Four books with a common theme - criticism of empire during the twentieth century - are the subject of this essay. Published or republished in the last five years, the works reflect two contemporary concerns: first, with the use of power outside national borders; and second, with the expression and effectiveness of dissent against foreign intervention. Often the second concern has been eclipsed or divorced from the first, as demonstrated by the separate strands of scholarship on empire and activism. However, the ways in which activists can undermine or justify foreign intervention remains a pressing question for those interested in the relationship between imperialism and international law, human rights and violence. Two broad themes help bring into focus the key arguments presented by the authors in question here, and their relevance to multiple conversations. First is the question of empire and its justifications. Just as activists brought attention to certain colonial scandals, so too did their criticisms cast light on the expected norms of imperial endeavours. Second and equally fundamental is the debate over liberalism, both as a political theory and political party in Great Britain during the early twentieth century. Most scholars acknowledge the ebb and flow of discontent with the British Empire, but the philosophy and context that opened new opportunities for liberal critiques continue to spur debate. When read into these conversations, the histories of 'imperial discontent' help blur the boundaries between 'colonialism' and 'activism' - categories invoked daily across southern Africa - and draw attention to the pressing need for lexical precision, as well as the integration of transnational and indigenous voices into colonial and post-colonial archives.
