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.
Showing posts with label Chapter 22. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chapter 22. Show all posts
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
