Whose Revolution? The Peasant Rebellion of 1918 and the Egyptian “nationalist” Revolution
During World War I approximately half a million Egyptians—most of them illiterate workers and peasants from the countryside—were recruited by the British colonial state to serve in the Egyptian Labor Corps (ELC). ELC laborers worked as stevedores on the docks of France and Gallipoli, they served as camel drivers in Sudan and the Libyan borderlands, and the laid the roads, railways, and water pipeline necessary for British imperial troops to cross the Sinai Desert. The massive recruitment of laborers had a profound influence on the social relationships of the countryside, and culminated in a massive wave of peasant unrest that began in the summer of 1918. In my research, I have uncovered 35 instances of rural violence associated with resistance to ELC recruitment, ranging from individual acts to village-wide demonstrations, between May and August 1918. By analyzing this body of literature and linking it to the diverse acts of protest that proliferated throughout the Egyptian countryside in the spring of 1919, I argue that the ELC was a substantial motivating factor in the 1919 revolution, especially with regard to the unrest in the countryside. I proceed to tease out the implications of this argument. First, this evidence illustrates that the 1919 Egyptian revolution cannot be reduced to sympathy with the nationalist movement. A close study of the ELC demonstrates this in two ways. First, violence in reaction to ELC recruitment and directed at recruiting figures shows that rural protests were animated by grievances against the colonial state over the issue of ELC recruiting, not necessarily by identification with Egyptian nationalism or the wafd. Second, ELC laborers who had already undergone the enrollment and training process actually stayed loyal to their British officers throughout the revolution, despite their awareness of developments in the country surrounding them. This provides evidence of at least some Egyptians who withheld their loyalty from the nationalist revolution and maintained allegiance to the British system. The second, related implication of this evidence is that historians must disaggregate the 1919 revolution into at least two distinct movements—one a centralized nationalist movement and the other a de-centralized peasant rebellion. This helps us make sense of how the British responded to the 1919 revolution; while they crushed the rebellion in the countryside, they negotiated with the nationalists and allowed them a degree of national autonomy.
Biography: Kyle Anderson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
History and Philosophy at SUNY Old Westbury on Long Island, NY. His research
on labor history and the First World War in Egypt has received funding from the
American Research Center in Egypt and the Social Science Research Council. He
has published with journals including The International Journal of Middle East
Studies and History Compass on labor history, The First World War,
historiography, and organizational behavior. He is currently working on a book
about the Egyptian Labor Corps.