I figured I should try to jump on the train that is: Nate's response to Nick's summary which commented on Danielle's summary in a sort of response to Elizabeth's original post.
What specifically caught my attention was Danielle's comment about, "all of the empires ready to spread their wings and fairy dust all over the world (Britain, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, the USA, etc...)." Slightly humorous, it definitely mirrored my feelings about imperialism as we've been talking about it all week. What made Britain's way "right"? Or France "better"? Or Germany more "civilized"? This "fairy dust" while perhaps seeming magical to the folks back home, had absolutely horrific effects on the imperialized nations, cultures, and peoples. I cannot even fathom the level of hypocrisy which European countries (PLUS the USA) exhibited during this time period. While marching down to Africa or India or China or wherever proclaiming, "We just want to help the poor [insert non-white "uncivilized" people here]!" they carried machine guns, political agendas, and an unquenchable thirst for diamonds, rubber, gold, and cheap labor.
Unsurprisingly, when one of the two goals (civilizing or self-strengthening) had to go away, it was always the former. Concentration Camps during the Boer War? It's for the good of the natives! Forced labor? We freed them from slavery! Imperialism, for "Westerners", was not about helping others; it was about helping themselves.
I think about Iraq, I think about Vietnam, I think about Israel/Palestine, and I wonder what the US is really doing.
February 8, 2009
Race and Imperialism
In reading about imperialism in Africa and Asia, I thought about how racism might have played a role. After the comparisons made last unit between serfdom and slavery, I specifically recalled Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 (more information here). Last year we learned about the rebellion and its after effects, one of them being a switch from indentured servitude to slavery. Although the rebellion included both groups of people, it became clear to colonists that it was much harder to oppress people who were of the same color, who spoke the same language. It was easier for servants to organize among themselves, but it also was a constant reminder to colonists that they were essentially enslaving their own "kind."
I bring up Bacon's Rebellion because it, perhaps unconsciously, involved race. Imperialism used race (or at least culture) as a justification. One need only point to Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" in which he calls the indigenous people, "Your new-caught sullen peoples,/ Half devil and half child." To begin with, "Your" is a possessive, obviously indicating some kind of ownership. "Caught" similarly indicates ownership, but also animalizes the people to some degree. You "catch" squirrels and small rodents. You don't "catch" people. "Half devil and half child" kind of speaks for itself.
I wonder, though, if, hypothetically the native Congolese or Egyptians or Chinese or Indians had looked similar to the imperializers, would there have been more dispute over imperialism? Would it have been harder to preach the "civilizing mission" propaganda to European civilians?
In this article, the author, Rodney D. Coates, points out how the race influences how "Race and color symbolism [emerge] in public discourse." It can be summed up in his assertion, " I would prefer to tell a white lie than a black one, be a white witch than a black one, practice white magic rather than black magic, be washed as white as snow than be as black as sin, and live in a white house with a white picket fence." He argues that "white" always connotes goodness, while black, yellow, red, and brown "are associated with being bad or evil." This, he says, "reflects a hierarchy of race in our society."
I'd be curious to know if this hierarchy of race was already intact during this second phase of imperialism or if it was indeed created at this point.
I bring up Bacon's Rebellion because it, perhaps unconsciously, involved race. Imperialism used race (or at least culture) as a justification. One need only point to Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" in which he calls the indigenous people, "Your new-caught sullen peoples,/ Half devil and half child." To begin with, "Your" is a possessive, obviously indicating some kind of ownership. "Caught" similarly indicates ownership, but also animalizes the people to some degree. You "catch" squirrels and small rodents. You don't "catch" people. "Half devil and half child" kind of speaks for itself.
I wonder, though, if, hypothetically the native Congolese or Egyptians or Chinese or Indians had looked similar to the imperializers, would there have been more dispute over imperialism? Would it have been harder to preach the "civilizing mission" propaganda to European civilians?
In this article, the author, Rodney D. Coates, points out how the race influences how "Race and color symbolism [emerge] in public discourse." It can be summed up in his assertion, " I would prefer to tell a white lie than a black one, be a white witch than a black one, practice white magic rather than black magic, be washed as white as snow than be as black as sin, and live in a white house with a white picket fence." He argues that "white" always connotes goodness, while black, yellow, red, and brown "are associated with being bad or evil." This, he says, "reflects a hierarchy of race in our society."
I'd be curious to know if this hierarchy of race was already intact during this second phase of imperialism or if it was indeed created at this point.
February 2, 2009
Imperialism
After learning about imperialism for the...third or fourth time...in my tenure at UHS I feel like I should be a professional on the matter. The reading explains surprisingly it well (Thanks, Coffin & Stacey). Essentially one power wishes to extend its sphere of influence (and bread basket, including "bread" of the coal, oil, and riches variety). In its pursuit of this task, it, inevitably, must go and crush ("save" or "help") other civilizations.
For a clearer, less subjective definition I shall simply quote class:
Since I left my binder at school, this will be inserted tomorrow.
Two things I got out of the reading were:
1. Lenin/Russia/Marxism. One of the things we (essentially) all agreed upon at the beginning of the year in MEH was that we shared a desire to learn more about Russia. After sliding through a few generations of Russian Literature with Scott Laughlin last semester I was pleased (if anyone can be pleased to read about Lenin) to find Lenin tucked into the reading. I'd never really considered Russian expansionism. I realize that in light of the recent Georgian conflict this makes me sound extremely uninformed, but I never really connected the Russian expansionism with the concept/time-period described in Kipling's "The White Man's Burden." Additionally, the connections between Marx's theory on the imminent self-destruction of capitalism were especially nice.
2. We're all being deluded by our governments. Honestly, it's not that I haven't realized this before, but be it the discussion in class or the reading's references to "self-image" (Western Civilizations, Coffin & Stacey, 792), I left school today feeling more...cynical. It kind of made me reflect on image and how we see ourselves today. For the most part, I love democracy. I was raised to love democracy, and unless a life-changing event occurs, I will most likely raise democracy-loving children. This doesn't, however, mean that I think everyone, like those poor, impoverished Iraqis, absolutely need a democracy. I look at other functioning forms of government, like Britain's constitutional monarchy, and see nothing inferior to what we have. Once again, I found myself returning to question nationalism, that pesky frenemy. This time, harnessed by the government, hitched to the wagon of imperialism, look what happened.
For a clearer, less subjective definition I shall simply quote class:
Since I left my binder at school, this will be inserted tomorrow.
Two things I got out of the reading were:
1. Lenin/Russia/Marxism. One of the things we (essentially) all agreed upon at the beginning of the year in MEH was that we shared a desire to learn more about Russia. After sliding through a few generations of Russian Literature with Scott Laughlin last semester I was pleased (if anyone can be pleased to read about Lenin) to find Lenin tucked into the reading. I'd never really considered Russian expansionism. I realize that in light of the recent Georgian conflict this makes me sound extremely uninformed, but I never really connected the Russian expansionism with the concept/time-period described in Kipling's "The White Man's Burden." Additionally, the connections between Marx's theory on the imminent self-destruction of capitalism were especially nice.
2. We're all being deluded by our governments. Honestly, it's not that I haven't realized this before, but be it the discussion in class or the reading's references to "self-image" (Western Civilizations, Coffin & Stacey, 792), I left school today feeling more...cynical. It kind of made me reflect on image and how we see ourselves today. For the most part, I love democracy. I was raised to love democracy, and unless a life-changing event occurs, I will most likely raise democracy-loving children. This doesn't, however, mean that I think everyone, like those poor, impoverished Iraqis, absolutely need a democracy. I look at other functioning forms of government, like Britain's constitutional monarchy, and see nothing inferior to what we have. Once again, I found myself returning to question nationalism, that pesky frenemy. This time, harnessed by the government, hitched to the wagon of imperialism, look what happened.
February 1, 2009
Making Connections (sort of)
Sitting down to write this blog post, I'm having a difficult time remembering what we covered in class this week. This worries me; however my notes tell me that we dabbled in such topics as: The Crimean War, Expansionism, and How to Make a Nation 101. From here I shall spring.
All three of the aforementioned topics are connected. So you're trying to unify, but you have internal problems...what better way to divert attention and encourage nationalism than a war? So that might be a reason to try to expand (not neglecting a generous acquisition of resources if you took say, Lorraine or something like the Prussians wanted). But of course, then expansion leads to a perceived upset in the balance of powers. While you, as a country (Russia), might be saying, "But it's (The Crimean Peninsula) only a little bit of land!", the rest of Europe glowers at you. Should you choose to press forward, then a war might erupt. Alliances you might have counted on could putter out (damn you Austrians) and you're left high and dry against the combined forces of both the established European powers and the unestablished but ambitious Piedmont-Sardinia.
I don't think it's an incredibly insightful comment to say that "Wow, everything's connected!" but nonetheless it's the one I'm making.
When examining the causal relationships between war, expansionism, and creating a nation I believe the following:
-Expansionism always causes war. Someone must have lived on/owned the land that you are so intent on taking.
-Creating a nation sometimes requires war(ring). Inevitably, people (like Metternich) will be archly opposed to the unification of your nation (in his case, Germany).
-Creating a nation sometimes requires expansionism. For the previously mentioned assertion that by expanding and therefore waging a war, a nation can further unify its citizens.
War lends identity to people. Rather than a conglomeration of several minority groups and religions, all of a sudden you're all insert nation's name heres.
I will acknowledge, however, the power of war to divide a nation as well, citing the past decade or so as an example.
All three of the aforementioned topics are connected. So you're trying to unify, but you have internal problems...what better way to divert attention and encourage nationalism than a war? So that might be a reason to try to expand (not neglecting a generous acquisition of resources if you took say, Lorraine or something like the Prussians wanted). But of course, then expansion leads to a perceived upset in the balance of powers. While you, as a country (Russia), might be saying, "But it's (The Crimean Peninsula) only a little bit of land!", the rest of Europe glowers at you. Should you choose to press forward, then a war might erupt. Alliances you might have counted on could putter out (damn you Austrians) and you're left high and dry against the combined forces of both the established European powers and the unestablished but ambitious Piedmont-Sardinia.
I don't think it's an incredibly insightful comment to say that "Wow, everything's connected!" but nonetheless it's the one I'm making.
When examining the causal relationships between war, expansionism, and creating a nation I believe the following:
-Expansionism always causes war. Someone must have lived on/owned the land that you are so intent on taking.
-Creating a nation sometimes requires war(ring). Inevitably, people (like Metternich) will be archly opposed to the unification of your nation (in his case, Germany).
-Creating a nation sometimes requires expansionism. For the previously mentioned assertion that by expanding and therefore waging a war, a nation can further unify its citizens.
War lends identity to people. Rather than a conglomeration of several minority groups and religions, all of a sudden you're all insert nation's name heres.
I will acknowledge, however, the power of war to divide a nation as well, citing the past decade or so as an example.
January 29, 2009
The Pleasure of Hating (Other Nations)
"The pleasure of hating....makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands." -William Hazlitt, "On the Pleasure of Hating"
I often like nothing better than finding a connection between classes. In this case, the above quote arose from a personal essay that Non-Fiction was assigned to read. It automatically made me think about the making of nations, as discussed in Chapter 21 of Western Civilizations as well as Mazzini's "The Duties of Man".
Incredibly idealistic in tone, "The Duties of Man" left me feeling empowered. This is our duty. This is what remains to be done. Now, let's gitterdun. At the same time however, like Declan thoughtfully brought up, nationalism obviously acts as an exclusionary force.
William Hazlitt also shares this view. While loving your country is a wonderful thing, sometimes it can become part of a slippery slope. While I think we're all perfectly capable of distancing ourselves from national fervor and being 100% in agreement with everything our nation does (especially in respect to foreign policy), I feel like the average citizen or revolutionary during the mid-19th century might not have the liberty of being so well-informed.
Thus, I wonder if nationalism, while leading to fraternity and passion, also contributed to warfare during that time. In the Crimean War? How exactly did nationalism rear its head? Was it all positive?
I often like nothing better than finding a connection between classes. In this case, the above quote arose from a personal essay that Non-Fiction was assigned to read. It automatically made me think about the making of nations, as discussed in Chapter 21 of Western Civilizations as well as Mazzini's "The Duties of Man".
Incredibly idealistic in tone, "The Duties of Man" left me feeling empowered. This is our duty. This is what remains to be done. Now, let's gitterdun. At the same time however, like Declan thoughtfully brought up, nationalism obviously acts as an exclusionary force.
William Hazlitt also shares this view. While loving your country is a wonderful thing, sometimes it can become part of a slippery slope. While I think we're all perfectly capable of distancing ourselves from national fervor and being 100% in agreement with everything our nation does (especially in respect to foreign policy), I feel like the average citizen or revolutionary during the mid-19th century might not have the liberty of being so well-informed.
Thus, I wonder if nationalism, while leading to fraternity and passion, also contributed to warfare during that time. In the Crimean War? How exactly did nationalism rear its head? Was it all positive?
January 26, 2009
Bismarck: Machiavelli Lover
As I was reading about Bismarck last night, I couldn't help but think that he reminded me of someone. Then, I read zak p's blog post and all became clear.
I completely agree that Bismarck "ruled" with Machiavellian principles at the root of his decisions. Thinking back to the lion/fox metaphor that were talking about last semester, it is clear that Bismarck completely fulfilled these criterion. As a lion, he didn't shy away from war, encouraging change through "Iron and Blood." As a fox he successfully manipulated competing nations (Austria, Denmark, and France) to move against one another, almost like playing a game of tic-tac-toe. At the same time, he also worked to appeal to the working-class man, always trying to appear as though he was working for the underdog (as briefly discussed in class).
The more I read, the more respect I gained, but also lost, for him. On one hand, his political mind is unparalleled (at least when compared with previous rulers we have learned about this year). Yes, many before him ruled with great authority, but none was so clearly manipulative. On the other hand, I could not help but think, who on earth would do such things? Falsifying documents, breaking agreements...
And then I thought about the Zimmerman Telegram, another case in which (although not falsified) a document played a key role a nation's declaration of war.
Similarly, in class today, many of us (yours truly included), delved into wily ways. While many of us forgot about public opinion, Bismarck obviously had thought that out, fulfilling a Machiavellian expectation. Setting aside the matter of dressing up Prussians as Austrians and launching "defensive" against the "aggressors," why did we all turn to deception? Was it just spitting back out the textbook? Could the Prussian/Austrian/French(/Danish) conflicts have been resolved in a way other than war?
I completely agree that Bismarck "ruled" with Machiavellian principles at the root of his decisions. Thinking back to the lion/fox metaphor that were talking about last semester, it is clear that Bismarck completely fulfilled these criterion. As a lion, he didn't shy away from war, encouraging change through "Iron and Blood." As a fox he successfully manipulated competing nations (Austria, Denmark, and France) to move against one another, almost like playing a game of tic-tac-toe. At the same time, he also worked to appeal to the working-class man, always trying to appear as though he was working for the underdog (as briefly discussed in class).
The more I read, the more respect I gained, but also lost, for him. On one hand, his political mind is unparalleled (at least when compared with previous rulers we have learned about this year). Yes, many before him ruled with great authority, but none was so clearly manipulative. On the other hand, I could not help but think, who on earth would do such things? Falsifying documents, breaking agreements...
And then I thought about the Zimmerman Telegram, another case in which (although not falsified) a document played a key role a nation's declaration of war.
Similarly, in class today, many of us (yours truly included), delved into wily ways. While many of us forgot about public opinion, Bismarck obviously had thought that out, fulfilling a Machiavellian expectation. Setting aside the matter of dressing up Prussians as Austrians and launching "defensive" against the "aggressors," why did we all turn to deception? Was it just spitting back out the textbook? Could the Prussian/Austrian/French(/Danish) conflicts have been resolved in a way other than war?
January 25, 2009
Nationalism: The Process
I feel like the theme this week in MEH was nationalism. Although revolution and 1848 were the stage on which the theme was invoked, the reading consistently discussed nationalism, specifically the ways it changed over the years and its effects on revolutionary (or reforming) efforts.
Charlie was adept enough to point out the wandering (and contradictory) nature of my last blog post. Since then I've reflected on it and decided that he's completely correct. As I was writing, I was simultaneously consulting the textbook and hence I believe that my point of view changed depending on the section of the book I was reading. The post was written previous to any class discussion on nationalism had taken place, which I think only further enriched my thoughts on the matter.
Probably the most interesting thing we did in class was debate the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation. Reading other blogs, I was particularly interested in what DK and DLemma had to say on the matter.
We adopt the notion of legitimacy practiced by the Concert of Europe, i.e. the notion that "if we say it's legit., then it's legit." Essentially, nationhood is a product of (1) the desire of the people to be a nation and (2) arcane and arbitrary exclusivity. You can't be a nation and let everyone in. -DK
Nationalism- helped unify groups of people that identified themselves as "German" or "Italian," but it also broke apart people from different ethnicities that were living in the same nation and therefore a tangled mess of alliances was created. -DLemma
I'd agree with both of them, and trying to reflect upon the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation, I must consider an issue they both bring up: ethnicity.
As DK notes, to create a nation, people must desire one. As DLemma says, a nation helps to unify, but it also helps to break apart. I feel, though, that creating a nation doesn't necessarily have to "break apart people" or create "a tangled mess of alliances." While this undisputedly happened in Europe during the mid-19th century, the U.S.A. was different. While Europe was struggling to unify many groups of people who had all lived on the land for years (like Israel/Palestine perhaps), the United States was created almost solely by the overwhelming majority of Caucasian immigrants. The indigenous people were entirely excluded from the process.
Now though, it's as if the process is happening in reverse. Italy started divided and now is united. The USA, arguably, started united and now is...divided (?). As Lollotte brought up in class, as globalization comes more and more into play, with the identity of the U.S.A. as an almost entirely Caucasian country definitely ceasing to exist, are we still a nation? With these different groups of people (much like the minority populations in Germany and Austria-Hungary), can we/do we manage to hold it together?
Charlie was adept enough to point out the wandering (and contradictory) nature of my last blog post. Since then I've reflected on it and decided that he's completely correct. As I was writing, I was simultaneously consulting the textbook and hence I believe that my point of view changed depending on the section of the book I was reading. The post was written previous to any class discussion on nationalism had taken place, which I think only further enriched my thoughts on the matter.
Probably the most interesting thing we did in class was debate the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation. Reading other blogs, I was particularly interested in what DK and DLemma had to say on the matter.
We adopt the notion of legitimacy practiced by the Concert of Europe, i.e. the notion that "if we say it's legit., then it's legit." Essentially, nationhood is a product of (1) the desire of the people to be a nation and (2) arcane and arbitrary exclusivity. You can't be a nation and let everyone in. -DK
Nationalism- helped unify groups of people that identified themselves as "German" or "Italian," but it also broke apart people from different ethnicities that were living in the same nation and therefore a tangled mess of alliances was created. -DLemma
I'd agree with both of them, and trying to reflect upon the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation, I must consider an issue they both bring up: ethnicity.
As DK notes, to create a nation, people must desire one. As DLemma says, a nation helps to unify, but it also helps to break apart. I feel, though, that creating a nation doesn't necessarily have to "break apart people" or create "a tangled mess of alliances." While this undisputedly happened in Europe during the mid-19th century, the U.S.A. was different. While Europe was struggling to unify many groups of people who had all lived on the land for years (like Israel/Palestine perhaps), the United States was created almost solely by the overwhelming majority of Caucasian immigrants. The indigenous people were entirely excluded from the process.
Now though, it's as if the process is happening in reverse. Italy started divided and now is united. The USA, arguably, started united and now is...divided (?). As Lollotte brought up in class, as globalization comes more and more into play, with the identity of the U.S.A. as an almost entirely Caucasian country definitely ceasing to exist, are we still a nation? With these different groups of people (much like the minority populations in Germany and Austria-Hungary), can we/do we manage to hold it together?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
