Author: Aidan L'hommedieu

It seems clear that again we are going to have to discuss the effects of western intervention in developing nations. This week while covering Latin America, it was evident both form Prof. Holt’s lectures and from the Bayly and Galeano readings that the region suffered greatly from western intervention. Specifically, the United States’ foreign policy long claimed to support democracy, yet the U.S. repeatedly interfered with democratically elected leaders, with whom they disagreed. For the purpose of brevity, let’s look merely at one example from Dr. Holt’s Lecture, Cuba.

Cuba is really what caused the U.S. to become so concerned with the progression of socialist experiments in Latin America. The ironic part is that Cuba’s socialist movement might have been less violent and maybe more successful were it not for American intervention. Galeano writes “It was the ceaseless aggression and the long, implacable blockade that drive the Cuban revolution to become more militarized, far removed from the model that was originally envisioned”( Galeano, 317) Instead, the U.S. repeatedly tried to kill or otherwise remove Castro, going so far as to poison his diving suit, as mentioned in Dr. Holt’s lecture. Castro then, naturally, turned to a more powerful country (the U.S.S.R.) for support. Bayly tells how the economic blockade of Cuba, established by the U.S. “drove the country towards ever-greater political dependence on the USSR.” (Bayly, 160) the result being the Cuban missile crisis and a period of diplomatic isolation that only ended in 2015.

It seems that American intervention in Latin America was so tainted by a Cold War hysteria that they ended up creating the very problems they wished to avoid. And this legacy of American intervention has left long-lasting, damage to Latin America. Damage that is still being repaired to this day.

 

 

In our lectures concerning the colonization of the African continent, we briefly discussed a topic that I believe still cripples it to this day. When Europe decided to colonize, they needed to find a sort of justification for seizing power. In many, if not most cases this justification hinged on the so-called “white man’s burden”. The concept that white men in their “biological superiority” had not only the right but the obligation to bring civilization to the inferior men of Africa. This sense of superiority was likely developed over centuries of African enslavement. In any event, this idea that was perpetuated by colonial governments still lies under the surface of global politics today. Pierre writes “Indeed without its ‘colonial conditions of possibility,’ the epistemological and political project that is Africa ‘would hardly exist in its current form.'”(pg 23). The view of Africa and of Africans that was established in the colonial era have made it exceedingly difficult for African nations to act on the world stage due to the truckload of misinformation in current media representation of the continent. In at least my personal experience the media has portrayed Africa as a place of abject poverty and mass starvation. Media is fond of covering the wars and the spread of diseases. This crime would be fewer egregious were they to provide the accurate context of how these nations came to be in these situations . for that matter the representation of Africa in the teaching of history also appears to be wholly inadequate in dispelling the inherent racism that still remains from the old colonial rulers. Pierre also points out that this effect is exaggerated by the “denial of agency of so-called Africans to define themselves.” ( pg 23) Africans must be given that opportunity, but until then the context of history must be shared both by history classes and the media.

This week in class we examined the rise of the German industrial complex and its lead up to the second world war and the rise of the cotton industry in Bombay India. As well as a reading on the Philippine- American war. Again, it seems the connecting fibers of imperialism an appear in all of these cases. Germany was a rising industrial power and naturally began to build its military to compete on the world stage. Germany needed its “place in the sun” which is a way of saying we need to colonize a small African country. But the Germans were far from alone. We also examined Paris France circa1900, during this time France was glorifying its imperial mission, claiming to bring “civilization” to smaller African countries, all while showing off the new technology that would come to define the generation. England had a somewhat subtler form of controlling the people of India though. Tier coercion was mostly economic. Yet it left much of India’s economy, and thus its politics dependent upon England. Meanwhile, the united states inserted itself into the Philopenas. The unfortunate underlying condition of most imperial nations is racism and startling superiority complex. In France, they looked at the people whose lands they were occupying as savage and lesser. The Germans committed what would today be one of the most horrific war crimes in Africa. Possibly worst of all is the propaganda machine in the united states that turned Filipino’s into guerrilla warfare fighting savages. I suppose that it’s the easiest way to get your people to support a foreign conflict and get your soldiers to fight a people they know nothing about. Unfortunately, these feelings don’t die, they linger and leads to the modern brand of discrimination that we have today.

Early 1900 saw the world shift. All over, civilizations saw a dramatic change due to western imperialism, this led to a more interconnected world. around the world imperial nations left traces of themselves, these traces have far-reaching effects. In 1885 many European powers gathered to divide up the African continent. This to strip the country of its natural recourses for use in the new factories of the industrial revolution. In the Bright and Geyer piece, they state, “that the new sources of energy in fossil fuel and steam, and medical and scientific advances, provided a very few societies with enormous new capabilities for global projections of power into and over the rest of the world” (289). However, recourses were not the only motivation for imperialism. Many times powerful nations instead sought only to open new markets for trade. China suffered intrusion from many foreign nations with the occupation of Beijing and much of Latin American was still economically dependent upon its former colonizers. Bright and Geyer discuss an Exploitation v. Survival model, in which many industrialized nations used other counties for selfish gain, forcing the colonized nations into a position where they were forced to change in order to survive in the modern climate. Countries such as Brazil which saw a rapid period of modernization which naturally disenfranchised many of the residents. This, being done in large part to be taken seriously in this new world market. I believe that the Exploitation model is more relevant to the current political climate as many countries that fell victim to this exploitation still have yet to recover. And it does seem as though this wheel was set into motion for most of the world around 1900.

I believe that Model A has glaring flaws. The West was able to industrialize so quickly largely due to the abundance of resources that were obtained from imperialized nations. However, in the acquisition of these resources, many western powers did substantial damage to the nations they occupied. Enslavement and exploitation of the native populations left a large scar for many imperialized countrys. the so-called “catching up” model is, I believe, apptly named. These nations were left no choice but to evolve to the new modern world so as to remain not only relevant but in existence. Model B could be considered a more palatable name in the current political climate of fragmentation, in which many marginalized peoples are starting to wonder why history is painting such a rosy picture of the events that set them back so far.  Model B, “Exploitation- Survival” sounds to many like a more appropriate title then.

I believe that both have elements of truth. Model A addresses the industrialization of the modern world. Europeans during this time did make many great advances in ideology and in technology. I feel as though Model A is then written form the view of a westerner, whereas Model B resonates more with countries who feel as though they were victimized during the expansion of the west. I believe that any good historian should try to find a Model C, one that then addresses both sides.