Quick Take
- Narration: Damon Abernathy handles contentious academic argument with appropriate neutrality, his delivery does not editorialize, which is the right choice for a text that generates strong reader reactions.
- Themes: The contested historiography of colonialism, development theory and its discontents, the politics of historical revisionism
- Mood: Polemical and confident, written by an author who anticipates disagreement and has prepared for it
- Verdict: A genuinely provocative work of historical revisionism that demands engagement on its own terms, whether you find it persuasive or wrong, Gilley has done enough research to make the argument a serious one that needs to be seriously refuted.
There are books you finish feeling confirmed in your prior views, books that genuinely shift your perspective, and books that force you to articulate exactly why you disagree more precisely than you could before you started. In Defense of German Colonialism is the third kind for most readers who encounter it with a standard understanding of colonial history, and it is the second kind for readers like reviewer TJ Grant who came in already sympathetic to Gilley’s earlier essay “The Case for Colonialism.” What it almost certainly is not is neutral, and Gilley would agree with that assessment, since his entire project is explicitly polemical.
Bruce Gilley is a political science professor at Portland State University whose 2017 essay “The Case for Colonialism” became one of the more controversial academic publications of recent memory, generating demands for retraction, a petition signed by thousands of scholars, and a debate about academic freedom that has not fully resolved. This book is, in a sense, the extended version of that argument, focused specifically on German colonialism in Africa and the Pacific from the 1880s through the early twentieth century.
The Core Argument and Its Architecture
Gilley’s thesis is stated clearly in the synopsis: German colonialism was, contrary to modern consensus, overall a force for good, that it elevated the material conditions of colonized peoples, encouraged scientific development, and allowed native cultures to flourish within its administrative framework. The book works through this argument by examining specific German colonial territories, primarily in what is now Namibia, Tanzania, Cameroon, and Togo, and presenting evidence that Gilley believes challenges the mainstream historiographical narrative of colonial exploitation and violence.
Reviewer Margaret A. provides what is probably the most balanced available description of the book’s method: it is an attempt to identify positives in German colonialism and answer critics of German policies, extended in the second half into an argument about the post-WWI stripping of German colonies. The second argument, that depriving Germany of its colonies strengthened radical nationalism and thus contributed to the conditions that produced National Socialism, is the more historically unusual claim and the one that generated some of the strongest responses from historians.
What the Book Does Not Address Adequately
The Herero and Nama genocide of 1904-1908 presents the most direct challenge to Gilley’s thesis. German colonial forces killed between 25,000 and 100,000 Herero people and between 10,000 and 20,000 Nama people in what Germany formally recognized in 2021 as a genocide. Gilley addresses the violence of German colonial rule, but the question of how a colonial enterprise that included the first genocide of the twentieth century can be classified as a force for good is one that reviewers and historians have found his answer inadequate to resolve.
Damon Abernathy’s narration handles these disputed sections with the same measured delivery as the less contested passages, which is the right choice. A narrator who editorialized against or in favor of the argument would do listeners a disservice. Abernathy treats the book as argument rather than as fact, and that neutrality is appropriate for material where the interpretive dispute is itself part of the subject.
Reading Gilley Against His Critics
To engage seriously with this book, listeners would benefit from simultaneously having access to the academic responses it generated. The peer-reviewed responses to “The Case for Colonialism” are publicly available and provide the counter-evidence that Gilley’s presentation, naturally, does not foreground. Gilley is a trained political scientist with genuine research skills, reviewer Gautam Reddy’s description of the book as a restoration of sanity overstates it, but reviewer Margaret A.’s description of it as a serious historical and historiographical argument is accurate.
The accompanying PDF, which the synopsis notes is available in the Audible library, presumably contains citations and supporting materials that are load-bearing for Gilley’s quantitative claims. Listeners who want to assess the evidence rather than just the argument should access that companion material.
Who Should Listen and Who Should Skip
Listen if you want to understand what serious historical revisionism about colonialism looks like from its most sophisticated proponents, whether you ultimately agree or not, Gilley is not making a lazy argument. Listen if you have an existing interest in the academic debate around colonial history and want to engage with a primary text rather than summaries. Skip if you are looking for a history that takes the experience and perspective of colonized peoples as its central concern, this is intellectual history written from above, and the voices of those who lived under German colonial rule are present primarily as data points rather than as agents. The PDF companion is strongly recommended alongside the audio.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the book address the Herero and Nama genocide of 1904-1908?
Gilley addresses colonial violence in his account, but critics have argued that his treatment of the Herero and Nama genocide, which Germany formally recognized as such in 2021, is inadequate given the scale of the killing. This is one of the central points of contention in the academic response to his work.
Is the accompanying PDF companion essential for following the audiobook’s arguments?
For listeners who want to assess the evidentiary basis of Gilley’s claims rather than just the arguments themselves, the PDF companion is strongly advisable. Many of the quantitative and citation-based elements of the argument are better reviewed in written form.
How does this book relate to Gilley’s earlier essay ‘The Case for Colonialism’?
The book is the extended version of the argument made in that 2017 essay, applied specifically to German colonialism. Listeners familiar with the essay and the controversy it generated will find the book a natural extension of those themes. Those unfamiliar can follow the book without that background.
Is Damon Abernathy’s narration neutral or does it editorialize toward or against the argument?
Abernathy maintains consistent neutrality throughout, which is the appropriate choice for a text whose central arguments are genuinely contested. He treats the material as argument rather than fact, which allows listeners to form their own assessments.
