Imperial Representation in The Illustrated London News
Maintaining the Image of Empire
Explore the impact of images in ILN's possible attempts to promote the superiority of Britain
Avoidance of British cruelties and failures
In the ILN coverage of the important events listed on the home page of this exhibit, a common thread emerges: missing imagery of times when Britain inflicted cruelties against enemies that could contradict the image of civilized superiority. When attempting to see how the ILN could have reported incidences of British failures or cruelties to the public, multiple times the search was fruitless. Located below are images present in place of British shortcomings.
Although the Indian population and culture were given countless images throughout The Illustrated London News in the year of the Great Mutiny, there was a lack of coverage of the actual battles and events of rebellion by the Sepoy forces. Possibly the only image of the battle was "The Storming of Delhi - The Cashmere Gate," which is described as the decisive suppression of the rebellion by British troops as they blew up the gate to the city and regained control of Delhi. The Indian forces are pictured in defeated and distressed positions, while the British men look powerful and successful. Most news coverage of the British colony in 1857 focused on the beauty of India, possibly to preoccupy readers with admiration for the culture and distract from the revolt occurring against the empire. Another historian, Megan Owens, supports this claim, stating, "The genuine concerns or
twelve men in the gallows in the far background of the illustration. An observation to include is the interesting placement of the full-page portrait of "Hindu Rajah of Ooncar Mandatta" on the opposite page of the Indian men being killed for their acts of attempted independence. Once again, it appears the British press was attempting to place shiny fancy objects next to or in place of rebellious events made by the people of its colony.
desires of the Indian people were usually glossed over in pursuit of more scenic images, often entirely ignoring calamities such as the Indian Rebellion of 1857." (Owens, 1257).
What were The Illustrated London News editors prioritizing when they included, or excluded, certain events? How did they decide the layout of issues during the time of the Great Mutiny? Remember that editorial choices are never coincidental.
The only other image that makes reference to the mutiny is the image to the right, captioned "Execution of Mutinous Sepoys on the Parade, Peshawur," with
The Battle of Elandslaagte - 1899
While the British would ultimately win both the Zulu and Boer Wars, The Illustrated London News avoided publishing the battles throughout the conflicts that may have tarnished the Empire's image of superiority. If they were to lose, it was a tragedy inflicted by a savage opponent, and not as a result of the mistakes by British forces.
the Boers defeated the British in a number of major engagements and besieged the key towns of Ladysmith, Mafeking, and Kimberley. Particularly of note among Boer victories in this period are those that occurred at Magersfontein, Colesberg, and Stormberg, during what became known as Black Week [December 10–15, 1899] (Augustyn).
​Rather than publishing illustrations of this string of losses to their opponent, the ILN only printed instances of British valor and Boer failure.
A Veterinary Corporal of 8th Lancers Spearing Two Boers with One Thrust - 1899
While there are an abundance of battle and combat throughout the ILN, there are few depictions of British defeat on the battlefield. Despite the portrayal made by the ILN, the British forces endured their fair share of heavy loss, particularly during the Zulu and Boer Wars. ​
At the start of the Zulu War, Lieutenant-General Lord Chelmsford made the mistake of underestimating the Zulu fighting force, and because of it, faced devastating defeat at the battle of Isandlwana. As described by the National Army Museum:
​
​
However, when looking through the illustrations of the Zulu War in The Illustrated London News, imagery of this loss is absent. Instead, the paper focused on instances in which the Zulu forces were the ones in a posture of defeat or retreat. On the rare occasion ILN included Zulu victory over the British, such as Intombi River, it was described as an occasional tragedy. If Britain were to lose, the press would blame it on the barbaric or unconventional tactics of the opponent, not the failures of the British military. This still poses the question -- why did the ILN include the loss of Intombi River, but not the defeat of Isandlawana? What makes one tragedy different from the other?
A similar situation occurred during the "Black Week" of the South African War, known to the British as the Boer War. Beginning on Sunday, December 10th of 1899, the Dutch forces began a week of overwhelming success over the British. Britannica states:
The Final Repulse of the Zulus at Ginghilovo - 1879
Zulus Retreating Across Open Space (fourteen killed here) - 1879
​Over 20,000 Zulus… launched a surprise attack on Chelmsford's poorly fortified camp. Fighting in an over-extended line and too far from their ammunition, the British were swamped by sheer weight of numbers. The majority of their 1,700 troops were killed. Supplies and ammunition were also seized. The Zulus earned their greatest victory of the war and Chelmsford was left no choice but to retreat ("Zulu War").
One atrocity completely absent from The Illustrated London News coverage of the Boer War is the British use of Concentration Camps for African and Afrikaner women and children. Thanks to the work of British welfare campaigner, Emily Hobhouse, attention was brought to the terrible conditions and great loss that took place in the camps. One interviewee, "describes…Heilbron as ‘a living grave.’ The narrative offers the reader a litany of the misery endured by the Boer women and children through starvation, cold and sickness.” (de Reucke, 74). The British camp officials attempted to blame the deaths of the Boers on their own medical practices, however, “narratives suggest…it was not their (Dutch) Boer medicines that contributed to the high death rate in the camps but the failure of sanitary and health care on the part of the camps’ administrators” (de Reuck, 77).
​
​
Rather than concentration camps, the ILN printed a photograph of Boer prisoners making toys, as if to portray to the British readers that Boer prisoners are treated fairly. The Illustrated London News readers see the opponent in humane conditions, unaware of the starvation and suffering of African and Afrikaner women and children occurring at the hands of the British.
The Boer Prisoner as Toy-Maker on Board Ship - 1901
Given the fact the British were responsible for the deaths of at least 28,000 Afrikaners and 20,000 African innocent women and children in their camps, it is not surprising that information is missing from the papers. ​
Following their mission?
In the first and second issues of The Illustrated London News, Herbert Ingram published his intentions and mission statement for the paper. The edition on May 14, 1842 states the periodical was meant to give readers, “under their glance, and within their grasp, the very form and presence of events as they transpire, in all their substantial reality, and with evidence visible as well as circumstantial” (Bailett, 407).
The mission statement included in the second issue declared:
we will seek to infuse a healthier tone of morality into the popular mind upon the subject of such dismal atrocities—to diminish the wild and dreadful excitement which at such moments agitate the public frame, and to cleanse that bad and brutal spirit which is fond of revelling in execration, and makes a holiday spectacle of the crisis which sends the murderer before his God (Baillet, 410).
​​​
​Ingram clearly sought to avoid stimulating what he perceived as the natural human instinct of attraction to the sensational and violent. His periodical, however, did on occasion show scenes of extreme violence (the sixth image of this page for example). In such cases, was his paper disregarding its own sense of mission? Or were these events so moving to the British public that they required representation as part of the national narrative? Did the ILN consider British violence something to ignore, so as to avoid stimulating “wild and dreadful excitement”; but at the same time view the tragic loss of British lives as a moral event demanding depiction? Reflecting upon the images presented throughout this exhibit, do they uphold the paper's ideals of "substantial reality" and "a healthier tone of morality"?
Bolstering the opponent
Zulu Method of Advancing to the Attack - April 1879
Besides an avoidance of their shortcomings, The Illustrated London News potentially had one more strategy for upholding the reputation of the British Empire to its public. For the opponents that handed the British troops devasting losses, it appears there may have been more illustrations portraying their military strength and skill. Rather than ignoring their success against the British, ILN made an attempt to build up the reputation of the opponent so it appears the British lost to a highly skilled and formidable foe. Daniel Dodman goes into detail on this hypothesis, with evidence from the Zulu War coverage. He states, "The newspapers were forced into a better understanding [of the Zulu culture] by the battle of Isandlwana which initially created a patriotic ripple that attempted to undermine the Zulu achievement. However, it quickly became obvious that the easiest way of reconciling apparent British military might and the defeat was to emphasise Zulu military ability.” (Dodman, 6). After losing a force of nearly 1700 men, it is difficult to ignore the defeat of the British at the hands of the Zulu troops. Thankfully, because of their ignorance of the Zulu culture and people prior to this conflict, it was easy for the ILN and other press to create a certain image for and narrative about their military might. Now instead of facing insignificant "savages" of Southern Africa, “The conflict was transformed from a minor ‘little war’ into a potential arena in which the military prowess of individuals could be put to the test against a worthy adversary.” (Dodman, 5). Potential evidence of this strategy may be present in the image to the left, with the Zulu men looking brave and powerful.
​
Now to try and apply this theory to the other conflicts researched in this exhibit. Unlike the Boer and Zulu Wars, there was no moment in the Great Mutiny where the Indian rebels inflicted great loss on the British troops. The factor that caused the most suffering for the British army during the Mutiny was cholera. The first fight for Indian independence was widely unsuccessful, and therefore there was no real reason to bolster the reputation of the Indian people to save face for the empire. As stated above, there were very few images of the actual conflict in Delhi (see the image to the left for another minor Mutiny illustration).
​In both the first and second Opium Wars, the Chinese troops were overpowered by the force of the British ​ and endured defeat. Once again, there were no major events of British loss to report to the British public, and therefore no reason to build up the Chinese challenger. More evidence to support Dodman can be found in the fact the majority of
illustrations of the Opium Wars were scenery and ship battles, with no images of the Chinese troops and their people (such as the illustrations to the right).
​
The troops of the South African War experienced major success against the British during the Black Week, discussed above. While there are many depictions of the British courage and triumph during the Boer conflict, there are a few images of their opponent that make them look like an enemy to take seriously. The corner illustration depicts how the Boer troops practiced shooting, and the bottom left shows Boer forces in a position of command during a night raid. Just like in the Zulu War, the Illustrated London News made sure to include imagery that built the Boer to be a tough opponent to beat, and would keep the British as a reputable force in the eyes of the newspaper viewers. Given the evidence found for various other wars and conflicts, it would see that Dodman's statement about bolstering the opponent to protect the image of the empire would hold for more than just the Zulu War. ​
Tragical Adventure in the Subseemundee
Interior of a Subaltern's Tent Before Delhi - Oct. 1857
View of the Canton River
Chinese Fort - 1842
The Guerilla Warfare in South Africa: De Wet's Night Surprise of the British Camp - Feb. 1902
The Transvaal Crisis: How the Boers Practice Shooting - Oct. 1899