prize8-7, Exercise 3: "Lighthouses abroad were built for empire, not for local people"

Model answer (check the details), using the six questions:

1. Who says it? Historians of empire and critics of colonial trade, and sometimes defenders of the lighthouse boards who say the opposite.
2. What exactly is claimed? That the purpose of the lights was imperial, and that they did not serve local people. Two claims in one: purpose and beneficiaries.
3. What would count as evidence? Who paid for the lights and how (dues on foreign shipping, colonial budgets), the stated aims in the records, the routes served, and the use of lights by local fishing and coastal shipping.
4. Compared with what? Lighthouses in countries that were not colonised, such as France or the United States, and in places like Japan, which hired foreign engineers under treaty pressure.
5. Which period? The 19th century, when trade and empire grew fastest.
6. What would change my mind? Evidence that local shipping used and valued the lights, or that the lights were built mainly at the request of local governments.

Verdict: the records show that many lights were built to serve imperial and treaty trade and were paid for by dues on foreign ships, so the first part of the claim has good support (check). But lights are a shared resource, and local sailors and fishermen also used them, so "not for local people" is too strong. A careful sentence: "Many lighthouses abroad were built to serve imperial or treaty trade, though they also benefited local shipping."

Care: the answer will differ by place and period. State which case is meant.