Instead of these two extremes of passive support or active rejection, Estella seeks to demonstrate how white women had their own political goals. She tells the stories of two British women in nineteenth century South Africa who supported imperialism but in ways very different from many of the white men in power. Estella takes seriously white women’s desire to direct the course of history and by doing so, she successfully complicates the story of colonial imperialism and white supremacy in South Africa.

This is where our research crosses paths. Wherever colonialism took place -- for Estella in South Africa, for me in the Great Lakes region -- some type of "civilizing" discourse was often utilized to justify the intrusion. The colonial project becomes complicated when historians focus on people who were not part of the formal political process but who were nonetheless elite and fought to be influential. My own research analyzes Elizabeth Baird, an elite multi-ethnic (Ojibwe, Scottish, French) woman in the fur-trading culture in the Great Lakes region in the nineteenth century. I argued that she had a different goal in shaping the emerging American culture in the early United States than did the other elite men surrounding her. Elizabeth’s goal included "civilizing" Native Americans. But her definition of "civilized" was significantly different from the Protestant missionary definition and from that of the U.S. government. Elizabeth based her definition of "civilized" on an Native American interpretation of Christianity that could be applied to both Native American and to Euro-Americans as well. That is, although Elizabeth viewed Native American culture as "primitive" and the people in need of civilizing, she also chastised many Euro-Americans for their uncivilized behavior and sought to uplift them as well.

In Elizabeth’s case, I argued that her mixed-ethnic identity and her gender made her claim to an elite status suspect. Rather than trying to pass, however, Elizabeth reinforced her ethnic and gender identity by redefining "civilized" to include people like her. Because she was differently situated, that is because her ethnicity and thus her power were called into question by the Euro-American society surrounding her, she approached the "civilizing" project in a manner that would bolster multi-ethnic women’s influence.

This is where I see Estella’s research and mine informing one another: in Waterson’s and Schreiner’s writings, I see an attempt to "civilize" both Africans AND male European politicians using a liberal Christian ethos grounded in Victorian gender and class norms. That is, as Estella put it women were viewed as "agents of civilization and keepers of morals" (p.5)(see also Waterson, p.8-9, work and education necessary compliments to Bible teaching; pp.1, 27 Schreiner writes that "rank confers duty"). These women were arguing for a "middle ground" approach to the colonization project based on their interpretation of gender and class roles. Waterson and Schreiner certainly held onto their right to shape the destiny of South Africa in European terms, but they also wanted to incorporate black South Africans in that project, albeit in a subordinate way, to avoid violent confrontations. (See Richard White’s THE MIDDLE GROUND.) These two women accurately predicted a people’s ability to rise up when extremely mistreated. So they interpreted Christianity and women’s moral suasion to encompass educational and employment reforms for Africans. The history of Africa is richer when women are viewed as a vital component of the colonization project.

Some questions and comments that I had about Estella’s essay:

1) I wonder if it might be more fruitful to view your research in 2 stages. To concentrate here on Waterson’s and Schreiner’s imperial goals and how they differed from what has been previous understood as the goals of colonizers in South Africa. I think it would be useful to explicitly define liberalism, imperialism and Christianity as it was practiced and advocated in South Africa by men and then by women. Did all white women agree with these goals? Explore the ways in which race, class and gender defined imperialism in complex ways for different groups of people.

2)Then I would approach whether or not Waterson and Schreiner actually were influential as a second project. I think Estella’s evidence strongly argues for a gendered conception of colonization and imperialism. But I think Waterson’s and Schreiner’s ability to influence the political process is not as clear. Sometimes they did; other times they didn’t. You mention several times the problematic nature of being a woman and trying to be effective politically. I wonder about these women’s connections. I’d like to hear more about Stewart (Mr.?), for example -- who was he? what was his political affiliation? what was his circle of influence? was he involved with Christian missionaries? Also, Schreiner’s brother Wills and her husband Cronwright (she and her husband were the most active opponents of the war, p.35). You argue that Schreiner changed Cronwright’s political attitudes (p.21). Was Cronwright politically influential? In what ways? Schreiner also had published works. What was the scope of the magazines and newspapers for which she wrote? What was their circle of influence?

In general, could you elaborate on the need for these women to have access to male mouthpieces?

Again, I want to emphasize how enlightening Estella’s research is for the field of South African colonial history. She does not simply add women to the narrative but changes the way in which we understand the colonial process.