Author: Noah Golovan

Because history today has been so Europe-centered, many people look at the imperialistic tendencies of European super-powers, while ignoring many of the Imperialistic actions of the United States. From looking at the readings as well as Professor Holt’s lectures, I think it can be pretty clear to see the motives behind United States intervention on foreign soil as well as the consequences that followed.

Looking at professor Holt’s second lecture about the three case studies of Latin America, we can see the numerous occasions in which the United States got involved in foreign governments for various reasons, with the overarching theme being for the benefit of the nation. First, its interesting to see the the power/influence communism had in the United States. I think it can be inferred the the Red Scare caused a numerous amount of foreign policy actions around the World, especially in Latin America. Looking at Chile and Cuba, the United States imposed their domain upon the two countries though economic means. They used their resources and territory to fuel economy. It could be seen that once leader of these countries started to work against the benefit of the United States, the US started to intervene in more concrete ways. This can be seen through the US’s attempts to assassinate Castro and well as their promotion of a military coup in Chile.

These US interventions, along with their European counterparts, caused major implications and consequences for Latin American countries. This can been seen in Professor Holt’s lectures as well as the Upside Down reading. Latin America today is stereotyped and characterized as a region of political corruption along with bad living conditions and working conditions. The extreme class and race disparities  have caused major tensions in Latin America. Wealth inequality has been the spark for social change and protests but many times authoritarian governments have shut those down with violence which has sparked interest on the world stage.

Overall, Latin America can be seen as a microcosm to many other developments in the world. Professor Holt looked mainly at Africa and I think there is is one large difference when it comes to the Imperialistic tendencies of major super power countries. This is in the sense that labor in latin America was imported whereas in Africa, the Labor was indigenous people.

 

1.) Judt talks about many thematic shapes of postwar Europe. I think that one of the more important ones is the United States relationship with Europe, both the eastern and western half.  With the western half of Europe, we can see great destabilization due to the second world war. States used many of their resources on the war and there was severe economic and political turmoil. The United States was at a position to help said countries but it caused a bit of resentment. The best way I can explain this resentment is through the metaphor of an independent individual becoming more and more dependent on others after either aging or having an accident or illness. Because of their independence, relying on others can create this mindset of resentment because they would much rather be doing this on their own but physically cannot. This works with European countries because they needed the resources from the United States but their senses of nationalism following the war were diminished because of their dependence.

2.) The political topography of Europe  changed in the late 20th, early 21st century in the sense that policy and legislation is more about public opinion, rather that by the hands of the few intellectuals and philosophers. Judt brings up arguments such as abortion availability and the legalization of gay marriage, and a slew of other social issues in which public opinion was the driving factor is such changes. In old Europe, power was more centered around the intellectual arguments about what should and should not be done. But with modern times, policies regarding social conflict were very much in the hands of the public and what they believed was morally right and wrong. People were making the decisions rather than having decisions made for them.

3.) I think I can apply his observation through the posters because the posters display a large us or them mentality, which is a product of nationalism in Europes various states, rather than ideas of transnationalism and a singular European identity. Looking at the first poster, it has a clear bias against Islam and Muslims. If the universal European mindset ran true, there would not be posters which make such assumptions about a big group of people. This speaks to modern ideas of immigration in Europe. States have been very stringent on immigration but with an idea such as one European identity, there wouldn’t be arguments against immigration.

I think that Africa is a fantastic region to really expose the motives and feelings towards imperialism that Europeans had. With East Asia, in my opinion, more cut off from the western world, Africa was seen as the main target. With parts of the Americas still colonized, it was still more cost effective to take resources in Africa, as the Atlantic still separated Europe and the Americas.

First, following the lecture on Africa from the 19th to the early 20th centuries, I found it interesting how different it was from European visions of power. It was weird to see that they focused more on [people as a sign of power, rather than territory. I think it goes to show how much your surroundings and situations effect the ways in which politics and other social issues play out.

However, as colonization stated, those visions changed as African people received new technology such as guns, that allowed them to focus on territorial gains rather than just people.  But, I think some of those changes came at a cost for a large majority of the population as Europe colonized more and more under the guise of helping develop their continent. It was rather unpleasant to see the treatment of indigenous Africans and all the racial inequality. I think a question that could be brought up that relates to East Asia is that without intervention, how long would it have taken for them to develop on their own? I think the difference is that Europe left East Asia with a better roadmap and better resources for success that allowed them to efficiently govern themselves.

Looking at the decolonization in Africa lecture as well as the Economist Article, I think it can be clear to see how detrimental Europe was to African life and society. It’s funny to see the irony of the “good guys” of World War 2 trying to regain dominance of African territory, and in the end decolonize. With rapid decolonization, came to issue that Europeans left African states with no infrastructure or roadmaps to govern themselves. I think that is one of the reasons that pre-imperial groups such as the Sokoto Caliphate had such an impact on contemporary politics in Africa today. I think the long lasting effects of decolonization an be seen today through the Economist Article. Though the author tries to shed light on some of the positives happening in the region, through research, its clear to see some of the human rights issues occurring today (Ie. lack of steady health care), as well as some of the government issues (Corruption, ect.).

Overall I think that imperialism as a whole, both through the partial development of African countries, as well as decolonization, was a very negative and malicious period in African history. Europe very much put Africa many steps back in the game, and these handicaps can still been seen today in contemporary African society.

Apprehensive about the pressures of western powers, the Japanese set on a course for modernization and westernization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As a result of said adaptation, the Japanese thought of themselves as culturally superior to the rest of East Asia. This is turn was a justification for the Japanese to enforce their domain over the rest of East Asia, instilling bloody and gruesome violence upon those who were culturally “inferior”.

I found it very interesting the relationship that Japan had with its neighbors. Connecting the Ginseng article as well as the primary sources, I can see when Japan was dependent on China for their Ginseng, they had a relationship, but as Japan gained the ability to grow their own, their domain would only grow. We can see how the relationships between Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese were with the testimony of the comfort movement. I think that because of the horrific acts done to non-Japanese East-Asians, much animosity grew towards the Japanese. This in turn allowed Chinese and Koreans to form ideas of nationalism and self determination, creating a more liberal atmosphere. The creation of schools in these areas also contributed to such ideas as well. It can also be said that such treatment of women sparked major feminist movements as well. With the education of both females and males, as well as events such as the Rape of Nanking, women started to become larger members of society, with their roles shifting.

In general, Japan, though through horror and bloodshed, caused a cataclysmic change in East Asia in early 1900s. Their attacks on non-Japanese individuals created an atmosphere of animosity as well as progressivism among those in Korea and China. I do question if they could have been as strong without treating their neighbors in the ways that they did.

Looking at lectures and readings from this week, one theme stuck out to me. As regions started to modernize, there were periods of rapid urbanization. Due to this urbanization, there was much instance of the creation of leftist and progressive ideas. After listening to the lectures on Germany and Bombay, there were a lot of parallels that were interesting to see.

With Germany’s rapid industrialization following their unification in the late 19th century, massive amounts of people moved into city centers for better opportunity and more money. With availability of capital and resources, industrialists saw it as a gateway to riches. This in turn caused terrible working conditions. Similarly, in the city of Bombay, there was much instance of industrialization as a result the Suez canal, which opened up India to European markets. British bankers took control of farms through their lending. What ensued was major investments, both agriculturally and industrially.

What I found interesting was that in both instances, progressive ideas sprung out of the extreme urbanization. In India, their independence party, which would eventually lead India to independence from Britain, was formed. In Germany, socialist parties rose, which spread nationalistic ideas.

I think these nationalistic ideas, as well as progressive ideas, spread so much during this era as a result of the urbanization. With large groups of people so tightly packed together, the spread of ideas becomes a lot easier. Also, with terrible working conditions, individuals are bound to rebel against such aggression.

I think this can also connect to Kramer’s writing on Philippine relations with the United States. Kramer shared an account from a soldier stating that “the subsequent war would not have broken out if the army of occupation would have treated [Filipinos] as people” (Kramer 174). I think that the overarching idea is that people are bound to react if they are treated poorly. They will look to better their society, whether it be by war or by politics. I think that Germany, Bombay, and the Philippines took very different routes on their historical journeys, but there were many overlapping reasons for the political and social unrest seen in the regions.

Overall, I think the theme of urbanization and industrialization causing great social unrest is very prevalent in all the areas that we discussed and read about this week. People are bound to revolt when they can share their ideas of unhappiness with each other. However, it is interesting to see the different reactions each area has. I think that plays into the different issues each group was facing as a whole. (ie. treatment, working conditions, ect.)

From class discussions/lectures as well as the readings this week, one theme stuck out to me as we learned about different regions of the world and their experiences during the early 1900s. This theme had to do with the perception that western culture was superior to others, such as East Asia, and Latin America. After listening to Professor Holt’s lecture on Rio De Janeiro, as well as reading Fukuzawa Yukichi’s “On De-Asianization”, I found the viewpoints of both the Japanese and Brazilians to be very similar.

Looking at Yukichi’s work, it was very clear to see the bias he had against the rest of Eastern Asia due to their lack of westernization. Yukichi states “This should be regarded a great misfortune for our country of Japan. To plan our course now, therefore, our country cannot afford to wait for the enlightenment of our neighbors and to co-operate in building Asia up” (Yukichi 133), meaning Japan could not wait to westernize for the fear of a bad image in the eyes of western nation-states. They saw western culture as superior to their own; so much so that they were willing to abandon their own to westernize. Likewise, with Professor Holt’s lecture on Rio De Janeiro, it was clear that the city, along with many others in Latin America, wanted to mimic the western society. I found it interesting how they spent tons of their money in order to built a more European looking city.

I believe that regions who had not yet westernized/modernized responded like this for the fear that if they did not get up to the standards of the European superpowers, they would get treated like such. I think this apprehension is correct considering the experiences of African nations throughout this time. I thought it interesting how European nations came together to split up Africa during the Berlin Conference. This partly due to the lack of modernization found in Africa at the time.

Overall, I think that the theme of pressured westernization is very prevalent in regions around the world. Due to the experiences of imperialism in Africa, I understand region’s want to westernize due to their apprehension of European forces. It is interesting however, to observe the Japanese viewpoints of other Eastern Asian nations. I think it can play into the perception of western dominance of this era.