Alexandra’s father inherited the throne of Denmark in November 1863, the German Confederation took the opportunity to invade and annex Schleswig-Holstein. Queen Victoria was of two minds whether it was a suitable match given the political climate. After the marriage, she expressed anxiety about their socialite lifestyle and attempted to dictate to them on various matters, including the names of their children.

Edward had mistresses throughout his married life. He socialised with actress Lillie Langtry; Lady Randolph Churchill (born Jennie Jerome, she was the mother of Winston Churchill); Daisy Greville, Countess of Warwick; actress Sarah Bernhardt; noblewoman Lady Susan Vane-Tempest; singer Hortense Schneider; prostitute Giulia Beneni (known as “La Barucci”); wealthy humanitarian Agnes Keyser; and Alice Keppel. At least fifty-five liaisons are conjectured. How far these relationships went is not always clear. Edward always strove to be discreet, but this did not prevent society gossip or press speculation. One of Alice Keppel’s great-granddaughters, Camilla Parker Bowles, became the mistress and subsequently wife of Charles, Prince of Wales, one of Edward’s great-great-grandsons. It was rumoured that Camilla’s grandmother, Sonia Keppel (born in May 1900), was the illegitimate daughter of Edward, but she was “almost certainly” the daughter of George Keppel, whom she resembled. Edward never acknowledged any illegitimate children. Alexandra is believed to have been aware of many of his affairs and to have accepted them.

In 1869, Sir Charles Mordaunt, a British Member of Parliament, threatened to name Edward as co-respondent in his divorce suit. Ultimately, he did not do so but Edward was called as a witness in the case in early 1870. It was shown that Edward had visited the Mordaunts’ house while Sir Charles was away sitting in the House of Commons. Although nothing further was proven and Edward denied he had committed adultery, the suggestion of impropriety was damaging.

In the 1880s, Edward was a regular habitué of Parisian brothels, most notably Le Chabanais, which was regarded as the top establishment in Paris where brothels were legal. One room contained a custom made bath which was sometimes filled with champagne; and a specially designed and crafted siège d’amour (love seat) that allowed easy access for oral and other forms of sex for two or three people. It is now a museum piece.

Heir apparent

During Queen Victoria’s widowhood, Edward pioneered the idea of royal public appearances as we understand them today—for example, opening Thames Embankment in 1871, Mersey Tunnel in 1886, and Tower Bridge in 1894—but his mother did not allow Edward an active role in the running of the country until 1898. He was sent summaries of important government documents, but she refused to give him access to the originals. He annoyed his mother by siding with Denmark on the Schleswig-Holstein Question in 1864 (she was pro-German) and in the same year annoyed her again by making a special effort to meet Giuseppe Garibaldi. Liberal Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone sent him papers secretly. From 1886, Foreign Secretary Lord Rosebery sent him Foreign Office despatches, and from 1892 some Cabinet papers were opened to him.

In 1870 republican sentiment in Britain was given a boost when the French Emperor, Napoleon III, was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War and the French Third Republic was declared. However, in the winter of 1871, a brush with death led to an improvement in both Edward’s popularity with the public and his relationship with his mother. While staying at Londesborough Lodge, near Scarborough, North Yorkshire, Edward contracted typhoid, the disease that was believed to have killed his father. There was great national concern, and one of his fellow guests (Lord Chesterfield) died. Edward’s recovery was greeted with almost universal relief. Public celebrations included the composition of Arthur Sullivan’s Festival Te Deum. Edward cultivated politicians from all parties, including republicans, as his friends, and thereby largely dissipated any residual feelings against him.

Edward (front centre) in India, 1876

In October 1875 Edward set off for India on an extensive eight-month tour of the sub-continent. His advisors remarked on his habit of treating all people the same, regardless of their social station or colour. In letters home, he complained of the treatment of the native Indians by the British officials: “Because a man has a black face and a different religion from our own, there is no reason why he should be treated as a brute.” Consequently, Lord Salisbury, the Secretary of State for India, issued new guidance and at least one resident was removed from office. At the end of the tour, Queen Victoria was given the title Empress of India by Parliament, in part as a result of the tour’s success.

He was regarded worldwide as an arbiter of men’s fashions. He made wearing tweed, Homburg hats and Norfolk jackets fashionable, and popularised the wearing of black ties with dinner jackets, instead of white tie and tails. He pioneered the pressing of trouser legs from side to side in preference to the now normal front and back creases, and was thought to have introduced the stand-up turn-down shirt collar. A stickler for proper dress, he is said to have admonished Lord Salisbury for wearing the trousers of an Elder Brother of Trinity House with a Privy Councillor’s coat. Deep in an international crisis, Salisbury informed the Prince that it had been a dark morning, and that “my mind must have been occupied by some subject of less importance.” The tradition of men not buttoning the bottom button of waistcoats is said to be linked to Edward, who supposedly left his undone because of his large girth. His waist measured 48 inches (122 cm) shortly before his coronation. He introduced the practice of eating roast beef, roast potatoes, horseradish sauce and yorkshire pudding on Sundays, which remains a staple British favourite for Sunday lunch.

Edward was a patron of the arts and sciences and helped found the Royal College of Music. He opened the college in 1883 with the words, “Class can no longer stand apart from class … I claim for music that it produces that union of feeling which I much desire to promote.” At the same time, he enjoyed gambling and country sports and was an enthusiastic hunter. He ordered all the clocks at Sandringham to run half an hour ahead to provide more daylight time for shooting. This so-called tradition of Sandringham Time continued until 1936, when it was abolished by Edward VIII. He also laid out a golf course at Windsor. By the 1870s the future king had taken a keen interest in horseracing and steeplechasing. In 1896, his horse Persimmon won both the Derby Stakes and the St Leger Stakes. In 1900, Persimmon’s brother, Diamond Jubilee, won five races (Derby, St Leger, 2,000 Guineas Stakes, Newmarket Stakes and Eclipse Stakes) and another of Edward’s horses, Ambush II, won the Grand National.

Edward (right) with his mother (centre) and Russian relations: Tsar Nicholas II (left), Empress Alexandra and baby Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, 1896

In 1891 Edward was embroiled in the royal baccarat scandal, when it was revealed he had played an illegal card game for money the previous year. The Prince was forced to appear as a witness in court for a second time when one of the participants unsuccessfully sued his fellow players for slander after being accused of cheating. In the same year Edward was involved in a personal conflict, when Lord Charles Beresford threatened to reveal details of Edward’s private life to the press, as a protest against Edward interfering with Beresford’s affair with Daisy Greville, Countess of Warwick. The friendship between the two men was irreversibly damaged and their bitterness would last for the remainder of their lives. Usually, Edward’s outbursts of temper were short-lived, and “after he had let himself go … [he would] smooth matters by being especially nice”.

In late 1891 Edward’s eldest son, Albert Victor, was engaged to Princess Victoria Mary of Teck. Just a few weeks later, in early 1892, Albert Victor died of pneumonia. Edward was grief-stricken. “To lose our eldest son”, he wrote, “is one of those calamities one can never really get over”. Edward told Queen Victoria, “[I would] have given my life for him, as I put no value on mine”. Albert Victor was the second of Edward’s children to die. In 1871, his youngest son, John, had died just 24 hours after being born. Edward had insisted on placing John in a coffin personally with “the tears rolling down his cheeks”.

On his way to Denmark through Belgium on 4 April 1900 Edward was the victim of an attempted assassination, when fifteen-year-old Jean-Baptiste Sipido shot at him in protest over the Boer War. Sipido, though obviously guilty, was acquitted by a Belgian court because he was underage. The perceived laxity of the Belgian authorities, combined with British disgust at Belgian atrocities in the Congo, worsened the already poor relations between the United Kingdom and the Continent. However, in the next ten years, Edward’s affability and popularity, as well as his use of family connections, assisted Britain in building European alliances.

Accession

When Queen Victoria died on 22 January 1901, Edward became King of the United Kingdom, Emperor of India and, in an innovation, King of the British Dominions. He chose to reign under the name Edward VII, instead of Albert Edward—the name his mother had intended for him to use—declaring that he did not wish to “undervalue the name of Albert” and diminish the status of his father with whom the “name should stand alone”. The numeral VII was occasionally omitted in Scotland, even by the national church, in deference to protests that the previous Edwards were English kings who had “been excluded from Scotland by battle”. J. B. Priestley recalled, “I was only a child when he succeeded Victoria in 1901, but I can testify to his extraordinary popularity. He was in fact the most popular king England had known since the earlier 1660s.”

Caricature in Puck magazine, 1901

He donated his parents’ house, Osborne on the Isle of Wight, to the state and continued to live at Sandringham. He could afford to be magnanimous; his private secretary, Sir Francis Knollys, claimed that he was the first heir to succeed to the throne in credit. Edward’s finances had been ably managed by Sir Dighton Probyn, Comptroller of the Household, and had benefited from advice from Edward’s Jewish financier friends, such as Ernest Cassel, Maurice de Hirsch and the Rothschild family. At a time of widespread anti-Semitism, Edward attracted criticism for openly socialising with Jews.

Edward was crowned at Westminster Abbey on 9 August 1902 by the 80-year-old Archbishop of Canterbury, Frederick Temple, who died only four months later. Edward’s coronation had originally been scheduled for 26 June, but two days before on 24 June, he was diagnosed with appendicitis. Appendicitis was generally not treated operatively and carried a high mortality rate, but developments in anaesthesia and antisepsis in the preceding 50 years made life-saving surgery possible. Sir Frederick Treves, with the support of Lord Lister, performed a then-radical operation of draining the infected abscess through a small incision. The next day, Edward was sitting up in bed, smoking a cigar. Two weeks later, it was announced that the King was out of danger. Treves was honoured with a baronetcy (which Edward had arranged before the operation) and appendix surgery entered the medical mainstream.

Edward refurbished the royal palaces, reintroduced the traditional ceremonies, such as the State Opening of Parliament, that his mother had forgone, and founded new honours, such as the Order of Merit, to recognise contributions to the arts and sciences. In 1902, the Shah of Persia, Mozzafar-al-Din, visited England expecting to receive the Order of the Garter. Edward refused to bestow the honour on the Shah because the order was meant to be in his personal gift and the Foreign Secretary, Lord Lansdowne, had promised it without his consent. Edward also objected to inducting a Muslim into a Christian order of chivalry. His refusal threatened to damage British attempts to gain influence in Persia, but Edward resented his ministers’ attempts to reduce the King’s traditional powers. Eventually, he relented and Britain sent a special embassy to the Shah with a full Order of the Garter the following year.

“Uncle of Europe”

Edward VII relaxing at Balmoral Castle, photographed by his wife, Alexandra

As king, Edward’s main interests lay in the fields of foreign affairs and naval and military matters. Fluent in French and German, he made a number of visits abroad, and took annual holidays in Biarritz and Marienbad. One of his most important foreign trips was an official visit to France in May 1903 as the guest of President Émile Loubet. Following a visit to the Pope in Rome, this trip helped create the atmosphere for the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale, an agreement delineating British and French colonies in North Africa, and ruling out any future war between the two countries. The Entente was negotiated between the French foreign minister, Théophile Delcassé, and the British foreign secretary, Lord Lansdowne. Signed in London on 8 April 1904 by Lansdowne and the French ambassador Paul Cambon, it marked the end of centuries of Anglo-French rivalry and Britain’s splendid isolation from Continental affairs, and attempted to counterbalance the growing dominance of the German Empire and its ally, Austria-Hungary.

Edward was related to nearly every other European monarch and came to be known as the “uncle of Europe”. Kaiser Wilhelm II was his nephew; Tsar Nicholas II was his nephew-by-marriage; Queen Victoria Eugenia of Spain, Crown Princess Margaret of Sweden, Crown Princess Marie of Romania, Crown Princess Sophia of Greece, and Empress Alexandra of Russia were his nieces; Haakon VII of Norway was both his nephew by marriage and his son-in-law; Frederick VIII of Denmark and George I of Greece were his brothers-in-law; Albert I of Belgium, Ferdinand of Bulgaria, and Charles I and Manuel II of Portugal were his second cousins. Edward doted on his grandchildren, and indulged them, to the consternation of their governesses. However, there was one relation whom Edward did not like: Wilhelm II. Edward’s difficult relationship with his nephew exacerbated the tensions between Germany and Britain.

In April 1908, during Edward’s annual stay at Biarritz, he accepted the resignation of British Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. In a break with precedent, Edward asked Campbell-Bannerman’s successor, H. H. Asquith, to travel to Biarritz to kiss hands. Asquith complied, but the press criticised the action of the King in appointing a prime minister on foreign soil instead of returning to Britain. In June 1908, Edward became the first reigning British monarch to visit the Russian Empire, despite refusing to visit in 1906, when Anglo-Russian relations were strained in the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War, the Dogger Bank incident, and the Tsar’s dissolution of the Duma. The previous month, Edward visited the Scandinavian countries, becoming the first British monarch to visit Sweden.

Political opinions

Edward depicted in naval uniform by Vanity Fair magazine, 1902

Edward involved himself heavily in discussions over army reform, the need for which had become apparent with the failings of the Boer War. He supported the redesign of army command, the creation of the Territorial Force, and the decision to provide an Expeditionary Force supporting France in the event of war with Germany. Reform of the Royal Navy was also suggested, partly due to the ever-increasing Naval Estimates, and because of the emergence of the Imperial German Navy as a new strategic threat. Ultimately a dispute arose between Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, who favoured increased spending and a broad deployment, and the First Sea Lord Admiral Sir John Fisher, who favoured efficiency savings, scrapping obsolete vessels, and a strategic realignment of the Royal Navy relying on torpedo craft for home defence backed by the new dreadnoughts.

The King lent support to Fisher, in part because he disliked Beresford, and eventually Beresford was dismissed. Beresford continued his campaign outside of the navy and Fisher ultimately announced his resignation in late 1909, although the bulk of his policies were retained. The King was intimately involved in the appointment of Fisher’s successor as the Fisher-Beresford feud had split the service, and the only truly qualified figure known to be outside of both camps was Sir Arthur Knyvet Wilson, who had retired in 1907. Wilson was reluctant to return to active duty, but Edward persuaded him to do so, and Wilson became First Sea Lord on 25 January 1910.

As Prince of Wales, Edward had come to enjoy warm and mutually respectful relations with W. E. Gladstone, whom his mother detested. But Gladstone’s son, Home Secretary Herbert Gladstone, angered the King by planning to permit Roman Catholic priests in vestments to carry the Host through the streets of London, and by appointing two ladies, Lady Frances Balfour and Mrs H. J. Tennant, to serve on a Royal Commission on reforming divorce law – Edward thought divorce could not be discussed with “delicacy or even decency” before ladies. Edward’s biographer Philip Magnus suggests that Gladstone may have become a whipping-boy for the King’s general irritation with the Liberal government. Gladstone was sacked in the reshuffle the following year and the King agreed, with some reluctance, to appoint him Governor-General of South Africa.

Edward was rarely interested in politics, although his views on some issues were notably liberal for the time. During his reign he said use of the word nigger was “disgraceful” despite it then being in common parlance. In 1904, during an Anglo-German summit in Kiel between Wilhelm II and Edward, Wilhelm with the Russo-Japanese war in mind started to go on about the “Yellow Peril”, which he called “the greatest peril menacing … Christendom and European civilisation. If the Russians went on giving ground, the yellow race would, in twenty years time, be in Moscow and Posen”. Wilhelm went on to attack his British guests for supporting Japan against Russia, suggesting that the British were committing “race treason” by supporting Japan. In response, Edward stated that he “could not see it. The Japanese were an intelligent, brave and chivalrous nation, quite as civilised as the Europeans, from whom they only differed by the pigmentation of their skin”.

While Prince of Wales, he had to be dissuaded from breaking with constitutional precedent by openly voting for Gladstone’s Representation of the People Bill (1884) in the House of Lords. On other matters he was less progressive: he did not, for example, favour giving votes to women, although he did suggest that the social reformer Octavia Hill serve on the Commission for Working Class Housing. He was also opposed to Irish Home Rule, instead preferring a form of dual monarchy. Edward lived a life of luxury that was often far removed from that of the majority of his subjects. However, his personal charm with people at all levels of society and his strong condemnation of prejudice went some way to assuage republican and racial tensions building during his lifetime.

Constitutional crisis

Bust by Francis Derwent Wood

Profile of Edward VII on a halfpenny, 1902

In the last year of his life, Edward became embroiled in a constitutional crisis when the Conservative majority in the House of Lords refused to pass the “People’s Budget” proposed by the Liberal government of Prime Minister H. H. Asquith. The crisis eventually led – after Edward’s death – to the removal of the Lords’ right to veto legislation.

The King was displeased at Liberal attacks on the peers, which included a polemical speech by David Lloyd George at Limehouse. Cabinet minister Winston Churchill publicly demanded a general election, for which Asquith apologised to the King’s adviser Lord Knollys and rebuked Churchill at a Cabinet meeting. Edward was so depressed at the tone of class warfare – although Asquith told him that party rancour had been just as bad over the First Home Rule Bill in 1886 – that he introduced his son to Secretary of State for War Richard Haldane as “the last King of England”. After the King’s horse Minoru won the Derby on 26 July 1909, he returned to the racetrack the following day, and laughed when a man shouted: “Now, King. You’ve won the Derby. Go back home and dissolve this bloody Parliament!”

In vain, the King urged Conservative leaders Arthur Balfour and Lord Lansdowne to pass the Budget, which Lord Esher had advised him was not unusual, as Queen Victoria had helped to broker agreements between the two Houses over Irish disestablishment in 1869 and the Third Reform Act in 1884. On Asquith’s advice, however, he did not offer them an election (at which, to judge from recent by-elections, they were likely to gain seats) as a reward for doing so.

The Finance Bill passed the Commons on 5 November 1909 but was rejected by the Lords on 30 November; they instead passed a resolution of Lord Lansdowne’s stating that they were entitled to oppose the bill as it lacked an electoral mandate. The King was annoyed that his efforts to urge passage of the budget had become public knowledge and had forbidden his adviser Lord Knollys, who was an active Liberal peer, from voting for the budget, although Knollys had suggested that this would be a suitable gesture to indicate royal desire to see the Budget pass. In December 1909, a proposal to create peers (to give the Liberals a majority in the Lords) or give the prime minister the right to do so was considered “outrageous” by Knollys, who thought the King should abdicate rather than agree to it.

The January 1910 election was dominated by talk of removing the Lords’ veto. During the election campaign Lloyd George talked of “guarantees” and Asquith of “safeguards” that would be necessary before forming another Liberal government, but the King informed Asquith that he would not be willing to contemplate creating peers until after a second general election. Balfour refused to be drawn on whether or not he would be willing to form a Conservative government, but advised the King not to promise to create peers until he had seen the terms of any proposed constitutional change. During the campaign the leading Conservative Walter Long had asked Knollys for permission to state that the King did not favour Irish Home Rule, but Knollys refused on the grounds that it was not appropriate for the monarch’s views to be known in public.

The election resulted in a hung parliament, with the Liberal government dependent on the support of the third largest party, the Irish nationalists. The King suggested a compromise whereby only 50 peers from each side would be allowed to vote, which would also redress the large Conservative majority in the Lords, but Lord Crewe, Liberal leader in the Lords, advised that this would reduce the Lords’ independence as only peers who were loyal party supporters would be picked. Pressure to remove the Lords’ veto now came from the Irish nationalist MPs, who wanted to remove the Lords’ ability to block the introduction of Irish Home Rule. They threatened to vote against the Budget unless they had their way (an attempt by Lloyd George to win their support by amending whisky duties was abandoned as the Cabinet felt this would recast the Budget too much). Asquith now revealed that there were no “guarantees” for the creation of peers. The Cabinet considered resigning and leaving it up to Balfour to try to form a Conservative government.

The King’s Speech from the Throne on 21 February made reference to introducing measures restricting the Lords’ power of veto to one of delay, but Asquith inserted a phrase “in the opinion of my advisers” so the King could be seen to be distancing himself from the planned legislation.

The Commons passed resolutions on 14 April that would form the basis for the Parliament Act: to remove the power of the Lords to veto money bills, to replace their veto of other bills with a power to delay, and to reduce the term of Parliament from seven years to five (the King would have preferred four). But in that debate Asquith hinted – to ensure the support of the nationalist MPs – that he would ask the King to break the deadlock “in that Parliament” (i.e. contrary to Edward’s earlier stipulation that there be a second election). The Budget was passed by both Commons and Lords in April.

By April the Palace was having secret talks with Balfour and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who both advised that the Liberals did not have sufficient mandate to demand the creation of peers. The King thought the whole proposal “simply disgusting” and that the government was “in the hands of Redmond & Co”. Lord Crewe announced publicly that the government’s wish to create peers should be treated as formal “ministerial advice” (which, by convention, the monarch must obey) although Lord Esher argued that the monarch was entitled in extremis to dismiss the government rather than take their “advice”. Esher’s view has been called “obsolete and unhelpful”.

Death

Play media

Funeral procession of King Edward VII, London, 1910

Edward habitually smoked twenty cigarettes and twelve cigars a day. In 1907, a rodent ulcer, a type of cancer affecting the skin next to his nose, was cured with radium. Towards the end of his life he increasingly suffered from bronchitis. He suffered a momentary loss of consciousness during a state visit to Berlin in February 1909. In March 1910, he was staying at Biarritz when he collapsed. He remained there to convalesce, while in London Asquith tried to get the Finance Bill passed. The King’s continued ill health was unreported and he attracted criticism for staying in France while political tensions were so high. On 27 April he returned to Buckingham Palace, still suffering from severe bronchitis. Alexandra returned from visiting her brother, King George I of Greece, in Corfu a week later on 5 May.

The following day, the King suffered several heart attacks, but refused to go to bed saying, “No, I shall not give in; I shall go on; I shall work to the end.” Between moments of faintness, his son the Prince of Wales (shortly to be King George V) told him that his horse, Witch of the Air, had won at Kempton Park that afternoon. The King replied, “Yes, I have heard of it. I am very glad”: his final words. At 11:30 p.m. he lost consciousness for the last time and was put to bed. He died 15 minutes later.

Edward VII was buried at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 20 May 1910. As Barbara Tuchman noted in The Guns of August, his funeral marked “the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last”.

Legacy

Further information: Royal eponyms in Canada

Statue in Queen Victoria Gardens, Melbourne

Statue outside Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh

Statues of Edward can be found throughout the former empire.

Before his accession to the throne, Edward was the longest-serving heir apparent in British history. He was surpassed by his great-great-grandson Charles, Prince of Wales, on 22 April 2011. As the title Prince of Wales is not exactly coincident with the position of heir apparent, he remains the longest-serving holder of that title, at 59 years, 45 days; as of 1 July 2015, Charles has held the title for 7009179660160000000♠56 years, 340 days.

As king, Edward VII proved a greater success than anyone had expected, but he was already an old man and had little time left to fulfil the role. In his short reign, he ensured that his second son and heir, George V, was better prepared to take the throne. Contemporaries described their relationship as more like affectionate brothers than father and son, and on Edward’s death George wrote in his diary that he had lost his “best friend and the best of fathers … I never had a [cross] word with him in my life. I am heart-broken and overwhelmed with grief”.

Edward was lauded as “Peacemaker”, but had been afraid that his nephew, the German Emperor Wilhelm II, would tip Europe into war. Four years after Edward’s death, World War I broke out. The naval reforms he had supported and his part in securing the Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia, as well as his relationships with his extended family, fed the paranoia of the German Emperor, who blamed Edward for the war. Publication of the official biography of Edward was delayed by its author, Sidney Lee, who feared German propagandists would select material to portray Edward as an anti-German warmonger. Lee was also hampered by the extensive destruction of Edward’s personal papers; Edward had left orders that all his letters should be burned on his death. Subsequent biographers have been able to construct a more rounded picture of Edward by using material and sources that were unavailable to Lee.

Edward received criticism for his apparent pursuit of self-indulgent pleasure but he received great praise for his affable and kind good manners, and his diplomatic skill. As his grandson wrote, “his lighter side … obscured the fact that he had both insight and influence.” “He had a tremendous zest for pleasure but he also had a real sense of duty”, wrote J. B. Priestley. Lord Esher wrote that Edward was “kind and debonair and not undignified – but too human”.

Titles, styles, honours and arms

Titles and styles

9 November – 8 December 1841: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay
8 December 1841 – 22 January 1901: His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales
- 17 January 1850 – 22 January 1901: The Earl of Dublin
22 January 1901 – 6 May 1910: His Majesty The King
- with regard to India: His Imperial Majesty The King-Emperor

Honours

British honours

9 November 1858: Knight of the Order of the Garter
25 June 1861: Knight Companion of the Order of the Star of India
12 February 1863: Fellow of the Royal Society
8 December 1863: Member of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom
10 February 1865: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath
28 March 1866: Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India
24 May 1867: Knight of the Order of the Thistle
18 March 1868: Knight of the Order of St Patrick
21 April 1868: Member of the Privy Council of Ireland
30 May 1877: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George
21 June 1887: Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire
6 May 1896: Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order
22 June 1897: Great Master of the Order of the Bath

Foreign honours

May 1852: Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece of Spain
March 1859: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Tower and Sword of Portugal
March 1863: Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour of France
27 September 1864: Knight of the Order of the Seraphim of Sweden.
1869: Knight of the Order of the Black Eagle of Prussia
January 1874: Knight of the Order of St Andrew of Russia
8 October 1874: Grand Cross of the Order of St. Olav of Norway
May 1876: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Charles III of Spain
September 1901: Grand Commander of the Order of the Dannebrog of Denmark
9 October 1901: Grand Cross of the Order of the Star of Ethiopia

Arms

As Prince of Wales, Edward’s coat of arms was the royal arms differenced by a label of three points argent, and an inescutcheon of the shield of Saxony, representing his father. When he acceded as King, he gained the royal arms undifferenced.


Coat of arms as Prince of Wales from 1841–1901	Royal coat of arms outside Scotland	Royal coat of arms in Scotland

Issue

For more details on this topic, see Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert.

Name	Birth	Death	Notes
Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale	8 January 1864	14 January 1892	engaged 1891, to Princess Mary of Teck
George V	3 June 1865	20 January 1936	married 1893, Princess Mary of Teck; had issue
Louise, Princess Royal	20 February 1867	4 January 1931	married 1889, Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife; had issue
Princess Victoria	6 July 1868	3 December 1935
Maud, Queen of Norway	26 November 1869	20 November 1938	married 1896, King Haakon VII; had issue
Prince Alexander John of Wales	6 April 1871	7 April 1871

Ancestry

Ancestors of Edward VII

16. Ernest Frederick, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

8. Francis, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

17. Princess Sophie Antoinette of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel

4. Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

18. Henry XXIV, Count of Reuss-Ebersdorf

9. Countess Augusta of Reuss-Ebersdorf

19. Countess Karoline Ernestine of Erbach-Schönberg

2. Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

20. Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

10. Augustus, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

21. Princess Charlotte of Saxe-Meiningen

5. Princess Louise of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

22. Frederick Francis I, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin

11. Duchess Louise Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Schwerin

23. Princess Louise of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

1. Edward VII of the United Kingdom

24. Frederick, Prince of Wales

12. George III of the United Kingdom

25. Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha

6. Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn

26. Duke Charles Louis Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

13. Duchess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

27. Princess Elizabeth Albertine of Saxe-Hildburghausen

3. Victoria of the United Kingdom

28. Ernest Frederick, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (= 16)

14. Francis, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (= 8)

29. Princess Sophie Antoinette of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (= 17)

7. Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

30. Henry XXIV, Count of Reuss-Ebersdorf (= 18)

15. Countess Augusta of Reuss-Ebersdorf (= 9)

31. Countess Karoline Ernestine of Erbach-Schönberg (= 19)

Notes and sources

^ Magnus, Philip (1964), King Edward The Seventh, London: John Murray, p. 1
^ His godparents were the King of Prussia, his paternal step-grandmother the Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (for whom the Duchess of Kent, his maternal grandmother, stood proxy), his great-uncle the Duke of Cambridge, his step-great-grandmother the Dowager Duchess of Saxe-Coburg-Altenburg (for whom the Duchess of Cambridge, his great-aunt, stood proxy), his great-aunt Princess Sophia (for whom Princess Augusta of Cambridge, his first cousin once-removed, stood proxy) and his great-uncle Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (The London Gazette: no. 20065. p. 224. 28 January 1842.).
^ Bentley-Cranch, Dana (1992), Edward VII: Image of an Era 1841–1910, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, p. 1, ISBN 0-11-290508-0
^ Weir, Alison (1996), Britain’s Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy, Revised Edition, London: Random House, p. 319, ISBN 0-7126-7448-9
^ Van der Kiste, John (September 2004; online edition May 2007) “Alfred, Prince, duke of Edinburgh (1844–1900)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/346, retrieved 24 June 2009 (subscription or UK public library membership required)
^ Ridley, Jane (2012), Bertie: A Life of Edward VII, London: Chatto & Windus, pp. 17–19, ISBN 978-0-7011-7614-3
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 4
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 18
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Matthew, H. C. G. (September 2004; online edition May 2006) “Edward VII (1841–1910)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/32975, retrieved 24 June 2009 (subscription or UK public library membership required)
^ “Wales, H.R.H. Albert Edward, Prince of (WLS861AE)”. A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 35; Ridley, p. 50.
^ Hough, Richard (1992), Edward and Alexandra: Their Private and Public Lives, London: Hodder & Stoughton, pp. 36–37, ISBN 0-340-55825-3
^ a b Bentley-Cranch, pp. 20–34
^ Hough, pp. 39–47
^ Ridley, p. 37
^ Bentley-Cranch, pp. 36–38
^ Hough, pp. 64–66
^ Ridley, pp. 54–55
^ Ridley, pp. 59–63
^ Middlemas, Keith (1972), Antonia Fraser, ed., The Life and Times of Edward VII, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, p. 31, ISBN 0-297-83189-5
^ Bentley-Cranch, pp. 40–42
^ Ridley, Jane (16 February 2013), The first EVER photographs of a Royal tour, Mail Online, retrieved 17 February 2013
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 44; Ridley, p. 72
^ Middlemas, p. 35; Ridley, p. 83
^ Ridley, pp. 85, 87, 93, 104
^ Letters written by Edward to Lady Randolph may have “signified no more than a flirtation” but were “[w]ritten in a strain of undue familiarity” (Hattersley, p. 21).
^ Camp, Anthony (2007), Royal Mistresses and Bastards: Fact and Fiction, 1714–1936 . They are listed at http://anthonyjcamp.com/page9.htm.
^ Middlemas, pp. 74–80
^ Souhami, Diana (1996), Mrs Keppel and Her Daughter, London: HarpurCollins, p. 49
^ Ashley, Mike (1998), The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens, London: Robinson, pp. 694–695, ISBN 1-84119-096-9
^ Middlemas, p. 89
^ Priestley, pp. 22–23
^ Thomas, Sean (17 January 2004), “Dirty Bertie’s seat of pleasure”, The Times
^ Storyville – Paris Brothel, BBC Four documentary, 2003
^ Costello, Eugene (22 March 2010), “A love seat fit for a king: The antique chair that gives an eye-popping insight into Edward VII’s debauched youth”, Daily Mail
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 97
^ a b Edward VII, Official website of the British Monarchy, retrieved 2 May 2010
^ Hattersley, pp. 18–19
^ Bentley-Cranch, pp. 59–60
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 66; Ridley, pp. 137, 142
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 67 and Middlemas, pp. 48–52
^ Edward to Lord Granville, 30 November 1875, quoted in Bentley-Cranch, pp. 101–102 and Ridley, p. 179
^ a b Bentley-Cranch, p. 104
^ Bergner Hurlock, Elizabeth (1976), The psychology of dress: an analysis of fashion and its motive, Ayer Publishing, p. 108, ISBN 978-0-405-08644-1
^ Mansel, Philip (2005), Dressed to Rule, New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 138, ISBN 0-300-10697-1
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 84
^ Middlemas, p. 201
^ “Try our “98′ Curzons!” A few fashion hints for men”, Otago Witness, 3 November 1898, retrieved 5 May 2010, It was actually the Prince of Wales who introduced this shape. He got them originally about eight years ago from a manufacturer called Charvet, in Paris.
^ Roberts, p. 35
^ Ridley, p. 91
^ Middlemas, p. 200 and Hattersley, p. 27
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 80
^ He was not a heavy drinker, though he did drink champagne and, occasionally, port (Hattersley, p. 27).
^ a b Windsor, HRH The Duke of (1951), A King’s Story, London: Cassell and Co, p. 46
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 110
^ Middlemas, p. 98
^ Hattersley, pp. 23–25; Ridley, pp. 280–290
^ Middlemas, p. 86; Ridley, pp. 265–268
^ Sir Frederick Ponsonby, 1st Baron Sysonby, quoted in Middlemas, p. 188
^ Middlemas, pp. 95–96
^ Letter from Mrs Elise Stonor to Queen Victoria, 11 April 1871, quoted in Battiscombe, p. 112 and Ridley, p. 140
^ Ridley, pp. 339–340
^ Middlemas, p. 65
^ Lee, vol. II, p. 7; Middlemas, p. 104
^ No English or British sovereign has ever reigned under a double name.
^ The London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 27270. p. 547. 23 January 1901.
^ Priestley, p. 9
^ The Duke of Windsor, p. 14
^ Lee, vol. II, p. 26
^ Middlemas, pp. 38, 84, 96; Priestley, p. 32
^ Allfrey, Anthony (1991), King Edward VII and His Jewish Court, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-81125-8
^ Lee, vol. II, pp. 63–64; Ridley, p. 271
^ Lee, vol. II, pp. 102–109
^ a b Mirilas, P. ; Skandalakis, J.E. (2003), “Not just an appendix: Sir Frederick Treves”, Archives of Disease in Childhood 88 (6): 549–552, doi:10.1136/adc.88.6.549, PMC 1763108, PMID 12765932
^ The Duke of Windsor, p. 20
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 127
^ Bentley-Cranch, pp. 122–139; Ridley, pp. 351–352, 361, 372
^ Hattersley, pp. 39–40
^ Lee, vol. II, p. 182
^ Lee, vol. II, p. 157; Middlemas, pp. 125–126
^ Nicolson, Harold (October 1954), “The Origins and Development of the Anglo-French Entente”, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) XXX (4): 407–416, doi:10.2307/2608720
^ The Duke of Windsor, p. 15
^ Middlemas, pp. 60–61, 172–175; Hattersley, pp. 460–464; Ridley, pp. 382–384, 433
^ Lee, vol. II, pp. 581–582; Ridley, pp. 417–418
^ Middlemas, pp. 167, 169
^ Lee, vol. II, pp. 583–584
^ Lee, vol. II, pp. 91–93; Ridley, p. 389
^ Middlemas, pp. 130–134
^ Kennedy, Paul M. (2004), The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery, London: Penguin Books, pp. 215–216
^ See, principally, Lambert, Nicholas A. (2002), Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution, Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, ISBN 1-57003-492-3 For a much shorter summary of Fisher’s reforms, see Grove, Eric J. (2005), The Royal Navy since 1815, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 88–100, ISBN 0-333-72126-8
^ Middlemas, pp. 134–139
^ Lambert, pp. 200–201.
^ Bradford, Admiral Sir Edward E. (1923), Life of Admiral of the Fleet Sir Arthur Knyvet Wilson, London: John Murray, pp. 223–225
^ Magnus, p. 212
^ Magnus, p. 541
^ Rose, Kenneth (1983), King George V, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, p. 65
^ a b MacDonogh, Giles (2003), The Last Kaiser, New York: St. Martin’s Press, p. 277
^ Ridley, p. 241
^ Hattersley, pp. 215–216; Lee, vol. II, p. 468; Ridley, p. 403
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 98
^ Heffer, pp. 276–277; Ridley, p. 437
^ Heffer, pp. 282–283
^ Magnus, p. 526
^ Magnus, p. 534; Ridley, pp. 440–441
^ Heffer, pp. 281–282
^ Magnus, p. 536
^ Heffer, pp. 283–284
^ Ridley, p. 443
^ Hattersley, p. 168
^ a b Heffer, pp. 286–288
^ a b Magnus, p. 547
^ Heffer, pp. 290–293
^ Heffer, p. 291
^ Heffer, p. 293
^ Heffer, pp. 294–296
^ Magnus, pp. 555–556
^ Ridley, p. 409
^ Lee, vol. II, p. 676; Ridley, p. 432
^ a b Bentley-Cranch, p. 151
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 155
^ King George V’s diary, 6 May 1910. Royal Archives
^ Bentley-Cranch, p. 157; Lee, vol. II, p. 738
^ Lee, vol. II, pp. 358, 650, 664; Middlemas, pp. 176, 179; Ridley, p. 474
^ Ridley, p. 474
^ Ridley, p. 487
^ Ridley, pp. 482–483
^ Ridley, pp. 494–495
^ The Duke of Windsor, p. 69
^ Priestley, p. 25
^ Hattersley, p. 17
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Cokayne, G. E. (1910), Gibbs, Vicary, ed., The complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom 4, London: St Catherine’s Press, pp. 451–452
^ Galloway, Peter (2006), The Order of the Bath, Chichester: Phillimore & Co. Ltd., p. 247, ISBN 978-1-86077-399-0
^ Sveriges och Norges statskalender 1865
^ Norges statskalender 1877
^ “The King’s Journey” (24 September 1901) The Times Issue 36568, p. 3
^ “Court Circular” (10 October 1901) The Times Issue 36582, p. 7
^ Velde, François (19 April 2008), Marks of Cadency in the British Royal Family, Heraldica, retrieved 2 May 2010

References

Battiscombe, Georgina (1969), Queen Alexandra, London: Constable, ISBN 0-09-456560-0
Bentley-Cranch, Dana (1992), Edward VII: Image of an Era 1841–1910, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, ISBN 0-11-290508-0
Hattersley, Roy (2004), The Edwardians, London: Little, Brown, ISBN 0-316-72537-4
Heffer, Simon (1998), Power and Place: The Political Consequences of King Edward VII, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-84220-X
Hough, Richard (1992), Edward & Alexandra: Their Private and Public Lives, London: Hodder & Stoughton, ISBN 0-340-55825-3
Lee, Sidney (1927), King Edward VII: A Biography, London: Macmillan
Magnus, Philip (1964), King Edward The Seventh, London: John Murray
Matthew, H. C. G. (September 2004; online edition May 2006) “Edward VII (1841–1910)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/32975, retrieved 24 June 2009 (subscription or UK public library membership required)
Middlemas, Keith (1972), Antonia Fraser, ed., The Life and Times of Edward VII, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-83189-5
Priestley, J. B. (1970), The Edwardians, London: Heinemann, ISBN 0-434-60332-5
Ridley, Jane (2012), Bertie: A Life of Edward VII, London: Chatto & Windus, ISBN 978-0-7011-7614-3
Roberts, Andrew (2006), Salisbury: Victorian Titan, London: Sterling Publishing Co.
Tuchman, Barbara (1964), The Guns of August, New York: Macmillan
Windsor, HRH The Duke of (1951), A King’s Story, London: Cassell and Co

External links

Listen to this article (info/dl)

Sorry, your browser either has JavaScript disabled or does not have any supported player. You can download the clip or download a player to play the clip in your browser.

This audio file was created from a revision of the “Edward VII” article dated 14 July 2014, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

British Empire

bear — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:13:16 +0000

British Empire

Flag

All areas of the world that were ever part of the British Empire. Current British Overseas Territories have their names underlined in red.

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom. It originated with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England between the late 16th and early 18th centuries. At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1922 the British Empire held sway over about 458 million people, one-fifth of the world’s population at the time. The empire covered more than 33,700,000 km2 (13,012,000 sq mi), almost a quarter of the Earth’s total land area. As a result, its political, legal, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, the phrase “the empire on which the sun never sets” was often used to describe the British Empire, because its expanse around the globe meant that the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.

During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated, England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (and then, following union between England and Scotland in 1707, Great Britain) the dominant colonial power in North America and India.

The independence of the Thirteen Colonies in North America in 1783 after the American War of Independence caused Britain to lose some of its oldest and most populous colonies. British attention soon turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. Following the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815, Britain enjoyed a century of almost unchallenged dominance and expanded its imperial holdings around the globe. Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were reclassified as dominions.

By the start of the twentieth century, Germany and the United States had eroded some of Britain’s economic lead. Subsequent military and economic tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily upon its empire. The conflict placed enormous financial and population strain on Britain. Although the empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after World War I, Britain was no longer a peerless industrial or military power. In the Second World War, Britain’s colonies in South-East Asia were occupied by Japan. Despite the eventual victory of Britain and its allies, this damaged British prestige and accelerated the decline of the empire. British India, Britain’s most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence as part of a larger decolonisation movement in which Britain also granted independence to most of the territories of the British Empire. The political transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997 marked for many the end of the British Empire. Fourteen overseas territories remain under British sovereignty. After independence, many former British colonies joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Sixteen Commonwealth nations share their head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, as Commonwealth realms.

1 Origins (1497–1583)
- 1.1 Plantations of Ireland
2 “First” British Empire (1583–1783)
- 2.1 Americas, Africa and the slave trade
- 2.2 Rivalry with the Netherlands in Asia
- 2.3 Global conflicts with France
3 Rise of the “Second” British Empire (1783–1815)
- 3.1 Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies
- 3.2 Exploration of the Pacific
- 3.3 War with Napoleonic France
- 3.4 Abolition of slavery
4 Britain’s imperial century (1815–1914)
- 4.1 East India Company in Asia
- 4.2 Rivalry with Russia
- 4.3 Cape to Cairo
- 4.4 Changing status of the white colonies
5 World wars (1914–1945)
- 5.1 First World War
- 5.2 Inter-war period
- 5.3 Second World War
6 Decolonisation and decline (1945–1997)
- 6.1 Initial disengagement
- 6.2 Suez and its aftermath
- 6.3 Wind of change
- 6.4 End of empire
7 Legacy
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

Origins (1497–1583)

A replica of The Matthew, John Cabot’s ship used for his second voyage to the New World

The foundations of the British Empire were laid when England and Scotland were separate kingdoms. In 1496 King Henry VII of England, following the successes of Spain and Portugal in overseas exploration, commissioned John Cabot to lead a voyage to discover a route to Asia via the North Atlantic. Cabot sailed in 1497, five years after the European discovery of America, and although he successfully made landfall on the coast of Newfoundland (mistakenly believing, like Christopher Columbus, that he had reached Asia), there was no attempt to found a colony. Cabot led another voyage to the Americas the following year but nothing was heard of his ships again.

No further attempts to establish English colonies in the Americas were made until well into the reign of Elizabeth I, during the last decades of the 16th century. The Protestant Reformation had made enemies of England and Catholic Spain. In 1562, the English Crown sanctioned the privateers John Hawkins and Francis Drake to engage in slave-raiding attacks against Spanish and Portuguese ships off the coast of West Africa with the aim of breaking into the Atlantic trade system. This effort was rebuffed and later, as the Anglo-Spanish Wars intensified, Elizabeth lent her blessing to further privateering against Spanish ports in the Americas and shipping that was returning across the Atlantic, laden with treasure from the New World. At the same time, influential writers such as Richard Hakluyt and John Dee (who was the first to use the term “British Empire”) were beginning to press for the establishment of England’s own empire. By this time, Spain had become the dominant power in the Americas and was exploring the Pacific, Portugal had established trading posts and forts from the coasts of Africa and Brazil to China, and France had begun to settle the Saint Lawrence River area, later to become New France.

Plantations of Ireland

Although England trailed behind other European powers in establishing overseas colonies, it had been engaged during the 16th century in the settlement of Ireland with Protestants from England and Scotland, drawing on precedents dating back to the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169. Several people who helped establish the Plantations of Ireland also played a part in the early colonisation of North America, particularly a group known as the West Country men.

“First” British Empire (1583–1783)

Main article: English overseas possessions

In 1578, Elizabeth I granted a patent to Humphrey Gilbert for discovery and overseas exploration. That year, Gilbert sailed for the West Indies with the intention of engaging in piracy and establishing a colony in North America, but the expedition was aborted before it had crossed the Atlantic. In 1583 he embarked on a second attempt, on this occasion to the island of Newfoundland whose harbour he formally claimed for England, although no settlers were left behind. Gilbert did not survive the return journey to England, and was succeeded by his half-brother, Walter Raleigh, who was granted his own patent by Elizabeth in 1584. Later that year, Raleigh founded the colony of Roanoke on the coast of present-day North Carolina, but lack of supplies caused the colony to fail.

In 1603, James VI, King of Scots, ascended to the English throne and in 1604 negotiated the Treaty of London, ending hostilities with Spain. Now at peace with its main rival, English attention shifted from preying on other nations’ colonial infrastructures to the business of establishing its own overseas colonies. The British Empire began to take shape during the early 17th century, with the English settlement of North America and the smaller islands of the Caribbean, and the establishment of private companies, most notably the English East India Company, to administer colonies and overseas trade. This period, until the loss of the Thirteen Colonies after the American War of Independence towards the end of the 18th century, has subsequently been referred to by some historians as the “First British Empire”.

Americas, Africa and the slave trade

Main articles: British colonization of the Americas, British America and Thirteen Colonies

The Caribbean initially provided England’s most important and lucrative colonies, but not before several attempts at colonisation failed. An attempt to establish a colony in Guiana in 1604 lasted only two years, and failed in its main objective to find gold deposits. Colonies in St Lucia (1605) and Grenada (1609) also rapidly folded, but settlements were successfully established in St. Kitts (1624), Barbados (1627) and Nevis (1628). The colonies soon adopted the system of sugar plantations successfully used by the Portuguese in Brazil, which depended on slave labour, and—at first—Dutch ships, to sell the slaves and buy the sugar. To ensure that the increasingly healthy profits of this trade remained in English hands, Parliament decreed in 1651 that only English ships would be able to ply their trade in English colonies. This led to hostilities with the United Dutch Provinces—a series of Anglo-Dutch Wars—which would eventually strengthen England’s position in the Americas at the expense of the Dutch. In 1655, England annexed the island of Jamaica from the Spanish, and in 1666 succeeded in colonising the Bahamas.

Map of British colonies in North America, 1763–1776

England’s first permanent settlement in the Americas was founded in 1607 in Jamestown, led by Captain John Smith and managed by the Virginia Company. Bermuda was settled and claimed by England as a result of the 1609 shipwreck there of the Virginia Company’s flagship, and in 1615 was turned over to the newly formed Somers Isles Company. The Virginia Company’s charter was revoked in 1624 and direct control of Virginia was assumed by the crown, thereby founding the Colony of Virginia. The London and Bristol Company was created in 1610 with the aim of creating a permanent settlement on Newfoundland, but was largely unsuccessful. In 1620, Plymouth was founded as a haven for puritan religious separatists, later known as the Pilgrims. Fleeing from religious persecution would become the motive of many English would-be colonists to risk the arduous trans-Atlantic voyage: Maryland was founded as a haven for Roman Catholics (1634), Rhode Island (1636) as a colony tolerant of all religions and Connecticut (1639) for Congregationalists. The Province of Carolina was founded in 1663. With the surrender of Fort Amsterdam in 1664, England gained control of the Dutch colony of New Netherland, renaming it New York. This was formalised in negotiations following the Second Anglo-Dutch War, in exchange for Suriname. In 1681, the colony of Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn. The American colonies were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean, but had large areas of good agricultural land and attracted far larger numbers of English emigrants who preferred their temperate climates.

African slaves working in 17th-century Virginia, by an unknown artist, 1670

In 1670, Charles II incorporated by royal charter the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), granting it a monopoly on the fur trade in the area known as Rupert’s Land, which would later form a large proportion of the Dominion of Canada. Forts and trading posts established by the HBC were frequently the subject of attacks by the French, who had established their own fur trading colony in adjacent New France.

Two years later, the Royal African Company was inaugurated, receiving from King Charles a monopoly of the trade to supply slaves to the British colonies of the Caribbean. From the outset, slavery was the basis of the British Empire in the West Indies. Until the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, Britain was responsible for the transportation of 3.5 million African slaves to the Americas, a third of all slaves transported across the Atlantic. To facilitate this trade, forts were established on the coast of West Africa, such as James Island, Accra and Bunce Island. In the British Caribbean, the percentage of the population of African descent rose from 25 percent in 1650 to around 80 percent in 1780, and in the 13 Colonies from 10 percent to 40 percent over the same period (the majority in the southern colonies). For the slave traders, the trade was extremely profitable, and became a major economic mainstay for such western British cities as Bristol and Liverpool, which formed the third corner of the so-called triangular trade with Africa and the Americas. For the transported, harsh and unhygienic conditions on the slaving ships and poor diets meant that the average mortality rate during the Middle Passage was one in seven.

In 1695, the Scottish Parliament granted a charter to the Company of Scotland, which established a settlement in 1698 on the isthmus of Panama. Besieged by neighbouring Spanish colonists of New Granada, and afflicted by malaria, the colony was abandoned two years later. The Darien scheme was a financial disaster for Scotland—a quarter of Scottish capital was lost in the enterprise—and ended Scottish hopes of establishing its own overseas empire. The episode also had major political consequences, persuading the governments of both England and Scotland of the merits of a union of countries, rather than just crowns. This occurred in 1707 with the Treaty of Union, establishing the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Rivalry with the Netherlands in Asia

Fort St. George was founded at Madras in 1639.

At the end of the 16th century, England and the Netherlands began to challenge Portugal’s monopoly of trade with Asia, forming private joint-stock companies to finance the voyages—the English, later British, East India Company and the Dutch East India Company, chartered in 1600 and 1602 respectively. The primary aim of these companies was to tap into the lucrative spice trade, an effort focused mainly on two regions; the East Indies archipelago, and an important hub in the trade network, India. There, they competed for trade supremacy with Portugal and with each other. Although England would ultimately eclipse the Netherlands as a colonial power, in the short term the Netherlands’ more advanced financial system and the three Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century left it with a stronger position in Asia. Hostilities ceased after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when the Dutch William of Orange ascended the English throne, bringing peace between the Netherlands and England. A deal between the two nations left the spice trade of the East Indies archipelago to the Netherlands and the textiles industry of India to England, but textiles soon overtook spices in terms of profitability, and by 1720, in terms of sales, the British company had overtaken the Dutch.

Global conflicts with France

Defeat of French fireships at Quebec in 1759

Peace between England and the Netherlands in 1688 meant that the two countries entered the Nine Years’ War as allies, but the conflict—waged in Europe and overseas between France, Spain and the Anglo-Dutch alliance—left the English a stronger colonial power than the Dutch, who were forced to devote a larger proportion of their military budget on the costly land war in Europe. The 18th century would see England (after 1707, Britain) rise to be the world’s dominant colonial power, and France becoming its main rival on the imperial stage.

The death of Charles II of Spain in 1700 and his bequeathal of Spain and its colonial empire to Philippe of Anjou, a grandson of the King of France, raised the prospect of the unification of France, Spain and their respective colonies, an unacceptable state of affairs for England and the other powers of Europe. In 1701, England, Portugal and the Netherlands sided with the Holy Roman Empire against Spain and France in the War of the Spanish Succession, which lasted until 1714.

At the concluding Treaty of Utrecht, Philip renounced his and his descendants’ right to the French throne and Spain lost its empire in Europe. The British Empire was territorially enlarged: from France, Britain gained Newfoundland and Acadia, and from Spain, Gibraltar and Minorca. Gibraltar became a critical naval base and allowed Britain to control the Atlantic entry and exit point to the Mediterranean. Spain also ceded the rights to the lucrative asiento (permission to sell slaves in Spanish America) to Britain.

Robert Clive’s victory at the Battle of Plassey established the East India Company as a military as well as a commercial power.

During the middle decades of the 18th century, there were several outbreaks of military conflict on the Indian subcontinent, the Carnatic Wars, as the English East India Company (the Company) and its French counterpart, the Compagnie française des Indes orientales, struggled alongside local rulers to fill the vacuum that had been left by the decline of the Mughal Empire. The Battle of Plassey in 1757, in which the British, led by Robert Clive, defeated the Nawab of Bengal and his French allies, left the Company in control of Bengal and as the major military and political power in India. France was left control of its enclaves but with military restrictions and an obligation to support British client states, ending French hopes of controlling India. In the following decades the Company gradually increased the size of the territories under its control, either ruling directly or via local rulers under the threat of force from the British Indian Army, the vast majority of which was composed of Indian sepoys.

The British and French struggles in India became but one theatre of the global Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) involving France, Britain and the other major European powers. The signing of the Treaty of Paris (1763) had important consequences for the future of the British Empire. In North America, France’s future as a colonial power there was effectively ended with the recognition of British claims to Rupert’s Land, and the ceding of New France to Britain (leaving a sizeable French-speaking population under British control) and Louisiana to Spain. Spain ceded Florida to Britain. Along with its victory over France in India, the Seven Years’ War therefore left Britain as the world’s most powerful maritime power.

Rise of the “Second” British Empire (1783–1815)

Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies

Main article: American Revolution

During the 1760s and early 1770s, relations between the Thirteen Colonies and Britain became increasingly strained, primarily due to resentment of the British Parliament’s attempts to govern and tax American colonists without their consent. This was summarised at the time by the slogan “No taxation without representation”, a perceived violation of the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. The American Revolution began with rejection of Parliamentary authority and moves towards self-government. In response Britain sent troops to reimpose direct rule, leading to the outbreak of war in 1775. The following year, in 1776, the United States declared independence. The entry of France to the war in 1778 tipped the military balance in the Americans’ favour and after a decisive defeat at Yorktown in 1781, Britain began negotiating peace terms. American independence was acknowledged at the Peace of Paris in 1783.

Surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. The loss of the American colonies marked the end of the “first British Empire”.

The loss of such a large portion of British America, at the time Britain’s most populous overseas possession, is seen by some historians as the event defining the transition between the “first” and “second” empires, in which Britain shifted its attention away from the Americas to Asia, the Pacific and later Africa. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, had argued that colonies were redundant, and that free trade should replace the old mercantilist policies that had characterised the first period of colonial expansion, dating back to the protectionism of Spain and Portugal. The growth of trade between the newly independent United States and Britain after 1783 seemed to confirm Smith’s view that political control was not necessary for economic success.

Events in America influenced British policy in Canada, where between 40,000 and 100,000 defeated Loyalists had migrated from America following independence. The 14,000 Loyalists who went to the Saint John and Saint Croix river valleys, then part of Nova Scotia, felt too far removed from the provincial government in Halifax, so London split off New Brunswick as a separate colony in 1784. The Constitutional Act of 1791 created the provinces of Upper Canada (mainly English-speaking) and Lower Canada (mainly French-speaking) to defuse tensions between the French and British communities, and implemented governmental systems similar to those employed in Britain, with the intention of asserting imperial authority and not allowing the sort of popular control of government that was perceived to have led to the American Revolution.

Tensions between Britain and the United States escalated again during the Napoleonic Wars, as Britain tried to cut off American trade with France and boarded American ships to impress into the Royal Navy men of British birth. The US declared war, the War of 1812, and invaded Canadian territory, but the pre-war boundaries were reaffirmed by the 1814 Treaty of Ghent, ensuring Canada’s future would be separate from that of the United States.

Exploration of the Pacific

James Cook’s mission was to find the alleged southern continent Terra Australis.

Since 1718, transportation to the American colonies had been a penalty for various criminal offences in Britain, with approximately one thousand convicts transported per year across the Atlantic. Forced to find an alternative location after the loss of the 13 Colonies in 1783, the British government turned to the newly discovered lands of Australia. The western coast of Australia had been discovered for Europeans by the Dutch explorer Willem Jansz in 1606 and was later named New Holland by the Dutch East India Company, but there was no attempt to colonise it. In 1770 James Cook discovered the eastern coast of Australia while on a scientific voyage to the South Pacific Ocean, claimed the continent for Britain, and named it New South Wales. In 1778, Joseph Banks, Cook’s botanist on the voyage, presented evidence to the government on the suitability of Botany Bay for the establishment of a penal settlement, and in 1787 the first shipment of convicts set sail, arriving in 1788. Britain continued to transport convicts to New South Wales until 1840. The Australian colonies became profitable exporters of wool and gold, mainly due to gold rushes in the colony of Victoria, making its capital Melbourne the richest city in the world and the largest city after London in the British Empire.

During his voyage, Cook also visited New Zealand, first discovered by Dutch explorer Abel Tasman in 1642, and claimed the North and South islands for the British crown in 1769 and 1770 respectively. Initially, interaction between the indigenous Māori population and Europeans was limited to the trading of goods. European settlement increased through the early decades of the 19th century, with numerous trading stations established, especially in the North. In 1839, the New Zealand Company announced plans to buy large tracts of land and establish colonies in New Zealand. On 6 February 1840, Captain William Hobson and around 40 Maori chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi. This treaty is considered by many to be New Zealand’s founding document, but differing interpretations of the Maori and English versions of the text have meant that it continues to be a source of dispute.

War with Napoleonic France

Main article: Napoleonic Wars

Britain was challenged again by France under Napoleon, in a struggle that, unlike previous wars, represented a contest of ideologies between the two nations. It was not only Britain’s position on the world stage that was threatened: Napoleon threatened to invade Britain itself, just as his armies had overrun many countries of continental Europe.

The Battle of Waterloo ended in the defeat of Napoleon.

The Napoleonic Wars were therefore ones in which Britain invested large amounts of capital and resources to win. French ports were blockaded by the Royal Navy, which won a decisive victory over a Franco-Spanish fleet at Trafalgar in 1805. Overseas colonies were attacked and occupied, including those of the Netherlands, which was annexed by Napoleon in 1810. France was finally defeated by a coalition of European armies in 1815. Britain was again the beneficiary of peace treaties: France ceded the Ionian Islands, Malta (which it had occupied in 1797 and 1798 respectively), Mauritius, St Lucia, and Tobago; Spain ceded Trinidad; the Netherlands Guyana, and the Cape Colony. Britain returned Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, and Réunion to France, and Java and Suriname to the Netherlands, while gaining control of Ceylon (1795–1815).

Abolition of slavery

With support from the British abolitionist movement, Parliament enacted the Slave Trade Act in 1807, which abolished the slave trade in the empire. In 1808, Sierra Leone was designated an official British colony for freed slaves. The Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833 abolished slavery in the British Empire on 1 August 1834 (with the exception of St. Helena, Ceylon and the territories administered by the East India Company, though these exclusions were later repealed). Under the Act, slaves were granted full emancipation after a period of 4 to 6 years of “apprenticeship”.

Britain’s imperial century (1815–1914)

See also: Timeline of British diplomatic history § 1815–96, Industrial Revolution and Victorian era

An elaborate map of the British Empire in 1886, marked in the traditional colour for imperial British dominions on maps

Between 1815 and 1914, a period referred to as Britain’s “imperial century” by some historians, around 10,000,000 square miles (26,000,000 km2) of territory and roughly 400 million people were added to the British Empire. Victory over Napoleon left Britain without any serious international rival, other than Russia in central Asia. Unchallenged at sea, Britain adopted the role of global policeman, a state of affairs later known as the Pax Britannica, and a foreign policy of “splendid isolation”. Alongside the formal control it exerted over its own colonies, Britain’s dominant position in world trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of many countries, such as China, Argentina and Siam, which has been characterised by some historians as “Informal Empire”.

British imperial strength was underpinned by the steamship and the telegraph, new technologies invented in the second half of the 19th century, allowing it to control and defend the empire. By 1902, the British Empire was linked together by a network of telegraph cables, the so-called All Red Line.

East India Company in Asia

Rivalry with Russia

Main article: The Great Game

British cavalry charging against Russian forces at Balaclava in 1854

During the 19th century, Britain and the Russian Empire vied to fill the power vacuums that had been left by the declining Ottoman Empire, Qajar dynasty and Qing Dynasty. This rivalry in Eurasia came to be known as the “Great Game”. As far as Britain was concerned, defeats inflicted by Russia on Persia and Turkey demonstrated its imperial ambitions and capabilities and stoked fears in Britain of an overland invasion of India. In 1839, Britain moved to pre-empt this by invading Afghanistan, but the First Anglo-Afghan War was a disaster for Britain.

When Russia invaded the Turkish Balkans in 1853, fears of Russian dominance in the Mediterranean and Middle East led Britain and France to invade the Crimean Peninsula to destroy Russian naval capabilities. The ensuing Crimean War (1854–56), which involved new techniques of modern warfare, and was the only global war fought between Britain and another imperial power during the Pax Britannica, was a resounding defeat for Russia. The situation remained unresolved in Central Asia for two more decades, with Britain annexing Baluchistan in 1876 and Russia annexing Kirghizia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. For a while it appeared that another war would be inevitable, but the two countries reached an agreement on their respective spheres of influence in the region in 1878 and on all outstanding matters in 1907 with the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente. The destruction of the Russian Navy by the Japanese at the Battle of Port Arthur during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 also limited its threat to the British.

Cape to Cairo

The Rhodes Colossus—Cecil Rhodes spanning “Cape to Cairo”

The Dutch East India Company had founded the Cape Colony on the southern tip of Africa in 1652 as a way station for its ships travelling to and from its colonies in the East Indies. Britain formally acquired the colony, and its large Afrikaner (or Boer) population in 1806, having occupied it in 1795 to prevent its falling into French hands, following the invasion of the Netherlands by France. British immigration began to rise after 1820, and pushed thousands of Boers, resentful of British rule, northwards to found their own—mostly short-lived—independent republics, during the Great Trek of the late 1830s and early 1840s. In the process the Voortrekkers clashed repeatedly with the British, who had their own agenda with regard to colonial expansion in South Africa and with several African polities, including those of the Sotho and the Zulu nations. Eventually the Boers established two republics which had a longer lifespan: the South African Republic or Transvaal Republic (1852–77; 1881–1902) and the Orange Free State (1854–1902). In 1902 Britain occupied both republics, concluding a treaty with the two Boer Republics following the Second Boer War (1899–1902).

In 1869 the Suez Canal opened under Napoleon III, linking the Mediterranean with the Indian Ocean. Initially the Canal was opposed by the British; but once opened, its strategic value was quickly recognised and became the “jugular vein of the Empire”. In 1875, the Conservative government of Benjamin Disraeli bought the indebted Egyptian ruler Isma’il Pasha’s 44 percent shareholding in the Suez Canal for £4 million (£340 million in 2013). Although this did not grant outright control of the strategic waterway, it did give Britain leverage. Joint Anglo-French financial control over Egypt ended in outright British occupation in 1882. The French were still majority shareholders and attempted to weaken the British position, but a compromise was reached with the 1888 Convention of Constantinople, which made the Canal officially neutral territory.

With French, Belgian and Portuguese activity in the lower Congo River region undermining orderly incursion of tropical Africa, the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 was held to regulate the competition between the European powers in what was called the “Scramble for Africa” by defining “effective occupation” as the criterion for international recognition of territorial claims. The scramble continued into the 1890s, and caused Britain to reconsider its decision in 1885 to withdraw from Sudan. A joint force of British and Egyptian troops defeated the Mahdist Army in 1896, and rebuffed a French attempted invasion at Fashoda in 1898. Sudan was nominally made an Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, but a British colony in reality.

British gains in southern and East Africa prompted Cecil Rhodes, pioneer of British expansion in Africa, to urge a “Cape to Cairo” railway linking the strategically important Suez Canal to the mineral-rich South. During the 1880s and 1890s, Rhodes, with his privately owned British South Africa Company, occupied and annexed territories subsequently named after him, Rhodesia.

Changing status of the white colonies

Canada’s major industry in terms of employment and value of the product was the timber trade. Ontario c. 1900.

The path to independence for the white colonies of the British Empire began with the 1839 Durham Report, which proposed unification and self-government for Upper and Lower Canada, as a solution to political unrest there. This began with the passing of the Act of Union in 1840, which created the Province of Canada. Responsible government was first granted to Nova Scotia in 1848, and was soon extended to the other British North American colonies. With the passage of the British North America Act, 1867 by the British Parliament, Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were formed into the Dominion of Canada, a confederation enjoying full self-government with the exception of international relations. Australia and New Zealand achieved similar levels of self-government after 1900, with the Australian colonies federating in 1901. The term “dominion status” was officially introduced at the Colonial Conference of 1907.

The last decades of the 19th century saw concerted political campaigns for Irish home rule. Ireland had been united with Britain into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with the Act of Union 1800 after the Irish Rebellion of 1798, and had suffered a severe famine between 1845 and 1852. Home rule was supported by the British Prime minister, William Gladstone, who hoped that Ireland might follow in Canada’s footsteps as a Dominion within the empire, but his 1886 Home Rule bill was defeated in Parliament. Although the bill, if passed, would have granted Ireland less autonomy within the UK than the Canadian provinces had within their own federation, many MPs feared that a partially independent Ireland might pose a security threat to Great Britain or mark the beginning of the break-up of the empire. A second Home Rule bill was also defeated for similar reasons. A third bill was passed by Parliament in 1914, but not implemented due to the outbreak of the First World War leading to the 1916 Easter Rising.

World wars (1914–1945)

By the turn of the 20th century, fears had begun to grow in Britain that it would no longer be able to defend the metropole and the entirety of the empire while at the same time maintaining the policy of “splendid isolation”. Germany was rapidly rising as a military and industrial power and was now seen as the most likely opponent in any future war. Recognising that it was overstretched in the Pacific and threatened at home by the Imperial German Navy, Britain formed an alliance with Japan in 1902 and with its old enemies France and Russia in 1904 and 1907, respectively.

First World War

Main article: History of the United Kingdom during World War I

Soldiers of the Australian 5th Division, waiting to attack during the Battle of Fromelles, 19 July 1916

Britain’s fears of war with Germany were realised in 1914 with the outbreak of the First World War. Britain quickly invaded and occupied most of Germany’s overseas colonies in Africa. In the Pacific, Australia and New Zealand occupied German New Guinea and Samoa respectively. Plans for a post-war division of the Ottoman Empire, which had joined the war on Germany’s side, were secretly drawn up by Britain and France under the 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement. This agreement was not divulged to the Sharif of Mecca, who the British had been encouraging to launch an Arab revolt against their Ottoman rulers, giving the impression that Britain was supporting the creation of an independent Arab state.

A poster urging men from countries of the British Empire to enlist in the British army

The British declaration of war on Germany and its allies also committed the colonies and Dominions, which provided invaluable military, financial and material support. Over 2.5 million men served in the armies of the Dominions, as well as many thousands of volunteers from the Crown colonies. The contributions of Australian and New Zealand troops during the 1915 Gallipoli Campaign against the Ottoman Empire had a great impact on the national consciousness at home, and marked a watershed in the transition of Australia and New Zealand from colonies to nations in their own right. The countries continue to commemorate this occasion on Anzac Day. Canadians viewed the Battle of Vimy Ridge in a similar light. The important contribution of the Dominions to the war effort was recognised in 1917 by the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George when he invited each of the Dominion Prime Ministers to join an Imperial War Cabinet to co-ordinate imperial policy.

Under the terms of the concluding Treaty of Versailles signed in 1919, the empire reached its greatest extent with the addition of 1,800,000 square miles (4,700,000 km2) and 13 million new subjects. The colonies of Germany and the Ottoman Empire were distributed to the Allied powers as League of Nations mandates. Britain gained control of Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq, parts of Cameroon and Togo, and Tanganyika. The Dominions themselves also acquired mandates of their own: the Union of South Africa gained South-West Africa (modern-day Namibia), Australia gained German New Guinea, and New Zealand Western Samoa. Nauru was made a combined mandate of Britain and the two Pacific Dominions.

Inter-war period

Territorial extent of the British Empire in 1921

The changing world order that the war had brought about, in particular the growth of the United States and Japan as naval powers, and the rise of independence movements in India and Ireland, caused a major reassessment of British imperial policy. Forced to choose between alignment with the United States or Japan, Britain opted not to renew its Japanese alliance and instead signed the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, where Britain accepted naval parity with the United States. This decision was the source of much debate in Britain during the 1930s as militaristic governments took hold in Japan and Germany helped in part by the Great Depression, for it was feared that the empire could not survive a simultaneous attack by both nations. Although the issue of the empire’s security was a serious concern in Britain, at the same time the empire was vital to the British economy.

In 1919, the frustrations caused by delays to Irish home rule led members of Sinn Féin, a pro-independence party that had won a majority of the Irish seats at Westminster in the 1918 British general election, to establish an Irish assembly in Dublin, at which Irish independence was declared. The Irish Republican Army simultaneously began a guerrilla war against the British administration. The Anglo-Irish War ended in 1921 with a stalemate and the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, creating the Irish Free State, a Dominion within the British Empire, with effective internal independence but still constitutionally linked with the British Crown. Northern Ireland, consisting of six of the 32 Irish counties which had been established as a devolved region under the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, immediately exercised its option under the treaty to retain its existing status within the United Kingdom.

George V with the British and Dominion prime ministers at the 1926 Imperial Conference

A similar struggle began in India when the Government of India Act 1919 failed to satisfy demand for independence. Concerns over communist and foreign plots following the Ghadar Conspiracy ensured that war-time strictures were renewed by the Rowlatt Acts. This led to tension, particularly in the Punjab region, where repressive measures culminated in the Amritsar Massacre. In Britain public opinion was divided over the morality of the event, between those who saw it as having saved India from anarchy, and those who viewed it with revulsion. The subsequent Non-Co-Operation movement was called off in March 1922 following the Chauri Chaura incident, and discontent continued to simmer for the next 25 years.

In 1922, Egypt, which had been declared a British protectorate at the outbreak of the First World War, was granted formal independence, though it continued to be a British client state until 1954. British troops remained stationed in Egypt until the signing of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty in 1936, under which it was agreed that the troops would withdraw but continue to occupy and defend the Suez Canal zone. In return, Egypt was assisted to join the League of Nations. Iraq, a British mandate since 1920, also gained membership of the League in its own right after achieving independence from Britain in 1932. In Palestine, Britain was presented with the problem of mediating between the Arab and Jewish communities. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, which had been incorporated into the terms of the mandate, stated that a national home for the Jewish people would be established in Palestine, and Jewish immigration allowed up to a limit that would be determined by the mandatory power. This led to increasing conflict with the Arab population, who openly revolted in 1936. As the threat of war with Germany increased during the 1930s, Britain judged the support of the Arab population in the Middle East as more important than the establishment of a Jewish homeland, and shifted to a pro-Arab stance, limiting Jewish immigration and in turn triggering a Jewish insurgency.

The ability of the Dominions to set their own foreign policy, independent of Britain, was recognised at the 1923 Imperial Conference. Britain’s request for military assistance from the Dominions at the outbreak of the Chanak Crisis the previous year had been turned down by Canada and South Africa, and Canada had refused to be bound by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. After pressure from Ireland and South Africa, the 1926 Imperial Conference issued the Balfour Declaration, declaring the Dominions to be “autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another” within a “British Commonwealth of Nations”. This declaration was given legal substance under the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland were now independent of British legislative control, they could nullify British laws and Britain could no longer pass laws for them without their consent. Newfoundland reverted to colonial status in 1933, suffering from financial difficulties during the Great Depression. Ireland distanced itself further from Britain with the introduction of a new constitution in 1937, making it a republic in all but name.

Second World War

Main article: British Empire in World War II

During the Second World War, the Eighth Army was made up of units from many different countries in the British Empire and Commonwealth; it fought in North African and Italian campaigns.

Britain’s declaration of war against Nazi Germany in September 1939 included the Crown colonies and India but did not automatically commit the Dominions of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa. All soon declared war on Germany, but the Irish Free State chose to remain legally neutral throughout the war.

After the German occupation of France in 1940, Britain and the empire stood alone against Germany, until the entry of the Soviet Union to the war in 1941. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill successfully lobbied President Franklin D. Roosevelt for military aid from the United States, but Roosevelt was not yet ready to ask Congress to commit the country to war. In August 1941, Churchill and Roosevelt met and signed the Atlantic Charter, which included the statement that “the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they live” should be respected. This wording was ambiguous as to whether it referred to European countries invaded by Germany, or the peoples colonised by European nations, and would later be interpreted differently by the British, Americans, and nationalist movements.

In December 1941, Japan launched, in quick succession, attacks on British Malaya, the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, and Hong Kong. Churchill’s reaction to the entry of the United States into the war was that Britain was now assured of victory and the future of the empire was safe, but the manner in which British forces rapidly surrendered in the Far East irreversibly harmed Britain’s standing and prestige as an imperial power. Most damaging of all was the fall of Singapore, which had previously been hailed as an impregnable fortress and the eastern equivalent of Gibraltar. The realisation that Britain could not defend its entire empire pushed Australia and New Zealand, which now appeared threatened by Japanese forces, into closer ties with the United States. This resulted in the 1951 ANZUS Pact between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America.

Decolonisation and decline (1945–1997)

Though Britain and the empire emerged victorious from the Second World War, the effects of the conflict were profound, both at home and abroad. Much of Europe, a continent that had dominated the world for several centuries, was in ruins, and host to the armies of the United States and the Soviet Union, who now held the balance of global power. Britain was left essentially bankrupt, with insolvency only averted in 1946 after the negotiation of a $US 4.33 billion loan (US$56 billion in 2012) from the United States, the last instalment of which was repaid in 2006. At the same time, anti-colonial movements were on the rise in the colonies of European nations. The situation was complicated further by the increasing Cold War rivalry of the United States and the Soviet Union. In principle, both nations were opposed to European colonialism. In practice, however, American Anti-communism prevailed over anti-imperialism, and therefore the United States supported the continued existence of the British Empire to keep Communist expansion in check. The “wind of change” ultimately meant that the British Empire’s days were numbered, and on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were available to transfer power to. This was in contrast to other European powers such as France and Portugal, which waged costly and ultimately unsuccessful wars to keep their empires intact. Between 1945 and 1965, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong.

Initial disengagement

About 14.5 million lost their homes as a result of the partition of India in 1947.

The pro-decolonisation Labour government, elected at the 1945 general election and led by Clement Attlee, moved quickly to tackle the most pressing issue facing the empire: that of Indian independence. India’s two major political parties—the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League—had been campaigning for independence for decades, but disagreed as to how it should be implemented. Congress favoured a unified secular Indian state, whereas the League, fearing domination by the Hindu majority, desired a separate Islamic state for Muslim-majority regions. Increasing civil unrest and the mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy during 1946 led Attlee to promise independence no later than 1948. When the urgency of the situation and risk of civil war became apparent, the newly appointed (and last) Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, hastily brought forward the date to 15 August 1947. The borders drawn by the British to broadly partition India into Hindu and Muslim areas left tens of millions as minorities in the newly independent states of India and Pakistan. Millions of Muslims subsequently crossed from India to Pakistan and Hindus vice versa, and violence between the two communities cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Burma, which had been administered as part of the British Raj, and Sri Lanka gained their independence the following year in 1948. India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka became members of the Commonwealth, while Burma chose not to join.

The British Mandate of Palestine, where an Arab majority lived alongside a Jewish minority, presented the British with a similar problem to that of India. The matter was complicated by large numbers of Jewish refugees seeking to be admitted to Palestine following the Holocaust, while Arabs were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state. Frustrated by the intractability of the problem, attacks by Jewish paramilitary organisations and the increasing cost of maintaining its military presence, Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve. The UN General Assembly subsequently voted for a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.

Following the defeat of Japan in the Second World War, anti-Japanese resistance movements in Malaya turned their attention towards the British, who had moved to quickly retake control of the colony, valuing it as a source of rubber and tin. The fact that the guerrillas were primarily Malayan-Chinese Communists meant that the British attempt to quell the uprising was supported by the Muslim Malay majority, on the understanding that once the insurgency had been quelled, independence would be granted. The Malayan Emergency, as it was called, began in 1948 and lasted until 1960, but by 1957, Britain felt confident enough to grant independence to the Federation of Malaya within the Commonwealth. In 1963, the 11 states of the federation together with Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo joined to form Malaysia, but in 1965 Chinese-majority Singapore was expelled from the union following tensions between the Malay and Chinese populations. Brunei, which had been a British protectorate since 1888, declined to join the union and maintained its status until independence in 1984.

Suez and its aftermath

Main article: Suez Crisis

British Prime Minister Anthony Eden’s decision to invade Egypt during the Suez Crisis ended his political career and revealed Britain’s weakness as an imperial power.

In 1951, the Conservative Party returned to power in Britain, under the leadership of Winston Churchill. Churchill and the Conservatives believed that Britain’s position as a world power relied on the continued existence of the empire, with the base at the Suez Canal allowing Britain to maintain its pre-eminent position in the Middle East in spite of the loss of India. However, Churchill could not ignore Gamal Abdul Nasser’s new revolutionary government of Egypt that had taken power in 1952, and the following year it was agreed that British troops would withdraw from the Suez Canal zone and that Sudan would be granted self-determination by 1955, with independence to follow. Sudan was granted independence on 1 January 1956.

In July 1956, Nasser unilaterally nationalised the Suez Canal. The response of Anthony Eden, who had succeeded Churchill as Prime Minister, was to collude with France to engineer an Israeli attack on Egypt that would give Britain and France an excuse to intervene militarily and retake the canal. Eden infuriated US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, by his lack of consultation, and Eisenhower refused to back the invasion. Another of Eisenhower’s concerns was the possibility of a wider war with the Soviet Union after it threatened to intervene on the Egyptian side. Eisenhower applied financial leverage by threatening to sell US reserves of the British pound and thereby precipitate a collapse of the British currency. Though the invasion force was militarily successful in its objectives, UN intervention and US pressure forced Britain into a humiliating withdrawal of its forces, and Eden resigned.

The Suez Crisis very publicly exposed Britain’s limitations to the world and confirmed Britain’s decline on the world stage, demonstrating that henceforth it could no longer act without at least the acquiescence, if not the full support, of the United States. The events at Suez wounded British national pride, leading one MP to describe it as “Britain’s Waterloo” and another to suggest that the country had become an “American satellite”. Margaret Thatcher later described the mindset she believed had befallen the British political establishment as “Suez syndrome”, from which Britain did not recover until the successful recapture of the Falkland Islands from Argentina in 1982.

While the Suez Crisis caused British power in the Middle East to weaken, it did not collapse. Britain again deployed its armed forces to the region, intervening in Oman (1957), Jordan (1958) and Kuwait (1961), though on these occasions with American approval, as the new Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s foreign policy was to remain firmly aligned with the United States. Britain maintained a military presence in the Middle East for another decade. In January 1968, a few weeks after the devaluation of the pound, Prime Minister Harold Wilson and his Defence Secretary Denis Healey announced that British troops would be withdrawn from major military bases East of Suez, which included the ones in the Middle East, and primarily from Malaysia and Singapore. The British withdrew from Aden in 1967, Bahrain in 1971, and Maldives in 1976.

Wind of change

Main article: Decolonization of Africa

British decolonisation in Africa. By the end of the 1960s, all but Rhodesia (the future Zimbabwe) and the South African mandate of South West Africa (Namibia) had achieved recognised independence.

Macmillan gave a speech in Cape Town, South Africa in February 1960 where he spoke of “the wind of change blowing through this continent.” Macmillan wished to avoid the same kind of colonial war that France was fighting in Algeria, and under his premiership decolonisation proceeded rapidly. To the three colonies that had been granted independence in the 1950s—Sudan, the Gold Coast and Malaya—were added nearly ten times that number during the 1960s.

Britain’s remaining colonies in Africa, except for self-governing Southern Rhodesia, were all granted independence by 1968. British withdrawal from the southern and eastern parts of Africa was not a peaceful process. Kenyan independence was preceded by the eight-year Mau Mau Uprising. In Rhodesia, the 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the white minority resulted in a civil war that lasted until the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979, which set the terms for recognised independence in 1980, as the new nation of Zimbabwe.

In the Mediterranean, a guerrilla war waged by Greek Cypriots ended in (1960) an independent Cyprus, with the UK retaining the military bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. The Mediterranean islands of Malta and Gozo were amicably granted independence from the UK in 1964, though the idea had been raised in 1955 of integration with Britain.

Most of the UK’s Caribbean territories achieved independence after the departure in 1961 and 1962 of Jamaica and Trinidad from the West Indies Federation, established in 1958 in an attempt to unite the British Caribbean colonies under one government, but which collapsed following the loss of its two largest members. Barbados achieved independence in 1966 and the remainder of the eastern Caribbean islands in the 1970s and 1980s, but Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands opted to revert to British rule after they had already started on the path to independence. The British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Montserrat opted to retain ties with Britain, while Guyana achieved independence in 1966. Britain’s last colony on the American mainland, British Honduras, became a self-governing colony in 1964 and was renamed Belize in 1973, achieving full independence in 1981. A dispute with Guatemala over claims to Belize was left unresolved.

British territories in the Pacific acquired independence in the 1970s beginning with Fiji in 1970 and ending with Vanuatu in 1980. Vanuatu’s independence was delayed due to political conflict between English and French-speaking communities, as the islands had been jointly administered as a condominium with France. Fiji, Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea chose to become Commonwealth realms.

End of empire

See also: Falklands War and Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Convention Centre hosted the ceremony for the Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong from Britain to China in 1997, symbolically marking the “end of Empire”.

In 1980, Rhodesia, Britain’s last African colony, became the independent nation of Zimbabwe. The New Hebrides achieved independence (as Vanuatu) in 1980, with Belize following suit in 1981. The passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, which reclassified the remaining Crown colonies as “British Dependent Territories” (renamed British Overseas Territories in 2002) meant that, aside from a scattering of islands and outposts (and the acquisition in 1955 of an uninhabited rock in the Atlantic Ocean, Rockall), the process of decolonisation that had begun after the Second World War was largely complete. In 1982, Britain’s resolve in defending its remaining overseas territories was tested when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, acting on a long-standing claim that dated back to the Spanish Empire. Britain’s ultimately successful military response to retake the islands during the ensuing Falklands War was viewed by many to have contributed to reversing the downward trend in Britain’s status as a world power. The same year, the Canadian government severed its last legal link with Britain by patriating the Canadian constitution from Britain. The 1982 Canada Act passed by the British parliament ended the need for British involvement in changes to the Canadian constitution. Similarly, the Constitution Act 1986 reformed the constitution of New Zealand to severe its constitutional link with Britain, and the Australia Act 1986 severed the constitutional link between Britain and the Australian states.

In September 1982, Prime minister Margaret Thatcher travelled to Beijing to negotiate with the Chinese government on the future of Britain’s last major and most populous overseas territory, Hong Kong. Under the terms of the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, Hong Kong Island itself had been ceded to Britain in perpetuity, but the vast majority of the colony was constituted by the New Territories, which had been acquired under a 99-year lease in 1898, due to expire in 1997. Thatcher, seeing parallels with the Falkland Islands, initially wished to hold Hong Kong and proposed British administration with Chinese sovereignty, though this was rejected by China. A deal was reached in 1984—under the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, Hong Kong would become a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China, maintaining its way of life for at least 50 years. The handover ceremony in 1997 marked for many, including Charles, Prince of Wales, who was in attendance, “the end of Empire”.

Legacy

The fourteen British Overseas Territories

Britain retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which were renamed the British Overseas Territories in 2002. Some are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel; the remainder are self-governing to varying degrees and are reliant on the UK for foreign relations and defence. The British government has stated its willingness to assist any Overseas Territory that wishes to proceed to independence, where that is an option. British sovereignty of several of the overseas territories is disputed by their geographical neighbours: Gibraltar is claimed by Spain, the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are claimed by Argentina, and the British Indian Ocean Territory is claimed by Mauritius and Seychelles. The British Antarctic Territory is subject to overlapping claims by Argentina and Chile, while many countries do not recognise any territorial claims in Antarctica.

Parliament House in Canberra, Australia. Britain’s Westminster System of governance has left a legacy of parliamentary democracies in many former colonies.

Cricket being played in India. British sports continue to be enthusiastically supported in various parts of the former Empire.

Most former British colonies and protectorates are among the 53 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, a non-political, voluntary association of equal members, comprising a population of around 2.2 billion people. Sixteen Commonwealth realms voluntarily continue to share the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, as their head of state. These sixteen nations are distinct and equal legal entities – the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu

Decades, and in some cases centuries, of British rule and emigration have left their mark on the independent nations that arose from the British Empire. The empire established the use of English in regions around the world. Today it is the primary language of up to 400 million people and is spoken by about one and a half billion as a first, second or foreign language.

The spread of English from the latter half of the 20th century has been helped in part by the cultural influence of the United States, itself originally formed from British colonies. Except in Africa where nearly all the former colonies have adopted the presidential system, the English parliamentary system has served as the template for the governments for many former colonies, and English common law for legal systems.

The British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council still serves as the highest court of appeal for several former colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific. British Protestant missionaries who travelled around the globe often in advance of soldiers and civil servants spread the Anglican Communion to all continents. British colonial architecture, such as in churches, railway stations and government buildings, can be seen in many cities that were once part of the British Empire.

Individual and team sports developed in Britain—particularly football, cricket, rugby, lawn tennis and golf—were also exported. The British choice of system of measurement, the imperial system, continues to be used in some countries in various ways. The convention of driving on the left hand side of the road has been retained in much of the former empire.

Political boundaries drawn by the British did not always reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions, contributing to conflicts in formerly colonised areas. The British Empire was also responsible for large migrations of peoples. Millions left the British Isles, with the founding settler populations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand coming mainly from Britain and Ireland. Tensions remain between the white settler populations of these countries and their indigenous minorities, and between white settler minorities and indigenous majorities in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Settlers in Ireland from Great Britain have left their mark in the form of divided nationalist and unionist communities in Northern Ireland. Millions of people moved to and from British colonies, with large numbers of Indians emigrating to other parts of the empire, such as Malaysia and Fiji, and Chinese people to Malaysia, Singapore and the Caribbean. The demographics of Britain itself was changed after the Second World War owing to immigration to Britain from its former colonies.

References

^ Ferguson, Niall (2004). Empire, The rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02328-2.
^ Maddison 2001, pp. 98, 242.
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 15.
^ Elkins2005, p. 5.
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 2.
^ a b Brendon, p. 660.
^ a b “Charles’ diary lays thoughts bare”. BBC News. 22 February 2006. Retrieved 13 December 2008.
^ a b c Brown, p. 594.
^ a b “BBC – History – Britain, the Commonwealth and the End of Empire”. BBC News. Retrieved 13 December 2008.
^ a b Ferguson 2004, p. 3.
^ Andrews 1985, p. 45.
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 4.
^ Canny, p. 35.
^ Thomas, pp. 155–158
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 7.
^ Canny, p. 62.
^ Lloyd, pp. 4–8.
^ Canny, p. 7.
^ Kenny, p. 5.
^ Taylor, pp. 119,123.
^ Andrews, p. 187.
^ Andrews, p. 188.
^ Canny, p. 63.
^ Canny, pp. 63–64.
^ Canny, p. 70.
^ Canny, p. 34.
^ James, p. 17.
^ Canny, p. 71.
^ Canny, p. 221.
^ Lloyd, pp. 22–23.
^ Lloyd, p. 32.
^ Lloyd, pp. 33, 43.
^ Lloyd, pp. 15–20.
^ Andrews, pp. 316, 324–326.
^ Andrews, pp. 20–22.
^ James, p. 8.
^ Lloyd, p. 40.
^ Ferguson 2004, pp. 72–73.
^ a b Buckner, p. 25.
^ Lloyd, p. 37.
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 62.
^ Canny, p. 228.
^ Marshall, pp. 440–64.
^ Magnusson, p. 531.
^ Macaulay, p. 509.
^ Lloyd, p. 13.
^ a b Ferguson 2004, p. 19.
^ Canny, p. 441.
^ Pagden, p. 90.
^ a b Shennan, pp. 11–17.
^ James, p. 58.
^ Smith, p. 17.
^ Bandyopādhyāẏa, pp. 49–52
^ Smith, pp. 18–19.
^ a b Pagden, p. 91.
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 84.
^ Marshall, pp. 312–23.
^ Canny, p. 92.
^ James, p. 120.
^ James, p. 119.
^ Marshall, p. 585.
^ Zolberg, p. 496.
^ Games, pp. 46–48.
^ Kelley & Trebilcock, p. 43.
^ Smith, p. 28.
^ Latimer, pp. 8, 30–34, 389–92.
^ Marshall, pp. 388.
^ Smith, p. 20.
^ Smith, pp. 20–21.
^ Mulligan & Hill, pp. 20–23.
^ Peters, pp. 5–23.
^ James, p. 142.
^ Britain and the Dominions, p. 159.
^ Fieldhouse, pp. 145–149
^ Cervero, Robert B. (1998). The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Chicago: Island Press. p. 320. ISBN 1-55963-591-6.
^ Statesmen’s Year Book 1889
^ Smith, p. 45.
^ “Waitangi Day”. History Group, New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved 13 December 2008.
^ Porter, p. 579.
^ Mein Smith, p. 49.
^ James, p. 152.
^ Lloyd, pp. 115–118.
^ a b c d James, p. 165.
^ Porter, p. 14.
^ Hinks, p. 129.
^ Hyam, p. 1.
^ Smith, p. 71.
^ Parsons, p. 3.
^ a b Porter, p. 401.
^ Porter, p. 332.
^ Lee 1994, pp. 254–257.
^ Porter, p. 8.
^ Marshall, pp. 156–57.
^ Dalziel, pp. 88–91.
^ Martin, pp. 146–148.
^ Janin, p. 28.
^ Keay, p. 393
^ Parsons, pp. 44–46.
^ Smith, pp. 50–57.
^ Brown, p. 5.
^ Marshall, pp. 133–34.
^ Hopkirk, pp. 1–12.
^ James, p. 181.
^ Royle, preface.
^ Williams, Beryl J. (1966). “The Strategic Background to the Anglo-Russian Entente of August 1907″. The Historical Journal 9 (3): 360–373. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00026698. JSTOR 2637986.
^ Hodge, p. 47.
^ Smith, p. 85.
^ Smith, pp. 85–86.
^ Lloyd, pp. 168, 186, 243.
^ Lloyd, p. 255.
^ Tilby, p. 256.
^ Roger 1986, p. 718.
^ Ferguson 2004, pp. 230–33.
^ James, p. 274.
^ “Treaties”. Egypt Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Archived from the original on 15 September 2010. Retrieved 20 October 2010.
^ Herbst, pp. 71–72.
^ Vandervort, pp. 169–183.
^ James, p. 298.
^ Lloyd, p. 215.
^ Smith, pp. 28–29.
^ Porter, p. 187
^ Smith, p. 30.
^ a b Rhodes, Wanna & Weller, pp. 5–15.
^ Lloyd, p. 213
^ a b James, p. 315.
^ Smith, p. 92.
^ O’Brien, p. 1.
^ Brown, p. 667.
^ Lloyd, p. 275.
^ a b Brown, pp. 494–495.
^ Marshall, pp. 78–79.
^ Lloyd, p. 277.
^ Lloyd, p. 278.
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 315.
^ Fox, pp. 23–29, 35, 60.
^ Goldstein, p. 4.
^ Louis, p. 302.
^ Louis, p. 294.
^ Louis, p. 303.
^ Lee 1996, p. 305.
^ Brown, p. 143.
^ Smith, p. 95.
^ Magee, p. 108.
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 330.
^ a b James, p. 416.
^ Low, D.A. (February 1966). “The Government of India and the First Non-Cooperation Movement-—1920–1922″. The Journal of Asian Studies 25 (2): 241–259. doi:10.2307/2051326.
^ Smith, p. 104.
^ Brown, p. 292.
^ Smith, p. 101.
^ Louis, p. 271.
^ McIntyre, p. 187.
^ Brown, p. 68.
^ McIntyre, p. 186.
^ Brown, p. 69.
^ Turpin & Tomkins, p. 48.
^ Lloyd, p. 300.
^ Kenny, p. 21.
^ Lloyd, pp. 313–14.
^ Gilbert, p. 234.
^ a b Lloyd, p. 316.
^ James, p. 513.
^ Gilbert, p. 244.
^ Louis, p. 337.
^ Brown, p. 319.
^ James, p. 460.
^ Abernethy, p. 146.
^ Brown, p. 331.
^ “What’s a little debt between friends?”. BBC News. 10 May 2006. Retrieved 20 November 2008.
^ Levine, p. 193.
^ Abernethy, p. 148.
^ Brown, p. 330.
^ Lloyd, p. 322.
^ Smith, p. 67.
^ Lloyd, p. 325.
^ McIntyre, pp. 355–356.
^ Lloyd, p. 327.
^ Lloyd, p. 328.
^ a b Lloyd, p. 335.
^ Lloyd, p. 364.
^ Lloyd, p. 396.
^ Brown, pp. 339–40.
^ James, p. 581.
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 355.
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 356.
^ James, p. 583.
^ Combs, pp. 161–163.
^ “Suez Crisis: Key players”. BBC News. 21 July 2006. Retrieved 19 October 2010.
^ Brown, p. 342.
^ Smith, p. 105.
^ Burk, p. 602.
^ a b Brown, p. 343.
^ James, p. 585.
^ Thatcher.
^ Smith, p. 106.
^ James, p. 586.
^ Pham 2010
^ Lloyd, pp. 370–371.
^ James, p. 616.
^ Louis, p. 46.
^ Lloyd, pp. 427–433.
^ James, pp. 618–621.
^ Springhall, pp. 100–102.
^ a b Knight & Palmer, pp. 14–15.
^ Clegg, p. 128.
^ Lloyd, p. 428.
^ James, p. 622.
^ Lloyd, pp. 401, 427–429.
^ Macdonald, pp. 171–191.
^ “British Overseas Territories Act 2002″. http://www.legislation.gov.uk.
^ “1955: Britain claims Rockall”. BBC News. 21 September 1955. Retrieved 13 December 2008.
^ James, pp. 624–625.
^ James, p. 629.
^ Brown, p. 689.
^ Brendon, p. 654.
^ Joseph, p. 355.
^ Rothermund, p. 100.
^ Brendon, pp. 654–55.
^ Brendon, p. 656.
^ House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Overseas Territories Report, pp. 145–147
^ House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Overseas Territories Report, pp. 146,153
^ “British Indian Ocean Territory”. The World Factbook. CIA. Retrieved 13 December 2008.
^ House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Overseas Territories Report, p. 136
^ The Commonwealth – About Us; Online September 2014
^ “Head of the Commonwealth”. Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
^ Hogg, p. 424 chapter 9 English Worldwide by David Crystal: “approximately one in four of the worlds population are capable of communicating to a useful level in English.”
^ Ferguson 2004, p. 307.
^ Marshall, pp. 238–40.
^ Torkildsen, p. 347.
^ Parsons, p. 1.
^ Marshall, p. 286.
^ Dalziel, p. 135.

External links

Listen to this article (info/dl)

Sorry, your browser either has JavaScript disabled or does not have any supported player. You can download the clip or download a player to play the clip in your browser.

This audio file was created from a revision of the “British Empire” article dated 2014-03-07, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

Mandatory Palestine

bear — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 17:57:21 +0000

This article is about the geopolitical entity created in Palestine under British administration. For the Mandate instrument passed by the League of Nations granting Britain a mandate over Palestine and Transjordan, see British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument).

Mandatory Palestine

Mandate of the United Kingdom

←

1920–1948

→ → → →


Flag	Public Seal

Capital

Jerusalem

Languages

English, Arabic, Hebrew

Religion

Islam, Christianity, Druze, Judaism, Baha’i Faith

Political structure

League of Nations Mandate

High Commissioner

–

1920–1925 (first)

Sir Herbert L. Samuel

–

1945–1948 (last)

Sir Alan G. Cunningham

Historical era

Interwar period, World War II

–

Mandate assigned

25 April 1920

–

Britain officially assumes control

29 September 1923

–

Creation of the state of Israel declared

14 May 1948

Currency

Egyptian pound (until 1927) Palestine pound (from 1927)

Today part of

Israel Palestine

Part of a series on the
History of Israel

Ancient Israel and Judah
Prehistory Hebrews Israelites United monarchy Northern Kingdom Kingdom of Judah Babylonian rule Persian rule Hasmonean dynasty
Rome Byzantium
Herodian kingdom Tetrarchy Roman Judea Syria Palaestina Palaestina Prima Palaestina Secunda Jewish revolt against Heraclius
Caliphate Crusades
Jund Filastin Jund al-Urdunn Kingdom of Jerusalem Ayyubid dynasty Mamluk Sultanate Ottoman rule Mutasarrifate Old Yishuv
British Mandate State of Israel
Yishuv Aliyah Independence Arab–Israeli conflict
By topic
Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel Jewish leaders (Prime Ministers) Jerusalem Zionism Israeli nationality Israel Defense Forces
Related
Timeline Years Jewish history Hebrew calendar Archaeology Museums
Israel portal
v t e

Mandatory Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn; Hebrew: פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א”י) Pālēśtīnā (EY), where “EY” indicates “Eretz Yisrael” (Land of Israel)) was a geopolitical entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948. During its existence it was known simply as Palestine, but, in retrospect, as distinguishers, a variety of other names and descriptors including Mandatory or Mandate Palestine, also British Palestine and the British Mandate of Palestine, have been used to refer to it.

During the First World War an Arab uprising and British campaign led by General Edmund Allenby, the British Empire’s commander of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, drove the Turks out of the Levant, a part of which was the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans. The two sides had different interpretations of this agreement. In the event, the UK and France divided up the area under the Sykes–Picot Agreement, an act of betrayal in the opinion of the Arabs. Further confusing the issue was the Balfour Declaration promising support for a Jewish “national home” in Palestine. After the war ended, a military administration, named Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, was established in the captured territory of the former Ottoman Syria. The British sought legitimacy for their continued control of the region and this was achieved by obtaining a mandate from the League of Nations in June 1922. The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, “until such time as they are able to stand alone.” The civil Mandate administration was formalized with the League of Nations’ consent in 1923 under the British Mandate for Palestine, which covered two administrative areas. The land west of the Jordan River, known as Palestine, was under direct British administration until 1948, while the land east of the Jordan was a semi-autonomous region known as Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Hijaz, and gained independence in 1946.

The divergent tendencies regarding the nature and purpose of the mandate are visible already in the discussions concerning the name for this new entity. According to the Minutes of the Ninth Session of the League of Nations’ Permanent Mandate Commission:

“Colonel Symes explained that the country was described as ‘Palestine’ by Europeans and as ‘Falestin’ by the Arabs. The Hebrew name for the country was the designation ‘Land of Israel’, and the Government, to meet Jewish wishes, had agreed that the word “Palestine” in Hebrew characters should be followed in all official documents by the initials which stood for that designation. As a set-off to this, certain of the Arab politicians suggested that the country should be called ‘Southern Syria’ in order to emphasise its close relation with another Arab State”.

During the British Mandate period the area experienced the ascent of two major nationalist movements, one among the Jews and the other among the Arabs. The competing national interests of the Arab and Jewish populations of Palestine against each other and against the governing British authorities matured into the Arab Revolt of 1936–1939 and the Jewish insurgency in Palestine before culminating in the Civil War of 1947–1948. The aftermath of the Civil War and the consequent 1948 Arab–Israeli War led to the establishment of the 1949 cease-fire agreement, with partition of the former Mandatory Palestine between the newborn state of Israel with a Jewish majority, the West Bank annexed by the Jordanian Kingdom and the Arab All-Palestine Government in the Gaza Strip under the military occupation of Egypt.

1 History of Palestine under the British Mandate
- 1.1 1930s: Arab armed insurgency
  - 1.1.1 The Arab revolt
  - 1.1.2 Partition proposals
- 1.2 World War II
  - 1.2.1 Allied and Axis activity
  - 1.2.2 Mobilization
  - 1.2.3 The Holocaust and immigration quotas
  - 1.2.4 Zionist insurgency
- 1.3 After World War II: the Partition Plan
- 1.4 Termination of the Mandate
2 Politics
- 2.1 Name
- 2.2 Arab community
  - 2.2.1 Palestinian Arab leadership and national aspirations
- 2.3 Jewish Yishuv
  - 2.3.1 Jewish immigration
  - 2.3.2 Jewish national home
- 2.4 Land ownership
  - 2.4.1 Land ownership by district
  - 2.4.2 Land ownership by type
  - 2.4.3 List of Mandatory land laws
3 Demographics
- 3.1 British censuses and estimations
- 3.2 By district
4 Government and institutions
5 Economy
6 Education
7 Gallery
8 See also
9 References
10 Quotes
11 Bibliography
12 Further reading
- 12.1 Primary sources
13 External links

History of Palestine under the British Mandate

The arrival of Sir Herbert Samuel. From left to right: T. E. Lawrence, Emir Abdullah, Air Marshal Sir Geoffrey Salmond, Sir Herbert Samuel, Sir Wyndham Deedes and others.

Following its occupation by British troops in 1917–1918, Palestine was governed by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. In July 1920, the military administration was replaced by a civilian administration headed by a High Commissioner. The first High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, a Zionist recent cabinet minister, arrived in Palestine on 20 June 1920, to take up his appointment from 1 July.

Following the arrival of the British, Muslim-Christian Associations were established in all the major towns.[citation needed] In 1919 they joined to hold the first Palestine Arab Congress in Jerusalem.[citation needed] Its main platforms were a call for representative government and opposition to the Balfour Declaration.[citation needed]

The Zionist Commission was formed in March 1918 and was active in promoting Zionist objectives in Palestine. On 19 April 1920, elections were held for the Assembly of Representatives of the Palestinian Jewish community. The Zionist Commission received official recognition in 1922 as representative of the Palestinian Jewish community.

One of the first actions of the newly installed civil administration in 1921 had been to grant Pinhas Rutenberg—a Jewish entrepreneur—concessions for the production and distribution of wired electricity. Rutenberg soon established an Electric Company whose shareholders were Zionist organizations, investors, and philanthropists. Palestinian-Arabs saw it as proof that the British intended to favor Zionism. The British administration claimed that electrification would enhance the economic development of the country as a whole, while at the same time securing their commitment to facilitate a Jewish National Home through economic – rather than political – means.

Samuel tried to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine, as required by the mandate, but was frustrated by the refusal of the Arab leadership to co-operate with any institution which included Jewish participation. When Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Kamil al-Husayni died in March 1921, High Commissioner Samuel appointed his half-brother Mohammad Amin al-Husseini to the position. Amin al-Husseini, a member of the al-Husayni clan of Jerusalem, was an Arab nationalist and Muslim leader. As Grand Mufti, as well as the other influential positions that he held during this period, al-Husseini played a key role in violent opposition to Zionism. In 1922, al-Husseini was elected President of the Supreme Muslim Council which had been created by Samuel in December 1921. The Council controlled the Waqf funds, worth annually tens of thousands of pounds and the orphan funds, worth annually about £50,000, as compared to the £600,000 in the Jewish Agency’s annual budget. In addition, he controlled the Islamic courts in Palestine. Among other functions, these courts were entrusted with the power to appoint teachers and preachers.

The 1922 Palestine Order in Council established a Legislative Council, which was to consist of 23 members: 12 elected, 10 appointed, and the High Commissioner. Of the 12 elected members, eight were to be Muslim Arabs, two Christian Arabs and two Jews. Arabs protested against the distribution of the seats, arguing that as they constituted 88% of the population, having only 43% of the seats was unfair. Elections were held in February and March 1923, but due to an Arab boycott, the results were annulled and a 12-member Advisory Council was established.

In October 1923, Britain provided the League of Nations with a report on the administration of Palestine for the period 1920–1922, which covered the period before the mandate.

1930s: Arab armed insurgency

In 1930, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam arrived in Palestine from Syria and organised and established the Black Hand, an anti-Zionist and anti-British militant organisation. He recruited and arranged military training for peasants and by 1935 he had enlisted between 200 and 800 men. The cells were equipped with bombs and firearms, which they used to kill Zionist settlers in the area, as well as engaging in a campaign of vandalism of the settlers-planted trees and British constructed rail-lines. In November 1935, two of his men engaged in a firefight with a Palestine police patrol hunting fruit thieves and a policeman was killed. Following the incident, British police launched a manhunt and surrounded al-Qassam in a cave near Ya’bad. In the ensuing battle, al-Qassam was killed.

The Arab revolt

Arab revolt against the British.

Main article: 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

The death of al-Qassam in 1936 generated widespread outrage in the Arab community. Huge crowds accompanied Qassam’s body to his grave in Haifa. A few months later, in April 1936, the Arab national general strike broke out. The strike lasted until October 1936, instigated by the Arab Higher Committee, headed by Amin al-Husseini. During the summer of that year, thousands of Jewish-farmed acres and orchards were destroyed, Jewish civilians were attacked and killed, and some Jewish communities, such as those in Beisan and Acre, fled to safer areas.(Gilbert 1998, p. 80) The violence abated for about a year while the British sent the Peel Commission to investigate.(Khalidi 2006, pp. 87–90)

During the first stages of the Arab Revolt, due to rivalry between the clans of al-Husseini and Nashashibi among the Palestinian Arabs, Raghib Nashashibi was forced to flee to Egypt after several assassination attempts ordered by Amin al-Husseini.

Following the Arab rejection of the Peel Commission recommendation, the revolt resumed in autumn of 1937. Over the next 18 months, the British lost control of Nablus and Hebron. British forces, supported by 6,000 armed Jewish auxiliary police, suppressed the widespread riots with overwhelming force. The British officer Charles Orde Wingate (who supported a Zionist revival for religious reasons) organised Special Night Squads composed of British soldiers and Jewish volunteers such as Yigal Alon, which “scored significant successes against the Arab rebels in the lower Galilee and in the Jezreel valley”(Black 1991, p. 14) by conducting raids on Arab villages. (Shapira 1992, pp. 247, 249, 350) The Jewish militia Irgun used violence also against Arab civilians as “retaliatory acts”, attacking marketplaces and buses.

By the time the revolt concluded in March 1939, more than 5,000 Arabs, 400 Jews, and 200 British had been killed and at least 15,000 Arabs were wounded. The Revolt resulted in the deaths of 5,000 Palestinian Arabs and the wounding of 10,000. In total, 10% of the adult Arab male population was killed, wounded, imprisoned, or exiled.(Khalidi 2001, p. 26) From 1936 to 1945, while establishing collaborative security arrangements with the Jewish Agency, the British confiscated 13,200 firearms from Arabs and 521 weapons from Jews.(Khalidi 1987, p. 845)

The attacks on the Jewish population by Arabs had three lasting effects: First, they led to the formation and development of Jewish underground militias, primarily the Haganah, which were to prove decisive in 1948. Secondly, it became clear that the two communities could not be reconciled, and the idea of partition was born. Thirdly, the British responded to Arab opposition with the White Paper of 1939, which severely restricted Jewish land purchase and immigration. However, with the advent of World War II, even this reduced immigration quota was not reached. The White Paper policy also radicalised segments of the Jewish population, who after the war would no longer cooperate with the British.

The revolt had a negative effect on Palestinian Arab leadership, social cohesion, and military capabilities and contributed to the outcome of the 1948 War because “when the Palestinians faced their most fateful challenge in 1947–49, they were still suffering from the British repression of 1936–39, and were in effect without a unified leadership. Indeed, it might be argued that they were virtually without any leadership at all”.(Khalidi 2001, p. 28)

Partition proposals

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed a partition between a small Jewish state, whose Arab population would have to be transferred, and an Arab state to be attached to Jordan. The proposal was rejected outright by the Arabs. The two main Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, had convinced the Zionist Congress to approve equivocally the Peel recommendations as a basis for more negotiation. In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to “possession of the land as a whole”. The same sentiment was recorded by Ben-Gurion on other occasions, such as at a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938, as well as by Chaim Weizmann.

Following the London Conference (1939) the British Government published a White Paper which proposed a limit to Jewish immigration from Europe, restrictions on Jewish land purchases, and a program for creating an independent state to replace the Mandate within ten years. This was seen by the Yishuv as betrayal of the mandatory terms, especially in light of the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe. In response, Zionists organised Aliyah Bet, a program of illegal immigration into Palestine. Lehi, a small group of extremist Zionists, staged armed attacks on British authorities in Palestine. However, the Jewish Agency, which represented the mainstream Zionist leadership, still hoped to persuade Britain to allow resumed Jewish immigration, and cooperated with Britain in World War II.

World War II

Allied and Axis activity

Jewish Brigade headquarters under the Union Flag and Jewish flag.

On 10 June 1940, Italy declared war on the British Commonwealth and sided with Germany. Within a month, the Italians attacked Palestine from the air, bombing Tel Aviv and Haifa, inflicting multiple casualties.

In 1942, there was a period of great concern for the Yishuv, when the forces of German General Erwin Rommel advanced east in North Africa towards the Suez Canal and there was fear that they would conquer Palestine. This period was referred to as the two hundred days of anxiety. This event was the direct cause for the founding, with British support, of the Palmach – a highly trained regular unit belonging to Haganah (a paramilitary group which was mostly made up of reserve troops).

As in most of the Arab world, there was no unanimity amongst the Palestinian Arabs as to their position regarding the combatants in World War II. A number of leaders and public figures saw an Axis victory as the likely outcome and a way of securing Palestine back from the Zionists and the British. Even though Arabs were not highly regarded by Nazi racial theory, the Nazis encouraged Arab support as a counter to British hegemony. SS-Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler was keen to exploit this, going so far as to enlist the aid of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, sending him the following telegram on 2 November 1943:

To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory – Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler

The Mufti al-Husseini would spend the rest of the war in Nazi Germany and the occupied areas in Europe.[citation needed]

Mobilization

On 3 July 1944, the British government consented to the establishment of a Jewish Brigade, with hand-picked Jewish and also non-Jewish senior officers. On 20 September 1944, an official communiqué by the War Office announced the formation of the Jewish Brigade Group of the British Army. The Jewish brigade then was stationed in Tarvisio, near the border triangle of Italy, Yugoslavia, and Austria, where it played a key role in the Berihah’s efforts to help Jews escape Europe for Palestine, a role many of its members would continue after the brigade was disbanded. Among its projects was the education and care of the Selvino children. Later, veterans of the Jewish Brigade became key participants of the new State of Israel’s Israel Defense Forces.

From Palestine Regiment, two platoons, one Jewish, under the command of Brigadier Ernest Benjamin, and another Arab were sent to join allied forces on the Italian Front, having taken part of final offensive there.

Besides Jews and Arabs from Palestine, in total by mid-1944 the British had assembled a multiethnic force consisting of volunteer European Jewish refugees (from German-occupied countries), Yemenite Jews and Abyssinian Jews.

The Holocaust and immigration quotas

In 1939, as a consequence of the White Paper of 1939, the British reduced the number of immigrants allowed into Palestine. World War II and the Holocaust started shortly thereafter and once the 15,000 annual quota was exceeded, Jews fleeing Nazi persecution were interned in detention camps or deported to places such as Mauritius.

Starting in 1939, a clandestine immigration effort called Aliya Bet was spearheaded by an organisation called Mossad LeAliyah Bet. Tens of thousands of European Jews escaped the Nazis in boats and small ships headed for Palestine. The Royal Navy intercepted many of the vessels; others were unseaworthy and were wrecked; two more were sunk by Soviet submarines. The motor schooner Struma was torpedoed and sunk in the Black Sea by a Soviet submarine in February 1942 with the loss of nearly 800 lives. The last refugee boats to try to reach Palestine during the war were the Bulbul, Mefküre and Morina in August 1944. A Soviet submarine sank the motor schooner Mefküre by torpedo and shellfire and machine-gunned survivors in the water, killing between 300 and 400 refugees. Illegal immigration resumed after World War II.

After the war 250,000 Jewish refugees were stranded in displaced persons (DP) camps in Europe. Despite the pressure of world opinion, in particular the repeated requests of US President Harry S. Truman and the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that 100,000 Jews be immediately granted entry to Palestine, the British maintained the ban on immigration.

Zionist insurgency

The Jewish Lehi (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) and Irgun (National Military Organization) movements initiated violent uprisings against the British Mandate in 1940, in the former case, and in 1939, briefly, and 1944, for longer and on a larger scale, in the latter. On 6 November 1944, Eliyahu Hakim and Eliyahu Bet Zuri (members of Lehi) assassinated Lord Moyne in Cairo. Moyne was the British Minister of State for the Middle East and the assassination is said by some to have turned British Prime Minister Winston Churchill against the Zionist cause. After the assassination of Lord Moyne, the Haganah kidnapped, interrogated, and turned over to the British many members of the Irgun (“The Hunting Season”), and the Jewish Agency Executive decided on a series of measures against “terrorist organizations” in Palestine. Irgun ordered its members not to resist or retaliate with violence, so as to prevent a civil war. The three main Jewish underground forces later united to form the Jewish Resistance Movement and carry out several terrorist attacks and bombings against the British administration. In 1946, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British administration, killing 92 people. Following the bombing, the British Government began interning illegal Jewish immigrants in Cyprus. In 1948 the Lehi assassinated the UN mediator Count Bernadotte in Jerusalem. Yitzak Shamir, future prime minister of Israel was one of the conspirators.

The negative publicity resulting from the situation in Palestine caused the Mandate to become widely unpopular in Britain, and caused the United States Congress to delay granting the British vital loans for reconstruction. The British Labour party had promised before its election to allow mass Jewish migration into Palestine but reneged on this promise once in office. Anti-British Jewish terrorism increased and the situation required the presence of over 100,000 British troops in the country. Following the Acre Prison Break and the retaliatory hanging of British Sergeants by the Irgun, the British announced their desire to terminate the mandate and withdraw by no later than the beginning of August 1948.

After World War II: the Partition Plan

The UN Partition Plan.

Main articles: 1947 UN Partition Plan and 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 was a joint attempt by Britain and the United States to agree on a policy regarding the admission of Jews to Palestine. In April, the Committee reported that its members had arrived at a unanimous decision. The Committee approved the American recommendation of the immediate acceptance of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine. It also recommended that there be no Arab, and no Jewish State. The Committee stated that “in order to dispose, once and for all, of the exclusive claims of Jews and Arabs to Palestine, we regard it as essential that a clear statement of principle should be made that Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine.” U.S. President Harry S Truman angered the British Government by issuing a statement supporting the 100,000 refugees but refusing to acknowledge the rest of the committee’s findings. Britain had asked for U.S assistance in implementing the recommendations. The U.S. War Department had said earlier that to assist Britain in maintaining order against an Arab revolt, an open-ended U.S. commitment of 300,000 troops would be necessary. The immediate admission of 100,000 new Jewish immigrants would almost certainly have provoked an Arab uprising.

These events were the decisive factors that forced Britain to announce their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and place the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. Seven members (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. Three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.

On 29 November, the UN General Assembly, voting 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II)., while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. The partition plan required that the proposed states grant full civil rights to all people within their borders, regardless of race, religion or gender. It is important to note that the UN General Assembly is only granted the power to make recommendations, therefore, UNGAR 181 was not legally binding. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. Haiti, Liberia, and the Philippines changed their votes at the last moment after concerted pressure from the U.S. and from Zionist organisations. The five members of the Arab League, who were voting members at the time, voted against the Plan.

The Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news. Israeli history books mention 29 November as the most important date in the creation of Israel as it refers to UNGA 181 of 1947 Partition of the Mandate of Palestine into two states and whereof Israel’s Proclamation of Independence refers to UNGA 181 as its source of sovereignty in Ph’s 9 & 15.[citation needed]

The partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leadership and by most of the Arab population.[qt 1][qt 2] Meeting in Cairo on November and December 1947, the Arab League then adopted a series of resolutions endorsing a military solution to the conflict.

Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not accepted by the Arabs. Britain also refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.

Some Jewish organisations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced, “The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.” These views were publicly rejected by the majority of the nascent Jewish state.[citation needed]

Termination of the Mandate

When the UK announced the independence of Transjordan in 1946, the final Assembly of the League of Nations and the General Assembly both adopted resolutions welcoming the news. However, the Jewish Agency and many legal scholars raised objections.[citation needed] The Jewish Agency said that Transjordan was an integral part of Palestine, and that according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, the Jewish people had a secured interest in its territory.

During the General Assembly deliberations on Palestine, there were suggestions that it would be desirable to incorporate part of Transjordan’s territory into the proposed Jewish state. A few days before the adoption of Resolution 181 (II) on 29 November 1947, U.S. Secretary of State Marshall noted frequent references had been made by the Ad Hoc Committee regarding the desirability of the Jewish State having both the Negev and an “outlet to the Red Sea and the Port of Aqaba.” According to John Snetsinger, Chaim Weizmann visited President Truman on 19 November 1947 and said it was imperative that the Negev and Port of Aqaba be under Jewish control and that they be included in the Jewish state. Truman telephoned the US delegation to the UN and told them he supported Weizmann’s position.

The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948. However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that “unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means… unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result.”

The Jewish Leadership, led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel, on the afternoon of Friday, 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708 in the Hebrew calendar), to come into force at midnight of that day. On the same day, the Provisional Government of Israel asked the US Government for recognition, on the frontiers specified in the UN Plan for Partition. The United States immediately replied, recognizing “the provisional government as the de facto authority.” Israel was also quickly recognised by the Soviet Union[citation needed] and many other countries,[citation needed] but not by the surrounding Arab states. At the same time that the state of Israel was being declared Jewish paramilitary forces took up occupation of the evacuated British military installations in the country. As the mandate era came to an end, radical Jewish forces, from whose actions the Haganah distanced themselves, began to clear Palestinian Arab communities in the area which would become Israel.[citation needed]

Over the next few days, approximately 700 Lebanese, 1,876 Syrian, 4,000 Iraqi, 2,800 Egyptian troops crossed over the borders and into Palestine (see 1948 Arab-Israeli War). Around 4,500 Transjordanian troops, commanded partly by 38 British officers who had resigned their commissions in the British army only weeks earlier, including overall commander, General John Bagot Glubb, invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs (in response to the Haganah’s Operation Kilshon) and moved into areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan.

Politics

Name

1927 Mandatory Palestine postage stamp

1941 Mandatory Palestine coin

1927 Mandatory Palestine revenue stamp

1927 Mandatory Palestine coin

“Palestine” is shown in English, Arabic (فلسطين) and Hebrew; the latter includes the acronym א״י for Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel).

The name given to the Mandate’s territory was “Palestine”, in accordance with European traditions.[citation needed] The term Palestine was coined in the Western culture from the name of Palaestina province of the Roman (Syria-Palaestina) and later Byzantine Empire (Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda).[citation needed] The Mandate charter stipulated that Mandatory Palestine would have three official languages, namely English, Arabic and Hebrew.

In 1926, the British authorities formally decided to use the traditional Arabic and Hebrew equivalents to the English name, i.e. filasţīn (فلسطين) and pālēśtīnā (פּלשׂתינה) respectively. The Jewish leadership proposed that the proper Hebrew name should be ʾĒrēts Yiśrāʾel (ארץ ישׂראל=Land of Israel). The final compromise was to add the initials of the Hebrew proposed name, Alef-Yud, within parenthesis (א״י), whenever the Mandate’s name was mentioned in Hebrew in official documents. The Arab leadership saw this compromise as a violation of the mandate terms. Some Arab politicians suggested that there should be a similar Arabic concession, such as “Southern Syria” (سوريا الجنوبية). The British authorities rejected this proposal.

Arab community

Front cover

Biographical pages

Passports from the British Mandate era.

The resolution of the San Remo Conference contained a safeguarding clause for the existing rights of the non-Jewish communities. The conference accepted the terms of the Mandate with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal a legal undertaking by the Mandatory Power that it would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The draft mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine, and all of the post-war peace treaties contained clauses for the protection of religious groups and minorities. The mandates invoked the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the event of any disputes.

Article 62 (LXII) of the Treaty of Berlin, 13 July 1878 dealt with religious freedom and civil and political rights in all parts of the Ottoman Empire. The guarantees have frequently been referred to as “religious rights” or “minority rights”. However, the guarantees included a prohibition against discrimination in civil and political matters. Difference of religion could not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honours, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, “in any locality whatsoever.”

A legal analysis performed by the International Court of Justice noted that the Covenant of the League of Nations had provisionally recognised the communities of Palestine as independent nations. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State. Judge Higgins explained that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.” The Court said that specific guarantees regarding freedom of movement and access to the Holy Sites contained in the Treaty of Berlin (1878) had been preserved under the terms of the Palestine Mandate and a chapter of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.

According to historian Rashid Khalidi, the mandate ignored the political rights of the Arabs. The Arab leadership repeatedly pressed the British to grant them national and political rights, such as representative government, over Jewish national and political rights in the remaining 23% of the Mandate of Palestine which the British had set aside for a Jewish homeland. The Arabs reminded the British of President Wilson’s Fourteen Points and British promises during the First World War. The British however made acceptance of the terms of the mandate a precondition for any change in the constitutional position of the Arabs. A legislative council was proposed in The Palestine Order in Council, of 1922 which implemented the terms of the mandate. It stated that: “No Ordinance shall be passed which shall be in any way repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of the Mandate.” For the Arabs, this was unacceptable, as they felt that this would be “self murder”. As a result, the Arabs boycotted the elections to the Council held in 1923, which were subsequently annulled. During the whole interwar period, the British, appealing to the terms of the mandate, which they had designed themselves, rejected the principle of majority rule or any other measure that would give an Arab majority control over the government of Palestine.

The terms of the mandate required the establishment of self-governing institutions in both Palestine and Transjordan. In 1947, Foreign Secretary Bevin admitted that during the previous twenty-five years the British had done their best to further the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish communities without prejudicing the interests of the Arabs, but had failed to “secure the development of self-governing institutions” in accordance with the terms of the Mandate.

Palestinian Arab leadership and national aspirations

Main articles: Palestinian Nationalism and Arab nationalism

Under the British Mandate, the office of “Mufti of Jerusalem”, traditionally limited in authority and geographical scope, was refashioned into that of “Grand Mufti of Palestine”. Furthermore, a Supreme Muslim Council (SMC) was established and given various duties, such as the administration of religious endowments and the appointment of religious judges and local muftis. In Ottoman times, these duties had been fulfilled by the bureaucracy in Istanbul.(Khalidi 2006, p. 63) In dealings with the Palestinian Arabs, the British negotiated with the elite rather than the middle or lower classes.(Khalidi 2006, p. 52) They chose Hajj Amin al-Husseini to become Grand Mufti, although he was young and had received the fewest votes from Jerusalem’s Islamic leaders.(Khalidi 2006, pp. 56–57) One of the mufti’s rivals, Raghib Bey al-Nashashibi, had already been appointed mayor of Jerusalem in 1920, replacing Musa Kazim, whom the British removed after the Nabi Musa riots of 1920,(Khalidi 2006, pp. 63, 69)(Segev 2000, pp. 127–144) during which he exhorted the crowd to give their blood for Palestine.(Morris 2001, p. 112) During the entire Mandate period, but especially during the latter half, the rivalry between the mufti and al-Nashashibi dominated Palestinian politics. Khalidi ascribes the failure of the Palestinian leaders to enroll mass support, because of their experiences during the Ottoman Empire period, as they were then part of the ruling elite and accustomed to their commands being obeyed. The idea of mobilising the masses was thoroughly alien to them.(Khalidi 2006, p. 81)

There had already been rioting and attacks on and massacres of Jews in 1921 and 1929. During the 1930s, Palestinian Arab popular discontent with Jewish immigration grew. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, several factions of Palestinian society, especially from the younger generation, became impatient with the internecine divisions and ineffectiveness of the Palestinian elite and engaged in grass-roots anti-British and anti-Zionist activism, organised by groups such as the Young Men’s Muslim Association. There was also support for the radical nationalist Independence Party (Hizb al-Istiqlal), which called for a boycott of the British in the manner of the Indian Congress Party. Some took to the hills to fight the British and the Jews. Most of these initiatives were contained and defeated by notables in the pay of the Mandatory Administration, particularly the mufti and his cousin Jamal al-Husseini. A six-month general strike in 1936 marked the start of the great Arab Revolt.(Khalidi 2006, pp. 87–90)

Jewish Yishuv

Main article: History of Zionism

See also: History of the State of Israel

The conquest of the Ottoman Syria by the British forces in 1917, found a mixed community in the region, with Palestine, the southern part of the Ottoman Syria, containing a mixed population of Muslims, Christians, Jews and Druze. In this period, the Jewish community (Yishuv) in Palestine was composed of traditional Jewish communities in cities (the Old Yishuv), which had existed for centuries, and the newly established agricultural Zionist communities (the New Yishuv), established since the 1870s. With the establishment of the Mandate, the Jewish community in Palestine formed the Zionist Commission to represent its interests.

In 1929, the Jewish Agency for Palestine took over from the Zionist Commission its representative functions and administration of the Jewish community. During the Mandate period, the Jewish Agency was a quasi-governmental organisation that served the administrative needs of the Jewish community. Its leadership was elected by Jews from all over the world by proportional representation. The Jewish Agency was charged with facilitating Jewish immigration to Palestine, land purchase and planning the general policies of the Zionist leadership. It ran schools and hospitals, and formed the Haganah. The British authorities offered to create a similar Arab Agency but this offer was rejected by Arab leaders.

In response to numerous Arab attacks on Jewish communities, the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organisation, was formed on 15 June 1920 to defend Jewish residents. Tensions led to widespread violent disturbances on several occasions, notably in 1921 (see Jaffa riots), 1929 (primarily violent attacks by Arabs on Jews—see 1929 Hebron massacre) and 1936–1939. Beginning in 1936, Jewish groups such as Etzel (Irgun) and Lehi (Stern Gang) conducted campaigns of violence against British military and Arab targets.

Jewish immigration

During the Mandate, the Yishuv or Jewish community in Palestine, grew from one-sixth to almost one-third of the population. According to official records, 367,845 Jews and 33,304 non-Jews immigrated legally between 1920 and 1945. It was estimated that another 50–60,000 Jews and a marginal number of Arabs, the latter mostly on a seasonal basis, immigrated illegally during this period. Immigration accounted for most of the increase of Jewish population, while the non-Jewish population increase was largely natural.

Initially, Jewish immigration to Palestine met little opposition from the Palestinian Arabs. However, as anti-Semitism grew in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (mostly from Europe) to Palestine began to increase markedly. Combined with the growth of Arab nationalism in the region and increasing anti-Jewish sentiments the growth of Jewish population created much Arab resentment. The British government placed limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine. These quotas were controversial, particularly in the latter years of British rule, and both Arabs and Jews disliked the policy, each for their own reasons.

Jewish immigrants were to be afforded Palestinian citizenship:

Article 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Jewish national home

In 1919, the General Secretary (and future President) of the Zionist Organization, Nahum Sokolow, published History of Zionism (1600–1918). He also represented the Zionist Organization at the Paris Peace Conference.

“	The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” … It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent “Jewish State” But this is fallacious. The “Jewish State” was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence.	”
—Nahum Sokolow, History of Zionism

One of the objectives of British administration was to give effect to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which was also set out in the preamble of the mandate, as follows:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine said the Jewish National Home, which derived from the formulation of Zionist aspirations in the 1897 Basle program has provoked many discussions concerning its meaning, scope and legal character, especially since it had no known legal connotation and there are no precedents in international law for its interpretation. It was used in the Balfour Declaration and in the Mandate, both of which promised the establishment of a “Jewish National Home” without, however, defining its meaning. A statement on “British Policy in Palestine,” issued on 3 June 1922 by the Colonial Office, placed a restrictive construction upon the Balfour Declaration. The statement included “the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or customs in Palestine” or “the imposition of Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole”, and made it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home. The Committee noted that the construction, which restricted considerably the scope of the National Home, was made prior to the confirmation of the Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations and was formally accepted at the time by the Executive of the Zionist Organization.

In March 1930, Lord Passfield, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, had written a Cabinet Paper which said:

In the Balfour Declaration there is no suggestion that the Jews should be accorded a special or favoured position in Palestine as compared with the Arab inhabitants of the country, or that the claims of Palestinians to enjoy self-government (subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory as foreshadowed in Article XXII of the Covenant) should be curtailed in order to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people.” … Zionist leaders have not concealed and do not conceal their opposition to the grant of any measure of self-government to the people of Palestine either now or for many years to come. Some of them even go so far as to claim that that provision of Article 2 of the Mandate constitutes a bar to compliance with the demand of the Arabs for any measure of self-government. In view of the provisions of Article XXII of the Covenant and of the promises made to the Arabs on several occasions that claim is inadmissible.

The League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission took the position that the Mandate contained a dual obligation. In 1932 the Mandates Commission questioned the representative of the Mandatory on the demands made by the Arab population regarding the establishment of self-governing institutions, in accordance with various articles of the mandate, and in particular Article 2. The Chairman noted that “under the terms of the same article, the mandatory Power had long since set up the Jewish National Home.”

In 1937, the Peel Commission, a British Royal Commission headed by Earl Peel, proposed solving the Arab–Jewish conflict by partitioning Palestine into two states. The two main Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, had convinced the Zionist Congress to approve equivocally the Peel recommendations as a basis for more negotiation. The US Consul General at Jerusalem told the State Department that the Mufti had refused the principle of partition and declined to consider it. The Consul said that the Emir Abdullah urged acceptance on the ground that realities must be faced, but wanted modification of the proposed boundaries and Arab administrations in the neutral enclave. The Consul also noted that Nashashibi sidestepped the principle, but was willing to negotiate for favourable modifications.

A collection of private correspondence published by David Ben Gurion contained a letter written in 1937 which explained that he was in favour of partition because he didn’t envision a partial Jewish state as the end of the process. Ben Gurion wrote “What we want is not that the country be united and whole, but that the united and whole country be Jewish.” He explained that a first-class Jewish army would permit Zionists to settle in the rest of the country with or without the consent of the Arabs. Benny Morris said that both Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine. Former Israeli Foreign Minister and historian Schlomo Ben Ami writes that 1937 was the same year that the “Field Battalions” under Yitzhak Sadeh wrote the “Avner Plan”, which anticipated and laid the groundwork for what would become in 1948, Plan D. It envisioned going far beyond any boundaries contained in the existing partition proposals and planned the conquest of the Galilee, the West Bank, and Jerusalem.

In 1942, the Biltmore Program was adopted as the platform of the World Zionist Organization. It demanded “that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth.” In 1946 an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, also known as the Grady-Morrison Committee, noted that the demand for a Jewish State went beyond the obligations of either the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate and had been expressly disowned by the Chairman of the Jewish Agency as recently as 1932. The Jewish Agency subsequently refused to accept the Grady Morrison Plan as the basis for discussion. A spokesman for the agency, Eliahu Epstein, told the US State Department that the Agency could not attend the London conference if the Grady-Morrison proposal was on the agenda. He stated that the Agency was unwilling to be placed in a position where it might have to compromise between the Grady-Morrison proposals on the one hand and its own partition plan on the other. He stated that the Agency had accepted partition as the solution for Palestine which it favoured.

Land ownership

Map of Palestine Land ownership by sub-district (1945) originally published in the Village Statistics, 1945

After transition to the British rule, much of the agricultural land in Palestine (about ⅓ of the whole territory) retained under the ownership of past Ottoman landlords, mostly powerful Arab clans and local Muslim sheikhs. Other territories had been held by foreign Christian organisations (most notably the Greek Orthodox Church), as well as Jewish private and Zionist organisations, and to lesser degree by small minorities of Bahai’s, Samaritans and Circassians.

As of 1931, the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine was 26,625,600 dunams (26,625.6 km2), of which 8,252,900 dunams (8,252.9 km2) or 33% were arable. Official statistics show that Jews privately and collectively owned 1,393,531 dunams (1,393.53 km2), or 5.23% of Palestine’s total in 1945. The Jewish owned agricultural land was largely located in the Galilee and along the coastal plain. Estimates of the total volume of land that Jews had purchased by 15 May 1948 are complicated by illegal and unregistered land transfers, as well as by the lack of data on land concessions from the Palestine administration after 31 March 1936. According to Avneri, Jews held 1,850,000 dunams (1,850 km2) of land in 1947, or 6.94% of the total. Stein gives the estimate of 2,000,000 dunams (2,000 km2) as of May 1948, or 7.51% of the total. According to Fischbach, By 1948, Jews and Jewish companies owned 20% percent of all cultivable land in the country.

Nevertheless, the quantity of Jewish owned land is easier to calculate than Arab owned land, which had largely been undocumented. The total volume of land in Mandatory Palestine, owned by Arabs (Muslim, Christian and Druze), is a matter of a great difficulty to account for. The 1945 UN estimation shows that Arab ownership of arable land was on average 68% of a district, ranging from 15% ownership in the Beer-Sheba district to 99% ownership in the Ramallah district. These data cannot fully be understood if not using a regional perspective: in Iraq, for instance, still in 1951 only 0.3 per cent of registered land (or 50 per cent of the total amount) was categorised as ‘private property’. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13530194.2013.878518

Land ownership by district

The following table shows the 1945 land ownership of mandatory Palestine by district:

Land ownership of Palestine in 1945 by district
District	Sub-district	Arab-owned	Jewish-owned	Public / other
Haifa	Haifa	42%	35%	23%
Galilee	Acre	87%	3%	10%
	Beisan	44%	34%	22%
	Nazareth	52%	28%	20%
	Safad	68%	18%	14%
	Tiberias	51%	38%	11%
Lydda	Jaffa	47%	39%	14%
Lydda	Ramle	77%	14%	9%
Samaria	Jenin	84%	<1%	16%
	Nablus	87%	<1%	13%
	Tulkarm	78%	17%	5%
Jerusalem	Hebron	96%	<1%	4%
	Jerusalem	84%	2%	14%
	Ramallah	99%	<1%	1%
Gaza	Beersheba	15%	<1%	85%
Gaza	Gaza	75%	4%	21%
Data from the Land Ownership of Palestine

Land ownership by type

The land owned privately and collectively by Jews, Arabs and other non-Jews can be classified as urban, rural built-on, cultivable (farmed), and uncultivable. The following chart shows the ownership by Jews, Arabs and other non-Jews in each of the categories.

Land ownership of Palestine (in square kilometres) on 1 April 1943
Category	Arab / non-Jewish ownership	Jewish ownership	Total
Urban	76.66	70.11	146.77
Rural built-on	36.85	42.33	79.18
Cereal (taxable)	5,503.18	814.10	6,317.29
Cereal (not taxable)	900.29	51.05	951.34
Plantation	1,079.79	95.51	1,175.30
Citrus	145.57	141.19	286.76
Banana	2.30	1.43	3.73
Uncultivable	16,925.81	298.52	17,224.33
Total	24,670.46	1,514.25	26,184.70
Data is from Survey of Palestine (Vol II, p566). By the end of 1946, Jewish ownership had increased to 1624 km2.

List of Mandatory land laws

Land Transfer Ordinance of 1920
1926 Correction of Land Registers Ordinance
Land Settlement Ordinance of 1928
Land Transfer Regulations of 1940

Demographics

Main article: Demographics of Palestine

British censuses and estimations

Population distribution at the end of the Mandate

In 1920, the majority of the approximately 750,000 people in this multi-ethnic region were Arabic-speaking Muslims, including a Bedouin population (estimated at 103,331 at the time of the 1922 census and concentrated in the Beersheba area and the region south and east of it), as well as Jews (who comprised some 11% of the total) and smaller groups of Druze, Syrians, Sudanese, Circassians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hejazi Arabs.

The first census of 1922 showed a population of 757,182, of whom 78% were Muslim, 11% Jewish and 9.6% Christian.
The second census, of 1931, gave a total population of 1,035,154 of whom 73.4% were Muslim, 16.9% Jewish and 8.6% Christian.

A discrepancy between the two censuses and records of births, deaths and immigration, led the authors of the second census to postulate the illegal immigration of about 9,000 Jews and 4,000 Arabs during the intervening years.

There were no further censuses but statistics were maintained by counting births, deaths and migration. By the end of 1936 the total population was approximately 1,300,000, the Jews being estimated at 384,000. The Arabs had also increased their numbers rapidly, mainly as a result of the cessation of the military conscription imposed on the country by the Ottoman Empire, the campaign against malaria and a general improvement in health services. In absolute figures their increase exceeded that of the Jewish population, but proportionally, the latter had risen from 13 per cent of the total population at the census of 1922 to nearly 30 per cent at the end of 1936.

Some components such as illegal immigration could only be estimated approximately. The White Paper of 1939, which placed immigration restrictions on Jews, stated that the Jewish population “has risen to some 450,000″ and was “approaching a third of the entire population of the country”. In 1945, a demographic study showed that the population had grown to 1,764,520, comprising 1,061,270 Muslims, 553,600 Jews, 135,550 Christians and 14,100 people of other groups.

Year	Total	Muslim	Jewish	Christian	Other
1922	752,048	589,177 (78%)	83,790 (11%)	71,464 (10%)	7,617 (1%)
1931	1,036,339	761,922 (74%)	175,138 (17%)	89,134 (9%)	10,145 (1%)
1945	1,764,520	1,061,270 (60%)	553,600 (31%)	135,550 (8%)	14,100 (1%)
Average compounded population growth rate per annum, 1922–1945	3.8%	2.6%	8.6%	2.8%	2.7%

By district

The following table gives the religious demography of each of the 16 districts of the Mandate in 1945.

Demography of Palestine in 1945 by district
District	Sub-District	Muslim	Percentage	Jewish	Percentage	Christian	Percentage	Total
Haifa	Haifa	95,970	38%	119,020	47%	33,710	13%	253,450
Galilee	Acre	51,130	69%	3,030	4%	11,800	16%	73,600
	Beisan	16,660	67%	7,590	30%	680	3%	24,950
	Nazareth	30,160	60%	7,980	16%	11,770	24%	49,910
	Safad	47,310	83%	7,170	13%	1,630	3%	56,970
	Tiberias	23,940	58%	13,640	33%	2,470	6%	41,470
Lydda	Jaffa	95,980	24%	295,160	72%	17,790	4%	409,290
Lydda	Ramle	95,590	71%	31,590	24%	5,840	4%	134,030
Samaria	Jenin	60,000	98%	negligible	<1%	1,210	2%	61,210
	Nablus	92,810	98%	negligible	<1%	1,560	2%	94,600
	Tulkarm	76,460	82%	16,180	17%	380	1%	93,220
Jerusalem	Hebron	92,640	99%	300	<1%	170	<1%	93,120
	Jerusalem	104,460	41%	102,520	40%	46,130	18%	253,270
	Ramallah	40,520	83%	negligible	<1%	8,410	17%	48,930
Gaza	Beersheba	6,270	90%	510	7%	210	3%	7,000
Gaza	Gaza	145,700	97%	3,540	2%	1,300	1%	150,540
Total		1,076,780	58%	608,230	33%	145,060	9%	1,845,560
Data from the Survey of Palestine

Government and institutions

Jerusalem city hall, 1939

The Mandate territory was divided into administrative regions known as districts and administer by the office of the British High Commissioner for Palestine.

Britain continued the Millet system of the Ottoman Empire whereby all matters of a religious nature and personal status were within the jurisdiction of Muslim courts and the courts of other recognised religions, called confessional communities. The High Commissioner established the Orthodox Rabbinate and retained a modified Millet system which only recognised eleven religious communities: Muslims, Jews and nine Christian denominations (none of which were Christian Protestant churches). All those who were not members of these recognised communities were excluded from the Millet arrangement. As a result, there was no possibility, for example, of marriages between confessional communities, and there were no civil marriages. Personal contacts between communities were nominal.

Economy

Between 1922 and 1947, the annual growth rate of the Jewish sector of the economy was 13.2%, mainly due to immigration and foreign capital, while that of the Arab was 6.5%. Per capita, these figures were 4.8% and 3.6% respectively. By 1936, the Jewish sector earned 2.6 times as much as Arabs. Compared to other Arab countries, the Palestinian Arab individuals earned slightly more.

The Jaffa Electric Company was founded in 1923 by Pinhas Rutenberg, and was later absorbed into a newly created Palestine Electric Company. Palestine Airways was founded in 1934, Angel Bakeries in 1927, and the Tnuva dairy in 1926. Electric current mainly flowed to Jewish industry, following it to its nestled locations in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Although Tel Aviv had by far more workshops and factories, the demand for electric power for industry was roughly the same for both cities by the early 1930s.

The country’s largest industrial zone was in Haifa, where many housing projects were built for employees.

On the scale of the UN Human Development Index determined for around 1939, of 36 countries, Palestinian Jews were placed 15th, Palestinian Arabs 30th, Egypt 33rd and Turkey 35th. The Jews in Palestine were mainly urban, 76.2% in 1942, while the Arabs were mainly rural, 68.3% in 1942. Overall, Khalidi concludes that Palestinian Arab society, while overmatched by the Yishuv, was as advanced as any other Arab society in the region and considerably more than several.

Education

Under the British Mandate, the country developed economically and culturally. In 1919 the Jewish community founded a centralised Hebrew school system, and the following year established the Assembly of Representatives, the Jewish National Council and the Histadrut labour federation. The Technion university was founded in 1924, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1925.

Literacy rates in 1932 were 86% for the Jews compared to 22% for the Palestinian Arabs, but Arab literacy rates steadily increased thereafter. Palestinian Arabs compared favorably in this respect to residents of Egypt and Turkey, but unfavourably to the Lebanese.

Gallery

General Allenby’s final attacks of the Palestine Campaign gave Britain control of the area
Field Marshal Allenby entering Jerusalem with British troops on 11 December 1917
General Watson meeting with the Mayor of Jerusalem in December 1917
The surrender of Jerusalem by the Ottomans to the British on 9 December 1917 following the Battle of Jerusalem
Main post office, Jaffa Road, Jerusalem
Rockefeller Museum, built in Jerusalem during the British Mandate
Main post office, Jaffa
Anglo-Palestine Bank
Western Wall, 1933
Supreme Military Tribunal of the British Mandate, Kiryat Shmuel, Jerusalem
YMCA in Jerusalem, built during the British Mandate
“Bevingrad” in Jerusalem, Russian Compound behind barbed wire
Mandate-era mailbox, Jerusalem
1941 currency coin
Movement and curfew pass, issued under the authority of the British Military Commander, East Palestine, 1946

References

^ “League of Nations decision confirming the Principal Allied Powers’ agreement on the territory of Palestine”. Archived from the original on 2013-11-25.
^ Hughes, Matthew, ed. (2004). Allenby in Palestine: The Middle East Correspondence of Field Marshal Viscount Allenby June 1917 – October 1919. Army Records Society 22. Phoenix Mill, Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7509-3841-9. Allenby to Robertson 25 January 1918 in Hughes 2004, p. 128
^ Article 22, The Covenant of the League of Nations and “Mandate for Palestine,” Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 11, p. 862, Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem, 1972
^ Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, US State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650–652
^ League of Nations, Permanent Mandate Commission, Minutes of the Ninth Session (Arab Grievances), Held at Geneva from June 8th to 25th, 1926,
^ Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Supplement No. 11, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, Report to the General Assembly, Volume 1. Lake Success, NY, 1947. A/364, 3 September 1947, Chapter II.C.68.
^ Palestine Through History: A Chronology (I) at the Wayback Machine (archived June 17, 2011) The Palestine Chronicle
^ Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
^ Ronen Shamir (2013) Current Flow: The Electrification of Palestine. Stanford: Stanford University Press
^ Palestine Jewry and the Arab Question, 1917 – 1925, by Caplan, Neil. London and Totowa, NJ: F. Cass, 1978. ISBN 0-7146-3110-8. pp. 148–161.
^ Mattar, Philip (2003). “al-Husayni, Amin”. In Mattar, Philip. Encyclopedia of the Palestinians (Revised Edition ed.). New York: Facts On File. ISBN 978-0-8160-5764-1.
^ ‘It was not scholarly religious credentials that made Hajj Amin an attractive candidate for president of the SMC in the eyes of colonial officials. Rather, it was the combination of his being an effective nationalist activist and a member of one of Jerusalem’s most respected notable families that made it advantageous to align his interests with those of the British administration and thereby keep him on a short tether.’ Weldon C. Matthews, Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists and Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine, I.B.Tauris, 2006 pp. 31–32
^ For details see Yitzhak Reiter, Islamic Endowments in Jerusalem under British Mandate, Frank Cass, London Portland, Oregon, 1996
^ Excluding funds for land purchases. Sahar Huneidi, A Broken Trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians 1920–1925, I.B. Tauris, London and New York, 2001 p. 38. The ‘Jewish Agency’, mentioned in article 4 of the Mandate only became the official term in 1928. At the time the organisation was called the Palestine Zionist Executive.
^ 1922 Palestine Order in Council
^ a b “Palestine. The Constitution Suspended., Arab Boycott Of Elections., Back To British Rule” The Times, 30 May 1923, p14, Issue 43354
^ a b Legislative Council (Palestine) Answers.com
^ League of Nations, Official Journal, October 1923, p 1217.
^ a b Segev, Tom (1999). One Palestine, Complete. Metropolitan Books. pp. 360–362. ISBN 0-8050-4848-0.
^ Smith, Charles D. (2007). Palestine and the Arab–Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents (Sixth Edition ed.). pp. 111–225.
^ Gilbert 1998, p. 85: The Jewish Settlement Police were created and equipped with trucks and armoured cars by the British working with the Jewish Agency.
^ “The Zionism of Orde”, Covenant 3 (1), IDC
^ Reuven Firestone (2012). Holy War in Judaism: The Fall and Rise of a Controversial Idea. Oxford University Press. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-19-986030-2.
^ Aljazeera: The history of Palestinian revolts at the Wayback Machine (archived December 15, 2005)
^ a b William Roger Louis, Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, 2006, p.391
^ a b Benny Morris, One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict, 2009, p. 66
^ a b Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 48; p. 11 “while the Zionist movement, after much agonising, accepted the principle of partition and the proposals as a basis for negotiation”; p. 49 “In the end, after bitter debate, the Congress equivocally approved – by a vote of 299 to 160 – the Peel recommendations as a basis for further negotiation.”
^ ‘Zionists Ready To Negotiate British Plan As Basis’, The Times Thursday, 12 August 1937; pg. 10; Issue 47761; col B.
^ Eran, Oded. “Arab-Israel Peacemaking.” The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002, page 122.
^ Letter from David Ben-Gurion to his son Amos, written 5 October 1937, Obtained from the Ben-Gurion Archives in Hebrew, and translated into English by the Institute of Palestine Studies, Beirut
^ Morris, Benny (2011), Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, p. 138, ISBN 9780307788054 Quote: “No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ….. Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state …. will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country”
^ a b Finkelstein, Norman (2005), Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-semitism and the Abuse of History, University of California Press, p. 280, ISBN 9780520245983
^ Quote from a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938: “[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state, we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.” in Masalha, Nur (1992), Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948, Inst for Palestine Studies, p. 107, ISBN 9780887282355 ; and Segev, Tom (2000), One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, Henry Holt and Company, p. 403, ISBN 9780805048483
^ From a letter from Chaim Weizmann to Arthur Grenfell Wauchope, High Commissioner for Palestine, while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937: “We shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ….. this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years.” Masalha, Nur (1992), Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948, Inst for Palestine Studies, p. 62, ISBN 9780887282355
^ Why Italian Planes Bombed Tel-Aviv?
^ How the Palmach was formed (History Central)
^ Secret World War II documents released by the UK in July 2001, include documents on Operation ATLAS (See References: KV 2/400–402. A German task force led by Kurt Wieland parachuted into Palestine in September 1944. This was one of the last German efforts in the region to attack the Jewish community in Palestine and undermine British rule by supplying local Arabs with cash, arms and sabotage equipment. The team was captured shortly after landing.
^ Corrigan, Gordon. The Second World War Thomas Dunne Books, 2011 ISBN 9780312577094 Page 523, last paragraph
^ Lenk, RS (1994). The Mauritius Affair, The Boat People of 1940–41. London: R Lenk. ISBN 0951880527.
^ Aroni, Samuel (2002–2007). “Who Perished On The Struma And How Many?”. JewishGen.org.
^ Подводная лодка “Щ-215″. Черноморский Флот информационный ресурс (in Russian). 2000–2013. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
^ “מפקורה SS Mefküre Mafkura Mefkura”. Haapalah / Aliyah Bet. 27 September 2011. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
^ The “Hunting Season” (1945) by Yehuda Lapidot (Jewish Virtual Library)
^ UN Doc A/364 Add. 1 of 3 September 1947
^ American Jewish History, Jeffrey S. Gurock, American Jewish Historical Society, page 243
^ “A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947″. United Nations. 1947. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
^ Article 11 of the United Nations Charter
^ Roosevelt, Kermit (1948). “The Partition of Palestine: A lesson in pressure politics”. Middle East Journal 2 (1): 1–16. JSTOR 4321940.
^ Snetsinger, John (1974). Truman, the Jewish vote, and the creation of Israel. Hoover Institution. pp. 66–67.
^ Sarsar, Saliba (2004). “The question of Palestine and United States behavior at the United Nations”. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 17 (3): 457–470. doi:10.1023/B:IJPS.0000019613.01593.5e.
^ “Palestine”. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition, 2006. 15 May 2006.
^ Stefan Brooks (2008). “Palestine, British Mandate for”. In Spencer C. Tucker. The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 3. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 770. ISBN 978-1-85109-842-2.
^ A. J. Sherman (2001). Mandate Days: British Lives in Palestine, 1918–1948. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-6620-0.
^ Menachem Begin (1977 edition (expunged later) cited by the Jewish Virtual Library). “The Revolt”. Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ See Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeship, by H. Duncan Hall, Carnegie Endowment, 1948, 266–267.
^ “The Mandate is Indivisble”. Historical Jewish Press, Tel Aviv University, Palestine Post. 9 April 1946 Edition, page 3. Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ “The Near East and Africa”. Foreign relations of the United States. volume V. 1947. p. 1255.
^ Snetsinger (1974). Truman, the Jewish vote, and the creation of Israel. Hoover Press. pp. 60–61. ISBN 0-8179-3391-3.
^ “The Near East and Africa, Volume V (1947)”. United States Department of State, Foreign relations of the United States. p. 1271.
^ ‘U.N. Resolution 181 (II). Future Government of Palestine, Part 1-A, Termination of Mandate, Partition and Independence at the Wayback Machine (archived February 7, 2009)
^ U.N. Resolution 181 (II). Future Government of Palestine, Part 1-A, Termination of Mandate, Partition and Independence.
^ United States Proposal for Temporary United Nations Trusteeship for Palestine Source: Department of State Bulletin, vol. 18, No. 457, 4 April 1948, p. 451
^ Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel: 14 May 1948: Retrieved 10 April 2012
^ Bier, Aharon, & Slae, Bracha,For the sake of Jerusalem, Mazo Publishers, 2006, p.49
^ Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, 14 May 1948.
^ J. Sussmann (1950). “Law and Judicial Practice in Israel”. Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 32: 29–31.
^ “Copy of telegram from Epstein to Shertok” (PDF). Government of Israel. Retrieved 3 May 2013.
^ Press Release Announcing U.S. Recognition of Israel (1948): Retrieved 10 April 2012
^ Appendix IX-B, ‘The Arab Expeditionary Forces to Palestine, 15/5/48, Khalidi, 1971, p. 867.
^ Bayliss, 1999, p. 84.
^ League of Nations, Permanent Mandate Commission, Minutes of the Ninth Session (Arab Grievances), Held at Geneva from 8 to 25 June 1926
^ See Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States “The Paris Peace Conference”. 1919. p. 94.
^ See Summary of the work of the League of Nations, January 1920 – March 1922, League of Nations Union, 1922, page 4
^ See Article 62 (LXII) of the Treaty of Berlin
^ See Defending the Rights of Others, by Carol Fink, Cambridge University, 2006, ISBN 0-521-02994-5, page 28
^ See the Statement of the Principal Accredited Representative, Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore, C.330.M.222, Mandate for Palestine – Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission/League of Nations 32nd session, 18 August 1937
^ See the Judgment in “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (PDF)
^ See paragraphs 49, 70, and 129 of the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory PDF and PAUL J. I. M. DE WAART (2005). “International Court of Justice Firmly Walled in the Law of Power in the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process.” Leiden Journal of International Law, 18, pp 467–487, doi:10.1017/S0922156505002839
^ (Khalidi 2006, pp. 32–33)
^ (Khalidi 2006, pp. 33–34)
^ “Palestine. The Constitution Suspended., Arab Boycott Of Elections., Back To British Rule” The Times, 30 May 1923, p14, Issue 43354
^ (Khalidi 2006, pp. 32, 36)
^ See Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V, page 1033
^ Jewish Agency History at the Wayback Machine (archived February 15, 2006)
^ Palestine Jewry and the Arab Question, 1917–1925, by Caplan, Neil. London and Totowa, NJ: F. Cass, 1978. ISBN 0-7146-3110-8. pp. 161–165.
^ A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry 1. Palestine: Govt. printer. 1946. p. 185.
^ A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry 1. Palestine: Govt. printer. 1946. pp. 210: “Arab illegal immigration is mainly … casual, temporary and seasonal”. pp. 212: “The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purpose of permanent settlement is insignificant”.
^ J. McCarthy (1995). The population of Palestine: population history and statistics of the late Ottoman period and the Mandate. Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press.
^ John B. Quigley (2010). The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict. Cambridge University Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-521-15165-8.
^ See History of Zionism (1600–1918), Volume I, Nahum Sokolow, 1919 Longmans, Green, and Company, London, pages xxiv–xxv
^ The Palestine Mandate, The Avalon Project
^ See the report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, UN Document A/364, 3 September 1947
^ Memorandum By The Secretary of State for the Colonies, “PALESTINE: HIGH COMMISSIONERS VIEWS ON POLICY”, March 1930, UK National Archives Cabinet Paper CAB/24/211, formerly C.P. 108 (30)
^ “PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-SECOND SESSION”. LEAGUE OF NATIONS. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
^ See Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency’s Partition Plan in the Mandate Era, by Yossi Katz, Routledge, 1998, ISBN 0-7146-4846-9
^ See Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1937, The British Commonwealth, Europe, Near East and Africa Volume II, page 894
^ See Letters to Paula and the Children, David Ben Gurion, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1971 page 153–157
^ See Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist–Arab Conflict, 1881–1999, by Benny Morris, Knopf, 1999, ISBN 0-679-42120-3, page 138
^ See Scars of war, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli–Arab Tragedy, by Shlomo Ben-Ami, Oxford University Press, USA, 2006, ISBN 0-19-518158-1, page 17
^ See Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry – Chapter V, the Jewish Attitude
^ See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946, The Near East and Africa Volume VII, page 692–693
^ Stein 1984, p. 4
^ “Land Ownership in Palestine,” CZA, KKL5/1878. The statistics were prepared by the Palestine Lands Department for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1945, ISA, Box 3874/file 1. See (Khalaf 1991, p. 27)
^ Stein 1984, p. 226
^ Avneri 1984, p. 224
^ Stein 1984, pp. 3–4, 247
^ Michael R. Fischbach (13 August 2013). Jewish Property Claims Against Arab Countries. Columbia University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-231-51781-2. By 1948, after several decades of Jewish immigration, the Jewish population of Palestine had risen to about one third of the total, and Jews and Jewish companies owned 20 percent of all cultivable land in the country
^ Lorenzo Kamel (2014), “Whose Land? Land Tenure in Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Palestine”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, pp. 230–242.
^ Land Ownership of Palestine – Map prepared by the Government of Palestine on the instructions of the UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question.
^ Ownership of land in Palestine,Share of Palestinan Arabs and Jews as of April 1st,1943, prepared by the British Mandate for the United Nations Survey of Palestine Retrieved 25 August 2014
^ Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Jewish Problems in Palestine and Europe, J. V. W. Shaw, General Assembly, Special Committee on Palestine, United Nations (1991). A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December, 1945 and January, 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry 1. Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 0-88728-211-3.
^ ibid, Supplement p30.
^ “”Hope Simpson report, Chapter III”. Zionism-israel.com. October 1930.
^ Mills, E. Census of Palestine, 1931″ (UK government, 1932), Vol I, pp61-65.
^ The Political History of Palestine under British Administration, Memorandum to the United Nations Special Committee
^ prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. (1991). A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December, 1945 and January, 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry 1. Institute for Palestine Studies. pp. 12–13. ISBN 0-88728-211-3.
^ (Khalidi 2006, pp. 13–14)
^ (Khalidi 2006, p. 27)
^ Shamir, Ronen (2013). Current Flow: The Electrification of Palestine. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
^ Noam Dvir (5 April 2012). “Haifa’s glass house transparent, but still an Israeli mystery”. Haaretz.
^ (Khalidi 2006, p. 16)
^ (Khalidi 2006, p. 17)
^ (Khalidi 2006, pp. 29–30)
^ The Jewish Community under the Mandate
^ (Khalidi 2006, pp. 14, 24)

Quotes

^ UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE A/AC.25/W/19 30 July 1949: (Working paper prepared by the Secretariat),”The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety.”
^ Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. pp. 50, 66, 67, 72. Retrieved 24 July 2013. p. 50, at 1947 “Haj Amin al-Husseini went one better: he denounced also the minority report, which, in his view, legitimized the Jewish foothold in Palestine, a “partition in disguise,” as he put it.”; p. 66, at 1946 “The League demanded independence for Palestine as a “unitary” state, with an Arab majority and minority rights for the Jews. The AHC went one better and insisted that the proportion of Jews to Arabs in the unitary state should stand at one to six, meaning that only Jews who lived in Palestine before the British Mandate be eligible for citizenship”; p. 67, at 1947 “The League’s Political Committee met in Sofar, Lebanon, on 16–19 September, and urged the Palestine Arabs to fight partition, which it called “aggression,” “without mercy.” The League promised them, in line with Bludan, assistance “in manpower, money and equipment” should the United Nations endorse partition.”; p. 72, at Dec 1947 “The League vowed, in very general language, “to try to stymie the partition plan and prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine,

Bibliography

Pappé, Ilan (15 August 1994). “Introduction”. The Making of the Arab–Israeli Conflict, 1947–1951. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-819-9. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Khalidi, Rashid (2006). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-0308-5. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Khalidi, Rashid (2007) [1st ed. 2001]. “The Palestinians and 1948: the underlying causes of failure”. In Eugene L. Rogan & Avi Shlaim. The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-69934-1. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Khalidi, Walid (1987) [Original in 1971]. From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine Problem Until 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 0-88728-155-9. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Morris, Benny (2001) . Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist–Arab Conflict, 1881–1999. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-679-74475-7. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Aruri, Naseer Hasan (1972). Jordan: A Study in Political Development 1923–1965. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-90-247-1217-5. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Biger, Gideon (2004). The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840–1947. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7146-5654-0. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Louis, Wm. Roger (1969). “The United Kingdom and the Beginning of the Mandates System, 1919–1922″. International Organization 23 (1): 73–96. doi:10.1017/s0020818300025534.
Segev, Tom (2001) [Original in 2000]. “Nebi Musa, 1920″. One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate. Trans. Haim Watzman. London: Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-6587-9. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Stein, Kenneth W. (1987) [Original in 1984]. The Land Question in Palestine, 1917–1939. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-4178-5. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Gilbert, Martin (1998). Israel: a history. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-40401-3. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Shapira, Anita (1992). Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948. trans. William Templer. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-506104-7. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Black, Ian (1991). Israel’s Secret Wars: A History of Israel’s Intelligence Services. Morris, Benny. Grove Press. ISBN 0-8021-1159-9.
Avneri, Aryeh L. (1984). The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land-Settlement and the Arabs, 1878–1948. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-87855-964-0. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Khalaf, Issa (1991). Politics in Palestine: Arab Factionalism and Social Disintegration, 1939–1948. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-0708-0. Retrieved 6 May 2009.
Bayliss, Thomas (1999). How Israel Was Won: A Concise History of the Arab–Israeli Conflict. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-0064-6
Bethell, Nicholas The Palestine Triangle: the Struggle Between the British, the Jews and the Arabs, 1935–48, London: Deutsch, 1979 ISBN 0-233-97069-X.
El-Eini, Roza I.M. (2006). Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine, 1929–1948. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7146-5426-3. Retrieved 5 May 2009.
Hughes, Matthew, ed. (2004). Allenby in Palestine: The Middle East Correspondence of Field Marshal Viscount Allenby June 1917 – October 1919. Army Records Society 22. Phoenix Mill, Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7509-3841-9.
Katz, Shmuel (1973). Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-929093-13-5. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
Paris, Timothy J. (2003). Britain, the Hashemites and Arab Rule, 1920–1925: The Sherifian Solution. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5451-5
Sherman, A J (1998).Mandate Days: British Lives in Palestine, 1918–1948, Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-8018-6620-0
Vareilles, Guillaume (2010). Les frontières de la Palestine, 1914–1947, Paris, L’Harmattan. ISBN 978-2-296-13621-2

External links

This article’s use of external links may not follow Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (May 2012)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to British Mandate of Palestine.

Resources > Modern Period > 20th Cent. > History of Israel > Building a State > British Mandate (1917–1948) at the Jewish History Resource Center, Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Coins and Banknotes of Palestine under the British Mandate
Stamps of Palestine under the British Mandate
A history of Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict
An Introduction to the Israel-Palestine Conflict at the Wayback Machine (archived February 28, 2005) by Norman Finkelstein.
Map of Population Distribution by Ethnicity 1946
Population of Palestine before 1948
Map of Land Ownership in Palestine 1945
British Servicemen and Police who died 1945–1948 – Database
The Jewish Community under the Mandate at JewishVirtualLibrary.org.
“Mandate Unscrambled”. Time Magazine. 9 July 1937. Retrieved 14 October 2009.
British Mandate of Palestine Coins
British Mandate of Palestine
Map of 1947 UN division

Territories of the British Empire and the United Kingdom

Legend Current territory Former territory * Now a Commonwealth realm Now a member of the Commonwealth of Nations

Europe

1708–1757 Minorca
Since 1713 Gibraltar
1763–1782 Minorca
1798–1802 Minorca
1800–1813 Malta (Protectorate)
1813–1964 Malta (Colony)
1807–1890 Heligoland
1809–1864 Ionian Islands
1878–1960 Cyprus
1921–1937 Irish Free State

North America

17th century and before		18th century	19th and 20th century

1579 New Albion 1583–1907 Newfoundland 1605–1979 Saint Lucia 1607–1776 Virginia Since 1619 Bermuda 1620–1691 Plymouth Colony 1623–1883 Saint Kitts (Saint Kitts & Nevis) 1624–1966 Barbados 1625–1650 Saint Croix 1627–1979 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1628–1883 Nevis (Saint Kitts & Nevis) 1629–1691 Massachusetts Bay Colony 1632–1776 Maryland since 1632 Montserrat 1632–1860 Antigua (Antigua & Barbuda) 1636–1776 Connecticut 1636–1776 Rhode Island 1637–1662 New Haven Colony	1643–1860 Bay Islands Since 1650 Anguilla 1655–1850 Mosquito Coast (protectorate) 1655–1962 Jamaica 1663–1712 Carolina 1664–1776 New York 1665–1674 and 1702–1776 New Jersey Since 1666 British Virgin Islands Since 1670 Cayman Islands 1670–1973 Bahamas 1670–1870 Rupert’s Land 1671–1816 Leeward Islands 1674–1702 East Jersey 1674–1702 West Jersey 1680–1776 New Hampshire 1681–1776 Pennsylvania 1686–1689 Dominion of New England 1691–1776 Massachusetts	1701–1776 Delaware 1712–1776 North Carolina 1712–1776 South Carolina 1713–1867 Nova Scotia 1733–1776 Georgia 1762–1974 *Grenada 1763–1978 Dominica 1763–1873 Prince Edward Island 1763–1791 Quebec 1763–1783 East Florida 1763–1783 West Florida 1784–1867 New Brunswick 1791–1841 Lower Canada 1791–1841 Upper Canada Since 1799 Turks and Caicos Islands	1818–1846 Columbia District/Oregon Country1 1833–1960 Windward Islands 1833–1960 Leeward Islands 1841–1867 Province of Canada 1849–1866 Vancouver Island 1853–1863 Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands 1858–1866 British Columbia 1859–1870 North-Western Territory 1860–1981 British Antigua and Barbuda 1862–1863 Stikine Territory 1866–1871 Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1867–1931 Dominion of Canada2 1871–1964 British Honduras (Belize) 1882–1983 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1889–1962 Trinidad and Tobago 1907–1949 Dominion of Newfoundland3 1958–1962 West Indies Federation

1. Occupied jointly with the United States.
2. In 1931, Canada and other British dominions obtained self-government through the Statute of Westminster. See Canada’s name.
3. Gave up self-rule in 1934, but remained a de jure Dominion until it joined Canada in 1949.

South America

1651–1667 Willoughbyland (Suriname) 1670–1688 Saint Andrew and Providence Islands4 1831–1966 British Guiana (Guyana) Since 1833 Falkland Islands5 Since 1908 South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands5

4. Now the San Andrés y Providencia Department of Colombia. 5. Occupied by Argentina during the Falklands War of April–June 1982.

Africa

17th and 18th centuries	19th century		20th century

Since 1658 Saint Helena14 1792–1961 Sierra Leone 1795–1803 Cape Colony	Since 1815 Ascension Island14 Since 1816 Tristan da Cunha14 1806–1910 Cape Colony 1807–1808 Madeira 1810–1968 Mauritius 1816–1965 The Gambia 1856–1910 Natal 1868–1966 Basutoland (Lesotho) 1874–1957 Gold Coast (Ghana) 1882–1922 Egypt	1884–1966 Bechuanaland (Botswana) 1884–1960 British Somaliland 1887–1897 Zululand 1890–1962 Uganda 1890–1963 Zanzibar (Tanzania) 1891–1964 Nyasaland (Malawi) 1891–1907 British Central Africa Protectorate 1893–1968 Swaziland 1895–1920 East Africa Protectorate 1899–1956 Anglo-Egyptian Sudan	1900–1914 Northern Nigeria 1900–1914 Southern Nigeria 1900–1910 Orange River Colony 1900–1910 Transvaal Colony 1906–1954 Nigeria Colony 1910–1931 South Africa 1914–1954 Nigeria Colony and Protectorate 1915–1931 South West Africa (Namibia) 1919–1960 Cameroons (Cameroon)6 1920–1963 Kenya 1922–1961 Tanganyika (Tanzania)6 1923–1965 Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)7 1924–1964 Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) 1954–1960 Nigeria 1979–1980 Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)7

6. League of Nations mandate.
7. Self-governing Southern Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence in 1965 (as Rhodesia) and continued as an unrecognised state until the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement. After recognised independence in 1980, Zimbabwe was a member of the Commonwealth until it withdrew in 2003.

Asia

17th and 18th century	19th century		20th century

1685–1824 Bencoolen (Sumatra) 1702–1705 Pulo Condore 1757–1947 Bengal (West Bengal (India) and Bangladesh) 1762–1764 Manila and Cavite 1786–1946 Penang 1795–1948 Ceylon (Sri Lanka) 1796–1965 Maldives	1812–1824 Banka (Sumatra) and Billiton (Sumatra) 1819–1826 British Malaya (West Malaysia and Singapore) 1826–1946 Straits Settlements 1839–1967 Colony of Aden 1839–1842 Afghanistan 1841–1997 Hong Kong 1841–1946 Kingdom of Sarawak (Malaysia) 1848–1946 Labuan (Malaysia) 1858–1947 British India (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Burma) 1874–1963 British Borneo (East Malaysia and Brunei)	1879–1919 Afghanistan (protectorate) 1882–1963 British North Borneo (Malaysia) 1885–1946 Unfederated Malay States 1888–1984 Sultanate of Brunei 1891–1971 Muscat and Oman protectorate 1892–1971 Trucial States 1895–1946 Federated Malay States 1898–1930 Weihai Garrison 1878–1960 Cyprus	1907–1949 Bhutan (protectorate) 1918–1961 Kuwait protectorate 1920–1932 Iraq8 1921–1946 Transjordan8 1923–1948 Palestine8 1945–1946 South Vietnam 1946–1963 North Borneo (Malaysia) 1946–1963 Sarawak (Malaysia) 1946–1963 Singapore 1946–1948 Malayan Union 1948–1957 Federation of Malaya (Malaysia) Since 1960 Akrotiri and Dhekelia (before as part of Cyprus) Since 1965 British Indian Ocean Territory (before as part of Mauritius and the Seychelles)

8 League of Nations mandate. Iraq’s mandate was not enacted and replaced by the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty

Oceania

18th and 19th centuries		20th century

1788–1901 New South Wales 1803–1901 Van Diemen’s Land/Tasmania 1807–1863 Auckland Islands9 1824–1980 New Hebrides (Vanuatu) 1824–1901 Queensland 1829–1901 Swan River Colony/Western Australia 1836–1901 South Australia since 1838 Pitcairn Islands	1841–1907 Colony of New Zealand 1851–1901 Victoria 1874–1970 Fiji10 1877–1976 British Western Pacific Territories 1884–1949 Territory of Papua 1888–1901 Cook Islands9 1889–1948 Union Islands (Tokelau)9 1892–1979 Gilbert and Ellice Islands11 1893–1978 British Solomon Islands12	1900–1970 Tonga (protected state) 1900–1974 Niue9 1901–1942 Commonwealth of Australia 1907–1953 Dominion of New Zealand 1919–1942 Nauru 1945–1968 Nauru 1919–1949 Territory of New Guinea 1949–1975 Territory of Papua and New Guinea13

9. Now part of the *Realm of New Zealand.
10. Suspended member.
11. Now Kiribati and *Tuvalu.
12. Now the *Solomon Islands.
13. Now *Papua New Guinea.

Antarctica and South Atlantic

Since 1658 Saint Helena14 Since 1815 Ascension Island14 Since 1816 Tristan da Cunha14 Since 1908 British Antarctic Territory15 1841–1933 Australian Antarctic Territory (transferred to the Commonwealth of Australia) 1841–1947 Ross Dependency (transferred to the Realm of New Zealand)

14. Since 2009 part of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; Ascension Island (1922–) and Tristan da Cunha (1938–) were previously dependencies of Saint Helena. 15. Both claimed in 1908; territories formed in 1962 (British Antarctic Territory) and 1985 (South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands).

Authority control	GND: 14496-4

Find more about Edward VII at Wikipedia’s sister projects
	Media from Commons
	Source texts from Wikisource
	Database entry Q20875 on Wikidata

Regnal titles
Edward VII House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Cadet branch of the House of Wettin Born: 9 November 1841 Died: 6 May 1910
Preceded by Victoria	King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions Emperor of India 22 January 1901 – 6 May 1910	Succeeded by George V
British royalty
Vacant Title last held by Prince George later became King George IV	Prince of Wales Duke of Cornwall Duke of Rothesay 1841–1901	Succeeded by The Prince George later became King George V
Masonic offices
Preceded by The Marquess of Ripon	Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England 1874–1901	Succeeded by Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn
Honorary titles
Vacant Title last held by Albert, Prince Consort	Great Master of the Bath 1897–1901	Succeeded by Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn

Bear Faxx » Facts

The Origins of Ragtime: Exploring its Cultural Roots in Turn-of-the-Century America

Introduction to Ragtime: Defining Ragtime

The Time Period: Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Social and Cultural Context

Urbanization and Entertainment

Economic Climate

African American Roots and Influences

The Role of African American Composers

Key Characteristics of African American Composers

Scott Joplin: A Pioneer in Ragtime

Impact on Future Generations

Cultural Exchange and the Evolution of Ragtime

The Influence of European Classical Music

Ragtime in the Vaudeville Circuit

Key Figures and Milestones

Scott Joplin: The ‘King of Ragtime’

The Publication of ‘The Maple Leaf Rag’

A Key Milestone in Ragtime’s Development

The Impact on Popular Culture

The Significance of Joplin’s Composition

Legacy and Impact

Ragtime’s Influence on American Music

Ragtime in Modern Times

Conclusion

Christianity

Contents

Etymology

Beliefs

Creeds

Jesus

Salvation

Trinity

Eschatology

Practices

Communal worship

Sacraments

Liturgical calendar

Symbols

Baptism

Prayer

Scriptures

Catholic interpretation

Protestant interpretation

History

Early Christianity

Early Middle Ages

High and Late Middle Ages

Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation

Post-Enlightenment

Demographics

Churches and denominations

Catholic Church

Eastern Orthodox Church

Oriental Orthodoxy

Assyrian Church of the East

Protestantism

Restorationism

Other

Influence on western culture

Ecumenism

Criticism, persecution, and apologetics

Criticism

Persecution

Apologetics

See also

Notes

References

Bibliography

Further reading

External links

Marcus Garvey

Contents

Early life

Childhood: 1887–1904

Early career in Kingston: 1905–1909

Travels abroad: 1910–1914

Organization of UNIA

Forming UNIA: 1914–1916

To the United States: 1916–1918