David Simonelli
Professor
Department of History
dsimonelli@ysu.edu
Phone: x 1601
Wembley: the 1924-25 British Empire Exhibition
Abstract/Overview of Project:
In April 1924, a grammar school in Hammersmith, a suburb of London, created a
sectional model of the “races that contribute to the British breed”. Running through its
collection of the medieval roots of the British stock, the model argued that Britons were
full of fervor, Angles and Saxons were adventurous lovers of the sea, and Normans were
controlled and refined. Combined, these people were allegedly designed biologically to
trade, build joint stock companies, and colonize the planet. The model was put on
display at the world’s fair by which it was inspired, the British Empire Exhibition in
Wembley, and used as a prime example of the educational value of the exhibition.
The Wembley Exhibition was supposed to present a tableau vision of an idea of
imperial unity, referred to by the term “commonwealth” – the idea that British colonies
all shared a common economy, culture and historical connection, and should live in
harmony and equality with the British nation as a motherly center of community.
Previously, the idea of commonwealth had referred to the empire’s white dominions,
Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland. The goal of
the exhibition was to expand the British population’s definition of commonwealth, to
see all the colonies, regardless of the race of their peoples, as a free association that had
abandoned any uncomfortable associations with conquest.
The exhibition lasted from 1924 through 1925, the largest attended world’s fair
of its time, and left a deliberate and positive impact on the historical culture of the
British people. Yet its vision failed in the end: the concept of “commonwealth” had to be
more about moderating the British peoples’ ideas on race, and for all its notions of a
free association of peoples, there was no doubt which population – the British – had
beaten up all the others, and which would continue to dominate. The exhibition was an
interesting effort to overcome race in favor of economic and cultural union, but it
proved a failure in building unity in both the short and long term.
Sabbatical/FIL Results:
Most of my research over this year was dedicated toward establishing a secondary
source context for my eventual book – what is called building a “historiography” around
the study of the exhibition. In essence, what I wanted to make sure of was that no one
else had already done a similar work, and I wanted to make progress toward letting
other scholars know that this was work I intended to do in the future. I was certainly
successful in the former – I took a lot of notes, have a solid understanding of the period
of the 1920s in the empire, took in both primary and secondary sources and know very
well how people viewed the exhibition and its goals at the time. I read many academic
journal articles (which is where the exhibition usually shows up in histories) and a lot of
histories of the colonies themselves. As for primary sources, my concentration was on
popular magazines in London, such as Punch, The Dial, Westminster Review and
newspapers like the Illustrated London News.
My intention is to put out a book sometime before 2024 – the hundredth anniversary of
the exhibition – using the exhibition as a touchstone for delineating the relationship
between Britain and its colonies in the interwar era.