Imperial Discourse in Gibraltar

8/13/2019 Imperial Discourse in Gibraltar

1/16

'As Solid as the Rock'? Place, Belonging and the Local Appropriation of Imperial Discourse inGibraltarAuthor(s): David LambertSource: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun.,2005), pp. 206-220Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3804519 .Accessed: 04/12/2013 13:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 20 0.75.19.130 on Wed, 4 Dec 20 13 13:38:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3804519?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3804519?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/16

'As solid as the Rock'? Place, belongingand the ocal appropriation f imperialdiscourse n Gibraltar

David Lambert

Although mperialism s firmly n the geographical genda at present, arely oes theBritish verseas Territory f Gibraltar eature, ven though t s the only remainingformal olony n Europe. Seizedin 1704,Gibraltar as come to stand s a symbol fBritish mperial esilience, status ncapsulated y the phrase as solid as the Rock'.The paper exploreshow such a place-based mperial iscourse has served omarginalize he civilian opulation nd yet, aradoxically, as been appropriated

locally o articulate distinctive ense of belonging. More generally, hepaperconsiders ow a surviving olony uch as Gibraltar, ith ts apparently oyalpopulation, omplicates ostcolonial ategories, eriodizations nd assumptions.

key words Gibraltar contemporary mperialism discourse analysispostcolonialism lace belonging

Department fGeography, oyal Holloway, niversity fLondon, urrey W20OEXemail:d.lambert~rhul.ac.uk

revised manuscript eceived 12 April 2005

IntroductionEmpire is firmly n the geographical genda atpresent. No longer the concern only of historicalgeographers r those working within postcolonialframe, notions of empire are being mobilized tounderstand contemporary phenomena such asneoliberal globalization, American hegemony,humanitarian nterventionism nd the 'War onTerror' Smith 003;Harvey 2003; for review, ee

Wainwright 004; see also Dalby 2003).Yet, theolder imperial forms re not merely of historicalor conceptual nterest. he legacies nd continuitiesof the past are manifestly vident n the militaryintrusions, internal' olonialisms, order disputes,separatist movements nd 'ethnic' conflicts f the'colonialpresent' Gelder nd Jacobs 998;Sidaway20002002;Gregory 004). Nor have the Europeanempires ompletely anished from heworld map.Although ramatically educed n size, they ive onin the bi-continental ingdom of the Netherlands,which ncludes the Dutch Antilles nd Aruba, aswell as French Departments d'Outre-Mer', uch

as Martinique nd Reunion Aldrich nd Connell1998).The British mpire too survives albeit ndifferent ays - in places like Bermuda, heBritishVirgin Islands and British Antarctic Territory(Dodds 2002). These imperial remnants providea counter-point o the processes of decolonizationin the second half of the twentieth entury Butler2002). Although often distant from metropolitangeographical maginations, hey re not absent ndprovide spaces for meditations n contemporary

British dentities e.g. Binding 2003), as well asamusing anecdotes for travel writers e.g. Ritchie1997; Winchester 003).Moreover, ome come toprominence ecauseofmilitary onflict the FalklandIslands), decolonization Hong Kong) or environ-mental disaster Montserrat), mpinging pon themultiple eographical maginations f a supposedlypost-imperial ritain. The empire, t seems, evenwhen reduced to its 'last pink bits', can strikeback.-

The British Overseas Territory f Gibraltar sone of these limpet colonies' (Darwin 1988)thatsurvived he post-SecondWorld War processes of

Trans nst BrGeogrNS 30206-220 2005ISSN0020-2754 RoyalGeographical ociety with The Institute f British eographers) 005

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16


4/16

208 DavidLambert

e 1Mas emnstatonaginst Aonglo-Spanish eLgoiatinsModay18 arh'2002.2#,,:,,#(Reproduced,ith,:E: theind.dermission.fEJohnnyS~ Bugeja and th ibatr honce

; a S a S l i . - E E ~ ~~ ~~ ~~g ' ai~~~~l'2'git'|giigiigiigi'>steiiiig~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iig~~~~~~~~~giZ-002igtigEg2fl~~~~~~~~~~~~SEe|;a E *iiiglii~ i ,iig2,gti,2,giiittigiig; ' ' i'05ji'gi Hg{it00iR

i~~iago : :i: :;2iE 2E~~~~~~~~~~i%:iE4ER~~~~tF:2000CES0:EN:;te~~~~~~~~ti~~~i:E~~~eEAt~~~i40400:Ef~~~~~fiNi

Fle ' g 0 etH200~~lllitES~gH000000S~fg::000gi;00500Ei ;~fi00205i:fi:2

Plae 1Mas dmontrtio agintAgo-SaihngtainMna 8Mrh20(Reroucd it th kndpemision fJhn ueaadteGbatrCrnce

in public rallies and demonstrations see Plate 1),and a 'Keep Gibraltar British' campaign waslaunched to lobby against any deal and mobilizesupport in Britain against it. As in 1967, thestrength f local feeling was made manifest n areferendum. his time, however, t was not calledby the British government, ut by the Gibraltargovernment, nder the terms f the 1969 constitu-tion nd with heunanimous upport f the House

of Assembly. On 7 November 002,17900 voted toreject he principle hat Britain nd Spain shouldshare sovereignty ver Gibraltar nd 187 voted infavour. The turnout was 87.9 per cent Report bythe Committee f Observers 002). The strength fsuch feelings ed to something f a retreat y theBritish overnment, nd whilst many n Gibraltarremain concerned hat the oint sovereignty ealis 'still on the table', one government ministerrecently tated that there will be no deal withoutthe agreement f the Gibraltarian eople and con-ceded that, iven ocal opinion, his s unlikely ohappen for 25-30 years (Denis McShane, Europe

Minister, peaking on BBC News, 6 September2003).2

The persistence f formal mperialism n placessuch as Gibraltar hrows nto question heapplica-bility of 'post-colonial' to describe the presentworld (compare McClintock 1995; Sidaway 20002002), erving s yet nother eminder hatmodernimperialism s not only a matter f historical nter-est or conceptual precedent for some new, post-

modern or American mpire cf. Hardt and Negri2000; Ferguson 2002; Mann 2003; Wallerstein2003).As anomalies in a world that has largelyundergone ormal ecolonization, uch places andthe forms of colonialism they embody demandgeographical ttention nd not only from n overlynarrow (geo)political perspective. Whilst mostscholarly reatments f Gibraltar avebeen framedby diplomatic, onstitutional nd legal concerns,tracing the political 'problem' of Gibraltar ndassessing the validity f Spanish and British osi-tions e.g. Morris and Haigh 1992;Gold 1994), tis not the aim here to judge between competing



5/16

'As solid s theRock'?territorial laims. ndeed, such perspectives erveonly to privilege erritorial onceptions hat urtherefface he complexities f Gibraltar's olonial pastand present.3 nstead, this paper seeks to enrichdebates on and broaden the understanding f thecontroversies surrounding Gibraltar, and thusperhaps make a small scholarly ontribution o theformulation f the sort of inventive olutions hatmight elp n the future.

The rest of the paper begins by considering herelation f Gibraltar o recent ebates bout postco-lonial geographical erspectives, aying particularattention othe nature f ts colonialcondition ndthe ort f critical esponses his might equire.Theprimary ocus s on the relationship etween theBritish military uthorities nd the non-military

population.4 This has been reflected n metro-politan discourses that emphasize the mythic ndsymbolical tatus of the Rock',efface on-militaryhistories and narrow debate about Gibraltar'sfuture. et perhaps surprisingly, s the paper goeson to argue, such metropolitan iscourses havecome to be appropriated nd transformed nto amarker f the steadfastness, oyalty nd 'solidity'of the Gibraltarian ivilian population and thushave become central to the articulation f localbelonging. The paper concludes by consideringsome of the limits to this appropriation, eforereturning o consider how places like Gibraltardemand we think bout imperialism, olonialismand postcolonial erspectives n different ays.

Postcolonialism nd cultures f loyalty'There has been a great deal of recent ebate aboutthe spirit nd purpose of postcolonial eographicalperspectives e.g. Blunt nd McEwan2002;Clayton2003; Robinson 2003; Nash 2004).There is broadagreement hatkey elements nclude to decolonize

the geographical constitution nd articulation fcolonial discourses n both the past and present'(Blunt and McEwan2002, 1) and 'the recovery fthose hidden spaces occupied, and invested withtheir own meaning, by the colonial underclass'(Crush1994, 37).At the ame time, here s a wide-spread recognition hat here s a geopolitics otheformulation nd application f postcolonial riticalagendas, which is often driven by the interestsand concerns f Euro-American entres f power(Robinson2003).Consequently, ome places, suchas India, and certain historical periods, such asthe nineteenth entury, ttract more attention han

209others Clayton 2003,354, 357). Gibraltar as notfeatured n this postcolonial map, this despite tsrecent description s among the most obvious orevident' manifestations f colonialism n contem-porary urope (Colley2002,69-70; Sidaway 2002,16).Part of the reason why Gibraltar oes not seeman obvious candidate for consideration within apostcolonialframe s that what is often ortrayedas its fiercely nglophile opulation' ttracts ittlesympathy r empathy rom rogressive nd criticalacademics Butler 002,184;compare Dodds 2002;Shirlow 000).

Such perspectives, owever, re more reflectiveof the way n which Gibraltar asoften een repre-sented within British mperial discourses thanthe complexhistories nd geographies f the place

itself. onsider hefollowing xtract:No one will really begrudge this symbol, this lastcorner-stone f British restige nd onetime prowess... A nation, nce top dog, which has lost an empire,needs a sheet-anchor ometimes o fall back on in astorm, he very thought f which makes t feel secureagain .. Take the Rock away from s and there will bea deep vacuum, great adness, void n the ontinuityof things ritish, ike the space left when a tooth you'dnever earnt o appreciate s taken out and you realizethat neither our bite nor your smile is as good as itwas. (MacGowan1978,149)

Articulated t a time that some saw as one ofcrisis for the British tate Nairn 1977;Hall et al.1978; see Howe 2003), uch sentiments oint o theimportance f the Rock' to certain articulationsof Britishness. upport for the British claim toGibraltar s most readily associated with thosesections f British ociety orwhich mpire nd pastmilitary uccess remain touchstones of nationalidentity, ncluding he Right-wing ress (e.g. TheSun, The Big Issue: Don't Let Spanish Grab Shareof Our Gibraltar', 8July 002; see Paul 2001),the

Conservative arty, he Ulster Unionist Party ndRight-of-centre hink anks e.g. Burnett .1982).In the context f the recent ontroversy ver ointsovereignty ith Spain, the ssue of Gibraltar asbeen used to articulate opposition to the 'new'Labourgovernment nd closer uropean ntegration.Of course, f the Rock' and its loyal' populationremains a heart-warming ymbol for those whopine for empire, hen t is equally infuriating orthose who do not. From this anti- or postcolonialperspective, ibraltar ay ppear s an anachronisticand geographically bsurd remnant opulated byLittle Englanders, n unpleasant reminder f past



6/16

210colonial wrongs and a manifestation f the worstaspects of British ationalism nd culture Phillips1987; see Howe 2003). Yet, both perspectivesthose that view Gibraltar with nostalgia, or as adistasteful nachronism are more revealing boutthe contested politics of national identity andimperial egacy in metropolitan ritain han thepolitics and culture of Gibraltar tself see Ward2002).For nstance, he dea that Gibraltar mbodiescolonial oyalty s more to do with the fantasies fBritish ostalgia. he reality s that oday'spoliticalleaders in Gibraltar ee 'loyalty' s a much moreprovisional and 'two-way' affair Peter Caruana,Chief Minister f Gibraltar, nterview n 'Today'Programme, BCRadio 4, 25 July 003).Similarly,with further uropean ntegration he most ikely

solution o thedifficulties ith pain, erhaps hroughthe creation f a 'Europe of small nations' Gold1994), ocalGibraltarian pinion s far rom heEuro-scepticism f some of their metropolitan llies.

Britishmetropolitan iscourses ave,then, ervedto shape what Gibraltar has come to stand for.This, n turn, has obscured the complex,overlap-ping and contested patterns f colonialism here.Firstly, here s a colonialrelationship hat relatesto the seizure of Gibraltar rom pain by Anglo-Dutch forces n 1704 and its transfer o Britainunder the terms f the 1713Treaty of Utrecht. Asecond form f colonialism s centred n the rela-tionship between the British military uthoritiesand the non-military ommunity hat began todevelop in Gibraltar fter the previous Spanishpopulation had fled t the time of ts capture. Con-stitutionally, ibraltar as never been part of theUnited Kingdom nd has never had elected repre-sentation t Westminster. ilitary onsiderationshave been of primary mportance uring most ofGibraltar's ritish istory nd it is only since theend of the SecondWorld War that ts civilian opu-

lation has come to have a real influence n localdecisionmaking. hiswas reflected n Britishmilitaryand colonial ttitudes owardsGibraltar's ivilians:

[T]his s not a subjectpeople in the classicsense; theywere not reduced to bondage by force of arms; but,within he homogenizing pirit f the British mperialethos in its heyday, he non-British oon became thenative, lbeit 'white' native .. (Stanton 996b, 85)

This lack of autonomy and dismissive mperialattitudes owards he resident opulationwas similarto that n other parts of the empire see Vallejo2001) and suggests hat heGibraltarian opulation

DavidLambertmight be thought f as having some of the char-acteristics f a 'colonialunderclass' Crush 1994).

The overlapping patterns of colonialism alsoserve to complicate the way in which Gibraltarmight be imagined to be 'post-colonial' in thefuture. This is important because although therelationship etween postcolonial erspectives ndpostcolonial olitics s far from traightforward, tcan be said in general hatpostcolonialism inds tspolitical counterpart n struggles or anti-colonialliberation. n the case of Gibraltar, his s usuallytaken to mean integration ith Spain. This mightsuggest hat t s primarily n terms f the colonialrelationship nvolving pain that Gibraltar mightbe considered n appropriate bject within post-colonialperspective.

A problem with this approach s that t s basedon an understanding f decolonization as inde-pendence, r ntegration ith n independent tate,and fails o recognize ecolonization s a contestedterm. As Robert Aldrich and John Connell note,decolonization ould also mean ntegration r someother ssociation with the imperial tate Aldrichand Connell 1998,162).Although nlike lsewherein the British empire, including Mediterraneancoloniessuch as Malta and Cyprus Garcia 1994),there was no internal emand for decolonizationin Gibraltar, he issue of the colony's future wasbrought before the United Nations in the early1960s by Spain. The discussions that followedrevealed that very different onceptions f decolo-nization were at play. Whilst the Spanish repre-sentatives rgued that any disruption f nationalterritorial ntegrity was incompatible with thepurposes nd principles f the Charter f the UnitedNations, those from he UK and Gibraltar rguedthat the interests f the inhabitants f a colonialterritory ere of paramount mportance Garcia1994).These debates were animated by the ques-

tion of whom or what was colonized: Spanish terri-tory r the people f Gibraltar? ar from here einga definite, ingular narrative f decolonization ndthus one political context for the articulation fpostcolonial erspectives, ecolonization s itselfcomplex nd contested erm. ostcolonial erspec-tivesneed to recognize his.

A further omplication n the development f acritical ostcolonial genda in relation oGibraltaris that he situation an be seen to exhibit eaturesthat re similar o (former) ettler olonialisms, sin Australia, Canada and New Zealand (Sidaway2000).In these contexts, postcolonial' denotes not



7/16

'As solid s the Rock'?so much the changed relationship etween theseformer Dominions and Britain, but serves as aproblematic abel for the continuing elationshipsbetween indigenous and non-indigenous popu-lations see Moore-Gilbert 997,10). In this ight, tcould be argued that the civilian community fGibraltar s not a 'colonialunderclass' but settlers,and that eeking o make a critical ntervention nthe colonial relationship etween this populationand the British olonial/military stablishment sto confuse he wo. f one were to follow his ine ofreasoning, hen he indigenous' population wouldbe those Spanishpeople who fled Gibraltar hen twas captured n 1704.There s something o be saidfor his rgument, lthough ts reliance n ideas ofauthenticity nd belonging needs to be subject to

interrogation. Crucially, we need to recognizethat, n Catherine Nash's words, the postcolonialpolitics f belonging re very different n differentplaces'. She continues:

While it may be more politically rogressive n onecontext osuspend senses of settler laims o belong, nother ontexts I am thinking ere of Northern reland)the resolution f political onflict epends n the reationof positive enses of settler ocation nd attachment ogeography. Nash 2002, 27)

Such comments are apposite for Gibraltar.

Although the political situation there has notwitnessed heviolence f Northern reland, heneedto develop agendas that re capableof contributingto moreprogressive ccounts f belonging s crucial.This is vital because a recurrent heme n manySpanish governmental ronouncements, speciallyduring the Francoist period, but also since 1975,has been the portrayal f the local population asartificial. or example, in debates at the UnitedNations n the 1960s,when the ssue ofGibraltar irstcame to prominence, hepopulation was describedashaving een mplantedmerely o serve he nterestsof the British ortress:

This base, emptied of its original panish population,has been artificially repopulated' with demographicgroups having no political ersonality f their wn andtotally ubjected to the military uthority, or whichreason they do not constitute human group of a typeappropriate or he egitimate xcise f self-determination.(Anonymous 968, 4)5

This perspective, which found ts physical corol-lary n the 1969border losure, has only served toalienateGibraltarians nd block the magination ftheir uture n terms f a more productive elation-

211

ship with Spain. Yet, this paper does not seek tointerrogate uch Spanish discourses bout the arti-ficiality f the Gibraltarian opulation, but ratherto question British rojections f Gibraltar n termsof discourses f mperialnostalgia nd anachronis-tic distaste, nd thus to help clear space for thearticulation f a more productive ostalgia' Blunt2003).Crucially, the creation f positive enses ofsettler ocation and attachment o geography' anbe facilitated y disentangling ocalarticulations fbelonging from British mperial discourses andhencecontributing o the recovery f those hiddenspaces occupied, and invested with their ownmeaning, by the colonial underclass' Crush 1994,337).To do so, the basis of these mperial iscoursesmust be considered.

The 'Gibraltar tradition': mperialdiscourses of the RockGibraltar ccupies an important lace in the myth-ology of the British mpire s a symbol f militaryglory, esilience,teadfastness nd strength. lthoughmodern military historians have described itscapture s 'an empty lory' Barnett 970, 49)andits strategic alue has been questioned repeatedly(e.g. Lewington 1925), this has done little todiminish ts symbolic mport. ven at the time ofits first apture from pain, one writer noted thatGibraltar's tatus owed more to 'Rhetorick atherthan Logick' (Anonymous 1704, 5). This mythicsense of Gibraltar's entrality o British nationaland imperial discourses has come to be describedas the Gibraltar radition' nd is articulated n thepopular saying as solid as the Rock' see Bradford1971;Wilson 1984, 61).Suchmythology ontinuesto shape contemporary ritish erceptions f theplaceand fuelnotions f nostalgia or anachronism).

Central to the perpetuation of the 'Gibraltar

Tradition' has been its codification within thediscourse f military istory, ith t typical battlepieces"', the reduction f soldiers to pawns' anda 'high focus on leadership' (Keegan 1978, 61;for example, Anonymous 1704;Philalethes 1725;Drinkwater 1785; Stephens 1870; Russell 1965;McGuffie 965; Hughes nd Migos1995).As a result,sieges often provide the very narrative tructurefor recounting ibraltar's istory. ssociatedwiththis military iscourse has been an emphasis onthe physical geography f the place and the ideathat Gibraltar was a 'natural fortress' albeit oneimproved through tunnelling and fortification.



8/16

212These physical and military egisters oincide inthe description f Gibraltar s 'the Rock', with tsimplication f olidity nd strength. hismetonymi-cal rendition s an extremely ignificant arker fthe effacement f non-military istories nd geog-raphies hat will be discussed ater. t also relates oGibraltar's tatus s an iconic andscape:

The mighty ock s the very mage of an enormous ion,crouchedbetween the Atlantic nd the Mediterranean,and set there to guard the passage for its Britishmistress. Thackeray 846, 8)

Often ompared with ships, ions and other ym-bols of British mperialism, Gibraltar retains tsiconic status in the present. Useful here is IanBaucom's 1999)study f the physical nd imagina-

tive ocations f English dentities n their mperialcontext. rawing on Pierre Nora, Baucom empha-sizes the mportance f certain paces as 'lieux dememoires' places 'where an identity-preserving,identity-enchanting sic), and identity-transformingaura lingers, r is made to appear' (Baucom 1999,19).Yet,whereas aucom s generally oncerned ith'typical' andscapes or landscapemodels,Gibraltaris important ecause of its mythic niqueness. nthe mid-nineteenth entury, one British writercommented hat the "old rock" will probably bethe ast foreign ossession yieldedby Great Britain'(Anonymous 1844, v). As well as a surprisinglyprescient observation, uch sentiment refiguresthe sense of nostalgia or distaste) now associatedwith Gibraltar. ndeed, f we recognize hat nostal-gia should properly e understood s a spatializedlament (homesickness) rather than a temporallonging Blunt 2003),then Gibraltar an be seen tohave come to serve as the perfect ure (or cause)because, as a lieu de memoire, t remains a placethrough which certain versions of British dentityhave been articulated nd a touchstone f mperial

resilience. ndeed, n the context f the post-SecondWorld War processes of decolonization, t mayhavebeen heart-warming' or omepeople n a nationwhich had just given up an Empire o have at leastone of its ex-coloniesreally anxious to retain tslinks with the mother ountry' H. C. Allen, uotedin Bradford 971,198-9).

'The fortress ame first': he effacement fthe colonizedThepopular embedding f the Gibraltar radition'has shaped British policy towards the colony,

David ambertmaking t very difficult orBritish oliticians nddiplomats to talk openly about exchanging t forother olonial possessions or some other trategicadvantage even as its strategic alue has declined(Hills 1974).Another onsequence has been thatthe non-military opulation has been marginalizedconsistently, idden by the ooming hadow of theRock (Finlayson 1996a).Gibraltar, fter all, hasnever ust been a 'natural fortress', t has also beena landscape of home and settlement, contact oneas much as a lieu de memoireBaucom 1999).Theeffacement f ndigenous opulations s a commonfeature f mperial discourse, ied to ideas of terranullius and projects of clearance and settlement(Spurr 1993).Similarly, he reduction f Gibraltarto 'the Rock' effaces ts human geographies nd

histories, side from he endeavours of transientsoldiers. t becomes a place through which Britishtroops pass and perform eroicdeeds, rather hana place of continuing esidence.

With ts capture n 1704,the ocal Spanish com-munity ledand settled n the area of San Roqueacross the isthmus Bradford 971).Over time,new population began to develop in Gibraltar, naddition to the members of the British garrison.Migrants amefrom round the Mediterranean ndthey ntermarried ith the neighbouring panishpopulation and British oldiers. With time, thispopulation became only partially ependent n themilitary nd Gibraltar's ubsequent demographichistory eflected ts status s a commercial ntrepot(Jackson 987;Howes 1991).By 1815,the civilianpopulation had reached 10 000, in addition to7000 military ersonnel Bradford 971;Hills 1974).Despite its growing size, the British colonial/military stablishment argely regarded the non-military ibraltarian opulation s an appendix tothe fortress nd constitutional evelopment wasvery low. Even modest oncessionswere opposed

by some military overnors, ho believed that heeffort o transform ibraltar nto a colony ratherthan a mere fortress through ecognition f non-military nterests as misplaced and would serveonly to undermine ts military ecurity nd value(e.g. Gardiner 1856;see also Finlayson 1996b).Itwas not until 1921 that the first lections for anewly created City Council took place, despite thefact hat the civilianpopulation was by then over18 000 Garcia1994).

Drawingon the work of ErvingGoffman, arethStanton 1996b)has characterized Gibraltar s a'total institution' n which the dominance of the



9/16

'As solid s the Rock'?colonial/military stablishment as been evidentin the tardiness of constitutional development,the physical andscape of the place and the veryatmosphere. his dominance s also apparent n themilitary nflection f Gibraltar's history. t is nocontradiction ormilitary ccounts to celebrate tsdefence by British roops and so elevate ts iconicstatus, whilst imultaneously ismissing he civil-ian population as 'Levantines ... not of the mostscrupulous stock or standards' (Bradford 1971,102). In part, this reflects ritish mperialist tti-tudes towards population hatwas mainlyCatho-lic and of mixed Mediterranean rigin. Accordingto Stanton, his attitude urvives to the present-day, with many metropolitan ritish migrants ndmilitary ersonnel iewing the Gibos' as 'no more

than English-speaking Spicks"' (Stanton 1996b,280;Vallejo 2001). As fairly ypical f the descrip-tion of colonized populations in the context ofBritish mperial istory, uch attitudes re concom-itant with Gibraltar's tatus as a 'total nstitution'and - at east until ecently serve to underline hegeneral marginalization f non-military erspec-tives n the governance nd representation f theplace.

The most triking hysical xampleof the efface-ment of the non-military opulation was the massevacuation hat ccurred uring he Second WorldWar. At the tart f the conflict, ibraltar's opula-tion stood at 20 000. Of these, the 13 000 women,children nd elderly were a cause of considerableconcern or hemilitary uthorities, eingdescribedas 'useless mouths' quoted in Finlayson 996a,2),echoing comments made in the previous century.Military oncerns were heightened y Italy's entryinto the war and the fall of France, speciallywithfears hat Francoist pain would join the Axis. Inconsequence, the limited concessions granted tocivilian authority ince the start of the century

were rescinded and total military uthority wasre-established. n addition, lmost 17000 civiliansjudged to be a hindrance oa fortress t war wereevacuated, mainly o Britain. ven as the threat oGibraltar ubsided and the war came to an end,there were still delays n the return f the evacuees.In part, his reflected heattitudes nd practices fthe colonial/military stablishment hat ontinuedto question how much a civilian populationbelonged on the Rock. ndeed, even as they werevoting o retain heir ink with Britain n the 1967referendum, ine-tenths f the land was in thehands of the War Department, avy or Air Force

213

(Stewart 1967) and today the Ministry of Defenceremains the largest landowner.

The evacuation was just one example of the mar-ginalization of the perspectives and histories of thecolonized population that is at the heart of Britishdiscourses of the Rock. Along with retarded consti-tutional development and practices of militarysurveillance within a 'total' institutional framework,this has been mirrored by the inscription f Gibraltaras the Rock, the effacement of non-military pres-ences and the long-standing view that the 'fortresscame first' Finlayson 1996a). All this has served toproblematize Gibraltarian notions of belonging andthe accompanying political agendas:

We boast of being free people but we live on landwhich does not belong to us. We elect our ownrepresentatives ut the Governor s allowed to keephis reserve owers.We talk f Our Rock,Our Town, OurGibraltar, ut at any time Britain an decide, withoutconsulting s, to enter nto negotiations bout thesethings. Social ActionCommittee f Gibraltar 968)

In response to this military dominance, therehave been efforts, specially since the Second WorldWar, to articulate non-military political and cul-tural agendas of belonging in the shadow of thefortress: What is needed in Gibraltar, what hasalways been needed is a sense of anti-colonialism'

(Social Action Committee of Gibraltar 1968). Yet,according to some observers, the possibilities ofsuch anti-colonial perspectives are severely limitedbecause local civilian identities have been shapedby the imperial military history of the Rock. Forexample, the novelist Anthony Burgess, who servedin Gibraltar during the Second World War, wasscathing:

The trouble s that this is about the limit of theirBritishness. hey speak English, but only on thatdenotatory sic) level which is wholly adequate for

commerce nd local legislation. hey know nothing fEnglish iterature nd have not themselves roducedeither a poet or a novelist. Their primary anguageis Andalusian Spanish,but not even in this have theyasserted a cultural dentity. heir songs, dances andcuisine are Spanish (tea and chips are for visitorsonly); heywatch panish elevisionnd used,when theywere able, to go to bullfights. hey cry their dentity,but this s merely reflection f Britishmilitary istory.(Quoted n Anonymous 968, 75, mphasis dded)

Stanton makes a similar case for the present day:

To some degree all psychologyf colonialism nvolves

forms f mimicry .. but the Gibraltarian akes his o a



10/16


11/16

'As solid s the Rock'?

Figure 3 Sticker from he Keep Gibraltar British'campaign

move is particularly pparent n contrast with thecase of the Falkland slands. ts community obbiedagainst British sell out' in the 1960s and 1970s bydeploying arguments bout their white ethnicity(see Dodds 2002, 118-41). Although he discourseof whiteness s not absent in the articulation fGibraltarian political claims - people of NorthAfrican nd Asian descent were and are usuallyexcluded from arratives f Gibraltarian-ness theMediterranean rigins f much ts population mayhave made it more difficult o sustain. Instead,'loyalty' and 'Britishness' were established withreference o place and the local appropriation f

the Gibraltar Tradition'. For example, the recent'Keep Gibraltar ritish' ampaign made heavy useof the conic tatus f the Rock and statements uchas 'British ince 1704',even though this evokes acolonial and military istory n which Gibraltariancivilianshave been argely ffaced see Figure ).

All this suggests that myths, uch as those thatmake up the Gibraltar Tradition', re more thanhistorical narratives of dominance, and insteadare fundamentally pen to reinterpretation ndrevisioning Coupe 1997). The importance f suchlocal appropriation of the Rock should not beunderestimated:

British rguments bout the significance f Gibraltarwere evermeant o xtend othe civilpopulation, et heyhave seen themselves t the centre f struggles etweennations, hinking hemselves he catch. Stanton 996b,286, mphasis dded)

This is exactly what has happened with themythology f the Rock: discourses never meant'for he non-military opulation have been used toarticulate ivilian identity nd belonging. n theterms utlined by Burgess or Stanton, he Gibral-tarian rticulation f imperial discourse s merely

215

reflective r mimicking. et, given hat he GibraltarTradition' has effaced he civilian population, helocal claiming of this mythology s not simply asign of a colonizedmentality, ut an assertion hat'British mperial' history s actually ocal historytoo. To this extent, t is a much more significantform f appropriation han t first ppears.

Articulating ivilian belongingThe articulation f civilianbelonging n the Rockthrough he ocal appropriation f British mperialdiscourse s related o a broader, more onfident ndassertive hift n the cultural politics of Gibraltarfrom he early 1980s.Elements f this can be seenin public history, history-writing nd language.

For instance, n 1995,the then Chief Minister, oeBossano, a Gibraltarian ationalist Garcia 1994),opened a new part of the Gibraltar Museum. Theaim of the 'Gibraltarians Wing' was 'to tell thestory f the Gibraltarian eople'.Thiswas achievedthrough he use of Calpe', the classicalname forthe Rock of Gibraltar, s narrative evice in themuseum displays to tell the story f its children'and their truggle or ocialreform. rucially, hispart of the museum worked hard to articulate hebelonging f the non-military ommunity:

[A]fter wohundred years of struggle nd hard ife.Mychildren, he product of generations f people whohave settled here now have their wn character mychildren re a part of me now - we can no longer beseparated .. our bond is too great for t to be broken.My people share commonhistory, raditions, nd wayof ife; we are nseparable. Museumdisplay, iewed31May2003)

In this way, the Gibraltarians Wing articulateda version of history that serves to embed andemplace the civilian population on the Rock. This

sits in contrastwith the older parts of the museum

that provide a more traditional, mperial account ofGibraltar's history in terms of sieges and militaryendeavours.

History-writing oohas become a major site forthe assertion of a Gibraltarian presence and a localpolitics of belonging. One local writer has writtenabout the historical modes in which Gibraltar's historyhas usually been narrated in the following terms:

Many authors have written bout the Rock from heviewpoint f its flora nd fauna, ts fortifications nd

sieges, ts military ole.Somehave made an occasional

reference o its civilianpopulation, hough for t least



12/16

216one author Gibraltarian ociety consisted solely ofBritish rmy fficers nd their amilies. Writers n morerecent imes have indeed recognized he existence fcivilians upon the Rock, some being inclined to lookupon them s hybrids, astards, mugglers, panzistas',

people with no identity r culture f their wn, peoplewithout history. Caruana 1989,v)

This has been countered n an emerging ocal bodyof historical writing on Gibraltar's political andecclesiastical istories Caruana 1989;Garcia1994),as well as accounts f events ike the wartime vac-uation Finlayson 1996a). Along with the publica-tion of the Gibraltar eritage ournal rom 994 anda spate of books written y outsiders hat re sym-pathetic o the nterests nd agendas of the civilianpopulation e.g. Jackson 987;Morris and Haigh

1992), this can be seen as the beginning f whatHilary Beckles 1987) has termed historiographicdecolonisation'. Significantly, he forerunner fthis work s often dentified s Henry Howes's TheGibraltarian: he rigin nd developmentf he opula-tion f Gibraltar rom 704 Garcia 1994). First pub-lished n 1951and re-issued n 1991, t was writtenin context f the continuing fforts f the AACR towin increased utonomy rom he British overn-ment. n particular, owes sought to disprove thecommonly held notion that Gibraltar has only aGarrison, r that t has in addition Spanish popu-lation' Howes 1991,207).7Like more recent work,Howes's book was a deliberate ffort o establishthe non-military istorical presence in Gibraltar.According o a former overnor, uch work has acrucialrole n establishing ibraltar's olitical ndcultural dentity:

The more that s published about Gibraltar's history,the nearerwillbe the day when Gibraltarians in worldwide recognition s an independent ation. Jackson,foreword o Hughes and Migos 1995, x)

Finally, anguage has also become crucial n thisshift in Gibraltarian cultural politics. WhereasEnglish was promoted s a sign of a British/non-Spanish identity fter he Second World War, theincreasingly ambivalent relationship to Britainhas been reflected n attempts t promoting ndcodifying anito, local linguistic form that hasbeen variously escribed s Spanish-Englishcode-switching' rather han localized form f Spanish)and the rticulation f a 'new English' Kellermann1996 1997).There are now two yanito ictionaries(Cavilla 1978;Vallejo2001)and a weeklynewspapercolumn written n yanito. n this way, 'language

David amberthas been instrumentalized s a marker f dentity'that s neither ritish or Spanishbut Gibraltarian(Kellermann 996, 7).

Such developments n public history, history-writing nd language, s well as a broader nterestin local heritage,must clearly e seen in terms f areaction olong-standing panish claimsabout theartificiality f Gibraltarian dentity.8 ut they mustalsobe related o more recent ensionswith Britain- especially the revival from the late 1970s of'old theories f perfidious Albion' centring n theagenda of the Foreign nd Commonwealth ffice(Jackson nd Cantos 1995,248)- which ed to theemergence f a more avowedly nationalist trandin local politics. As one former panish ForeignMinister wrote of the early 1980s: you could feel

there xisted n Gibraltar he embryo f what wecould call Gibraltarian ationalism. resistance oSpain, but also to old colonialBritain' quoted inGarcia 1994, 193).Too closely associated with anunquestioning pro-British tance, the politicalhegemony of the AACR collapsed in this newclimate nd Bossanowas electedChief Minister n1988.Whilst heAACRhad come to be associatedwith subservience o Britain, ossano was a manwho had 'no soft pot for Britainwho he believedcouldnot be trusted' Jackson nd Cantos 1995, 57)and his Gibraltar ocialistLabour Party mbodieda growing sense of Gibraltarian ationalism. AsJosephGarcia explains:

Gibraltarians f every age and background had beenbonded together .. first y evacuation, hen by thecontinuing roubles with Madrid and finally by theambivalent ttitude of London. As a result, a newsolidarity ermeated very ranny n that imestone ockat the end of the 1980s,and a party more nationalistthan any of its predecessorswas put in control f thegovernment f Gibraltar. Garcia1994, 02)

Such developments ut lie to comments bout the

determination f Gibraltarian dentities y the his-tories nd myths f the Rock. nstead, Gibraltarianshave been involved n the appropriation f impe-rial discourses by emplacing hemselves irmly nthe Rock. This is more than passive identificationwith mperial history ut also its co-option. Whatsuch forms f transformation nd localization ug-gest s that Gibraltarian ultural nd political gen-das cannot be dismissed, s Burgess did, as 'merelya reflection f British military history'. mperialhistory s being put to work n the cause of localagendas.Often he purpose s to construct ebts ofallegiance and bonds of interests' Ellis 2003,59)



13/16

'As solid s the Rock'?between Gibraltar nd Britain, nd thus stave offthe threat f metropolitan sell out', but things avealso taken n a more nationalist ue. Theseizureofimperial discourse and its local appropriation asmirrored he ssertion f political utonomy.

Conclusions: Capturing the fortressFrom its capture over 300 years ago, Gibraltarhas come to stand as a symbol of British mperialresilience.As a 'natural' fortress, heRock s a de-populated landscape f myth, ts civilian opulationof seemingly ittle importance. The non-militaryhistories of Gibraltar have been elided. Yet, thispaper has shown that the local appropriation fimperial discourse has becomea significant spect

of the articulation f civilian belonging n con-temporary Gibraltar.9 his has occurred throughpublichistory, istory-writing nd language.Never-theless, lthough hesecultural nd politicalformsgo beyond passive identification ith the militarymythology nd physical symbolism f the Rockand involve more active nd transformative rti-culation of belonging, here s always the possi-bility that these local expressions may be seizedupon, perhaps captured', by certain metropolitanagendas. Metropolitan iscourses always threatento beleaguer local appropriations. Two briefexampleswill suffice.

The first oncerns the 'Keep Gibraltar British'campaign launched in 2002 (see http://support.gibraltar-gov.uk, ccessed6 May2004).Although thas always sought to steer clear of the entangle-ments of British metropolitan arty politics andbuild cross-party lliances,10 particular dangerhas been too close an associationwith the BritishConservative arty. onservative pposition o theLabour government's roposals for joint sover-eignty has been one of few foreign olicy issues

where the party can claim success since beingremoved from office n 1997. More generally,Gibraltarian ampaigners ave been concerned hatthe ssue might e used to articulate Euro-sceptic'politics. n the highly charged context n whichsymbols such as the Union Jack and notions ofBritishness, mpire nd 'sell out' are deployed, he'Keep Gibraltar ritish' ampaign has had to workhard to avoid Gibraltar eingpainted s a narrowlyRight-wing ssue (interview with Albert Poggio,Gibraltar's epresentative n the UK,15July 003).

The second examplerelates o the recent ebatesabout Gibraltar's nclusion n elections o the Euro-

217

pean Parliament.With Gibraltar oo small to forma Euro-constituency n its own right, number frepresentatives f existing onstituencies ought ohave Gibraltar ncluded in their own. Inevitably,many of these bids were tied up with localparty politics. For instance, the Ulster UnionistParty UUP) called for Gibraltar's population tobe counted among those of the Northern relandconstituency, iting hefact hat ome Gibraltarianswere evacuated (and born) there n the SecondWorld War and that a similar set of concernsexisted round ssues of metropolitan sell-out' ndthe politics f belonging.11 nsurprisingly, hiswasrejected by nationalist oliticians n the province,with the Social Democratic and Labour Partydescribing heproposal s a 'geographically izarre'

political stunt merely imed at strengthening heUnionist vote ('The Today' programme, RadioFour, 22 October 002).Leaving aside the merits fNorthern reland, what was apparent n the UUP'sefforts as an attempt o integrate Gibraltar ntoan external olitical genda based on assumptionsabout the population as loyal(ist) nd pro-Union,rather hanCatholic, or xample.

Both examplesunderline how Gibraltar s oftenused to articulate ritish antasies f nationalism,loyalty nd imperial nostalgia and to stand as atarget or pposition othese political nd culturalforms. Gibraltar s made to serve as a proxy forBritishmetropolitan ebates about Europe, empireand national identity. t has been the tendencyof such discourses and agendas to circumscribethe meaning of Gibraltarian istory, ulture andpolitics, nd to argely fface he non-military res-ence, that has provided the central rationale forthis paper's consideration f Gibraltar within apostcolonial frame. By highlighting ontemporaryarticulations f belonging hat nvolve the appro-priation and transformation of metropolitan

discourse, this paper has sought to denaturalizeimperial myth, ostalgia nd physical ymbolism.In a placesuch as Gibraltar, the resolution f polit-ical conflict epends on the creation of positivesenses of settler ocation nd attachment ogeogra-phy' (Nash 2002, 227). Disentangling ocal appro-priations from metropolitan iscourses can playa part in creating perspectives on Gibraltar ndits relationship with Spain and Britain hat movebeyond a focus on narrowly defined, yet overlydramatized, ssues of territory nd sovereignty.

Doreen Massey has famously autioned againstthe rejection f the patiality f the ocal' as 'almost



14/16

218 DavidLambertnecessarily eactionary' y progressive nd criticalacademics nd others Massey1991, 51).Similarly,Nash queries the

tendency to value unquestioningly eographies offluidity s progressive nd effectively ostcolonial, ndto see claims to rootedness, elonging nd attachmentsto place as perpetuating egressive olonialgeographiesof bounded placesand pure cultures. Nash 2004,121)

Such perspectives lso serve as a useful warningagainst automatically viewing articulations ofbelonging n Gibraltarian olitical culture s con-servative xemplars f mperialistmimicry. n thislight, his s not a 'pro-Gibraltarian' aper if thisis narrowly efined by political agendas that arealigned with the Euro-scepticism nd nationalistimperial nostalgia of the BritishRight. Nor is thisan 'anti-Gibraltarian' iece if such a stance ispredicated on notions of the artificiality f thepopulation that are complicit with simplistic is-courses of authenticity nd belonging. Both runcounter o the cautions sounded by Massey andNash, and to the pirit nd function f postcolonialperspectives.

Gibraltar hrows p problems ot only for politi-cians and diplomats, ut alsofor ostcolonial gen-das. Although he militaristic onnotations f theRock' and the apparent oyalty of its population

may seem to place it outside the copeof such crit-ical perspectives, t is important o recognize thatdecolonization s multiple nd contested. Loyalty'may be a politicalmeans to achieveother orms fdecolonization, uch as increased autonomy andinfluence ver diplomatic negotiations. imilarly,the culture f loyalty' n Gibraltar s far more thananglophilicmimicry, ut rather he elective ppro-priation nd instrumentalization f mperial istory,symbolism nd myth oarticulate ocal belonging.'Last colonies'such as Gibraltar, hen, an unsettlesome of the postcolonial ertainties bout identity,resistance nd anti-colonialism, nd test the imitsof the sympathy of postcolonial scholars. Suchseemingly nomalous places not only reveal thepersistence f formal mpire, but also provide afurther mpetus for hinking reatively bout howto approach ts manifestations nd legacies.

NotesI Perhaps he most famous xampleof this was the so-

called Falklandsfactor', hich helped securevictoryfor heConservative arty n the 1983British lections.SeeButler nd Kavanagh 1983).

2 Indeed, the current panish government, ed by JoseLuis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialists, has acknowl-edged that negotiations ust e pursued n a trilateralbasis TheGuardian,Spain gives Gibraltar eto power',17 December 004).

3 For similar reasons, this paper will not considerthe Spanish nclaves of Ceuta and Melilla.Sometimesa contrast s drawn between Spain's refusal o coun-tenance Moroccanclaims to these and the mainten-ance of its claim on Gibraltar n order to attackSpanish double standards'. Yet, this reduces Ceuta,Melilla and Gibraltar o mere territorial okens andmarkers f political incerity, ather han places withcomplexhistories hat deserve attention n their wnright.

4 When referring o the population of Gibraltar, hispaper will use terms uch as 'non-military', civilian'and 'colonized'. The decision to avoid 'native' or'indigenous' oesnot reflect dismissal f Gibraltarianidentity r the community's laims to the territory,but a refusal obe sucked nto politics f authentic-ity nd belonging. Of course, he term civilian' mayimply too great a sense of unity, ven though thereferendum esults f 1967 nd 2002 suggest certainpredominance f attitudes. n particular, hose ivingin Gibraltar f North African nd Asian descent reoften xcluded from public and political discourse.See Stanton 1996a).

5 Therewere similarities etween hese entiments ndthose xpressed bout he 002 referendum n the Right-

wing Spanish press. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/world/europe/242095.stm, ccessed 2 March2004.

6 This mbivalence asbeen demonstrated ore ecentlywhen the damaged British uclear ubmarine, HMSTireless, as brought oGibraltar or epairs, parkingstrong ocalprotests.

7 Howes was not a Gibraltarian ut was appointed hecolony'sfirst irector f Education.

8 The situation bears comparison with the FalklandIslands, which have seen the development of theFalkland slands Journal, he expansion of the localmuseum nd the creation f a national rchive Klaus

Dodds, personal ommunication).9 This could be seen clearly during the local celebra-tions of the tercentenary f Gibraltar's apture fromSpain. See The Times, pecial report: Gibraltar, 5December 004.

10 For example,when a panel of observers was gatheredto overseethe 2002referendum, fforts ere made toinclude British oliticians rom ll the main politicalparties, rades unionists nd journalists rom crossthe political pectrum Report by the Committee fObservers 002).

11 For example, ee press statement y Lord Kilclooney,26July 002, http://www.uup.org, ccessed10 January2003.



15/16

'As solid s the Rock'? 219

References

Aldrich R and Connell J 998The ast colonies ambridgeUniversity ress,Cambridge

Anonymous 704A narrative f ir George ooke's ate oyage

to the Mediterranean here e commandeds admiral fthe Confederateleet.With description f Gibraltar; ndobservationsn the usefulnessnd importancef that lacePrinted orBenjamin ooke, London

Anonymous 844 The traveller's and-bookorGibraltar, ithobservationsn the urroundingountry. y n old nhabitantCowie, Jolland nd Co., London

Anonymous 968 New SpanishRed Book translated ntoEnglish]Ministerio e Asuntos Exteriores, adrid

Barnett 1970 Britain nd her rmy, 509-1970: military,politicalnd ocial urvey enguin, ondon

Baucom11999Out of place: nglishness,mpire,nd the oca-tions f dentity rinceton niversity ress, rinceton J

Beckles H 1987Black people in the colonialhistoriogra-phy of Barbados n Marshall W ed EmancipationI: Aseries f ectures ocommemoratehe150th nniversary femancipation niversity f the West ndies, Bridgetown131-43

Binding T 2003Anthem icador, ondonBlunt A 2003Collectivememory nd productive ostalgia:

Anglo-Indian omemaking t McCluskieganjnvironmentandPlanning : Societynd Space 1 717-38

Blunt A and McEwan C eds 2002 Postcolonial eographiesContinuum, ondon

Bradford D S 1971Gibraltar: he istory f fortress art-

Davis, LondonBurnett M c.1982Gibraltar: he inal etrayal? ow Publica-tions, ondon

Butler D and Kavanagh D 1983 TheBritish eneral lectionof 983 No publisher, ondon

Butler J 2002 Britain ndempire:djusting o post-imperialworld . B. Tauris, ondon

Caruana C 1989 The Rock under cloud Silent Books,Cambridge

Cavilla M 1978Diccionario anitoMedSun,GibraltarClayton D 2003Critical mperial nd colonialgeographies

in Anderson K, Domosh M, Pile S and Thrift N edsHandbookocultural eographyage, London 354-68

Colley L 2002Captives: ritain, mpire nd theworld, 600-1850Jonathan ape, LondonCoupe L 1997MythRoutledge, ondonCrush J 1994Post-colonialism, ecolonization nd geog-

raphy n Godlewska A and Smith N eds Geographyndempire lackwell, xford 33-50

Dalby S 2003 Geopolitics, ecurity nd America's newwar Geopolitics61-86

DarwinJ 1988Britain nddecolonizationacmillan, ondonDodds K 2002 Pink ice: Britain nd the South Atlantic

empire. B.Tauris, ondonDrinkwater J 1785 A history f the ate siegeof Gibraltar,

with description nd account f that garrison, rom heearliest eriods o publisher, ondon

Ellis M 2003 The cane-land sles': commerce nd empirein late eighteenth-century eorgic nd pastoral poetryin Edmond R and Smith V eds Islands n history ndrepresentationoutledge, ondon 43-62

Ferguson N 2002 Empire: herise nd demise f the British

world rder nd the essons orglobalpower asic Books,New YorkFinlayson T J 1996aThefortress ame irst: he tory f the

civilian opulation f Gibraltar uring he Second WorldWarGibraltar ooks,Grendon

Finlayson T J 1996b Gibraltar's first lection GibraltarHeritage ournal 7-14

Garcia J 1994 Gibraltar: hemaking f a peopleMedSun,Gibraltar

Gardiner G S R 1856Report n Gibraltar onsidered sa fortress nd colony, espectfully ddressed o the RightHonourablehe ord Viscount almerston o publisher

GelderK and JacobsJ M 1998Uncanny ustralia:acrednessand dentity n postcolonialation niversity f Melbourne,Melbourne

Gold P 1994A stone n Spain's hoe: he earch or solutionto the problem f Gibraltar iverpool University ress,Liverpool

Government f Gibraltar nformation ervices http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi) ccessed8 April 2003

Gregory 2004The olonial resent: fghanistan, alestine,IraqBlackwell, xford

Hall S, Critcher , Jefferson , Clarke J and Roberts Beds 1978Policing he crisis: mugging, he tate, nd lawand orderMacmillan, ondon

HardtM and Negri A 2000Empire arvardUniversity ress,CambridgeMAHarveyD 2003Thenew mperialismxford niversity ress,

OxfordHills G 1974 Rock f ontention: history fGibraltar obert

Hale,LondonHowe S 2000Ireland nd empire: olonial egaciesn Irish

history nd culture xford University ress,OxfordHowe S 2003 Internal decolonization? British politics

since Thatcher s post-colonial raumaTwentieth enturyBritish istory 4286-304

Howes H W 1991 TheGibraltarian:he rigin nd develop-ment f the population f Gibraltar rom 704 MedSun,

GibraltarHughes Q and Migos A 1995Strong s theRock fGibraltarExchange ublications, ibraltar

Jackson S W G F 1987 The Rock of the Gibraltarians:history fGibraltar arleigh, utherford J

Jackson S W G F and Cantos F J 1995 Thefortress odemocracy:he political iography f Sir JoshuaHassanGibraltar ooks,Grendon

KeeganJ 978The ace fbattle enguin, ondonKeep Gibraltar ritish ampaign http://support.gibraltar.

gov.uk)Accessed6 May2004Kellermann A 1996 'When Gibraltarians peak, we're

quite unique ' Constructing ibraltarian dentity withthe help of English, panish and their espective ocal



16/16

220 David Lambertvarieties n Oliveira S M ed The inguistic onstructionfsocial ndpersonaldentity: irst nternational onferencensociolinguisticsn Portugal erviqo de PublicaqbesdeUniversidade e Evona,Evona73-8

Kellermann A 1997A newnew English: anguage, olitics

and dentity n Gibraltar eidelbergKilclooney Lord 2002 Press statement 6 July http://www.uup.org)Accessed10 January 003

LewingtonW J 1925 mpeachment:ibraltar s a fortress.sham A delusion snare Arthur tockwell, ondon

MacGowan J 1978 The truth about Gibraltar ArmyQuarterly 08149-60

Mann M 2003 ncoherentmpire erso, LondonMassey D 1991A global sense of place in Space, lace nd

gender olity, ambridge 46-56McClintockA 1995 mperialeather: ace, ender nd exuality

in the olonial ontest outledge, ondonMcGuffie T H 1965 The iege f Gibraltar, 779-1783B. T.

Batsford, ondonMoore-Gilbert 1997 Postcolonialheory:ontexts, ractices,

politics erso, LondonMorris D S and Haigh 1992 Britain, pain and Gibraltar,

1945-1990: he ternal riangle outledge, ondonNairnT 1977The reak-upfBritain; risis, ndneo-nationalism

NLB, LondonNash C 2002 Cultural geography: postcolonial ultural

geographies rogressnHumanGeography6 219-30Nash C 2004 Postcolonialgeographies: patial narratives

of inequality nd interconnection n Cloke P. Crang Pand Goodwin M eds Envisioning eographies rnold,London 104-27

Paul K 2001Communities f Britishness: igration n thelast gasp of empire n Ward S ed British ulture nd theend of empireManchester niversity ress, Manchester180-99

Philalethes 1725 Gibraltar bulwark f GreatBritain. n aletter o Member f Parliament. ontaining ome onsider-ations n the mportancef hat lace, n respect oour tradein general . . . By a gentleman of the navy Printed forJ. Peele,London

Phillips C 1987The uropean ribe aber nd Faber, ondonReport by the Committee f Observers 2002 Report by

the Committee f Observers of the 2002 referendum

November (http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi) ccessed 8April 2003RitchieH 1997The astpink its: ravelshroughhe emnants

of he British mpire odder and Stoughton, ondonRobinson J 003Postcolonialising eography: actics nd

pitfalls ingapore ournal fTropical eography 4 273-89Russell J 1965 Gibraltar esieged, 779-83 Heinemann,

London

Shirlow P 2000 Fundamentalist oyalism: discourse,resistance and identity politics in Gold J R andRevill G eds Landscapesfdefence rentice all, Harlow86-101

SidawayJ 2000Postcolonial eographies: n exploratoryessayProgressn Human Geography4591-612Sidaway J D 2002 Postcolonial geographies: survey-explore-reviewn Blunt A and McEwan C eds Postco-lonial eographiesontinuum, ondon 11-28

Smith G 1994Political heory nd human geography nGregory , MartinR and Smith G eds Human eography,society, paceand social scienceMacmillan,Basingstoke54-77

Smith N 2003 American mpire: oosevelt's eographerndthe relude o globalizationniversity f California ress,Berkeley

Social Action Committee of Gibraltar 1968 EditorialSocialActionMarch/April 8

Spurr D 1993The rhetoric f empire: olonial iscoursenjournalism, ravel writing, nd imperial dministrationDuke University ress,London

Stanton G 1996a Mediterranean thnoscapes: migrantMoroccans and the Gibraltar question UnpublishedPhD thesis University f London

Stanton G 1996bMilitary ock: mis-anthropology ulturalStudies 0 270-87

Hassan J 1966) Statement f the petitioner f the Townof Gibraltar efore the 4th committee f the UnitedNations General Assembly, 17 December, UnitedNations,DocumentA/C.4/SR.1,679

Stephens F G 1870 A history f Gibraltar nd its siegesProvost, ondon

Stewart J D 1967 Gibraltar: he keystone ohn Murray,London

ThackerayW 1846A journey rom ornhill o GrandCairoNo publisher, ondon

TheGuardian 17December 004TheSun18July 002The Times pecialreport: ibraltar, 5 December 004Vallejo T 2001TheYanito ictionary anoramaPublishing,

GibraltarWainwright J 2004 American empire: a review essay

Environmentnd Planning : Society nd Space 2465-74

Wallerstein 2003Thedecline fAmerican ower: heUSina chaotic orld ew Press,New YorkWard S ed 2002 British ulture nd the end of empire

Manchester niversity ress,ManchesterWilson F P ed 1984TheOxford ictionaryfEnglish roverbs

Clarendon ress, OxfordWinchester 2003 Outposts:ourneys o the urviving elics

of heBritish mpire enguin Books,London

Documents

Imperial Discourse in Gibraltar