Author: robby

Imperialism created the Africa we see today. For example, in British colonies, “colonial policy also depended on constructions of racial differences” (Pierre 18) and in the French colonies as “’Blacks’ (or ‘Africans’) [were racialized] through both its political and juridical practices” (18). These racial divisions created racial distress between Africans. The north, seen as white, and south, seen as black, was created by Europeans. At the same time, Ancient Egyptian culture was decided to be a European history and written as a white society, practically stealing it from African culture and dividing Africans in classes they did not construct themselves. Europeans saw black Africans as unable to create such culture meaning that ancient Egyptians must have been white. Simultaneously, this division by European imperialistic powers created a Pan-African identity as Africans began to construct an identity based around the anti-imperialism efforts that is still seen today.

During the depression, white settlers in Africa “used local political power and influence to deny Africans access to land effectively ‘proletarianizing’ them” and using them as an inexpensive labor pool. (Bayley 89-90) After the depression and World War II, a push towards African independence occurred as European countries were more tired, had less money, and no longer wanted to put the work into maintain their colonies. This led to a tumultuous decolonization process as these African colonies were not prepared to rule themselves. They were not industrialized nor educated how to nor did they have easily available resources as Europeans had taken them. As new African countries scrambled to create an economy, ethnic division rose as European powers created come countries that divided cultural groups, and some that forced together hated people. As African groups fought each other, power voids were created as Europeans fled the continent. This is seen in Guinea-Bissau as “no president has served a full term since independence from Portugal in 1974.” (The Economist)

Imperialism changed Eastern Asia as we know it. Western Europe’s influence created a vacuum in power as they profited off of a weakening China. This void filled by a growing Japan that wanted to separate itself from China and Korea to modernize and prevent European powers from taking advantage of them. Japan saw the results of a declining Qing China after the Opium Wars, unfair trade deals, and internal conflicts and wanted to ensure they would not become a victim of it. Japan also began to grow their army. East Asia had been struggling with their own conflicts, but Western Europe brought their own wars to the area.

This mass enrollment in Japanese schools was effective as both boys and girls were to attend. Though as individuals from China and Korea attended their schools and learned western ideas such as socialism and anarchism, they began to become radicalized. Upon their return to their homeland, they began to question the authority of the Japanese control and started terroristic attacks and events like the Boxer Rebellion. This structure is very similar to the imperialistic nations controlled by Europe. Japan felt they had the authority to control China and Korea but also educated them in their ‘modern society’ yet still seeing these two nations as lesser. The Japanese military began to take advantage of on Korean and Chinese women and use them for their bodies. One women Kimiko Kaneda said “I felt as if we were taken here to be killed” (Testimony of former Comfort Woman, Kimiko Kaneda (South Korea)). This disrespect for humanity led to even more social unrest between Japan and Korea and China as more civil unrest occurred.

Japan and China entered World War II with the Nanjing Massacre where Japanese military men killed and raped many people of Nanjing. This dark moment in Japanese and Chinese history shows how their already natural national conflicts were amplified with the presence of European ideas of modern society and contradictory views of a government’s power.

The time around 1900 was filled with great privatization and investment that brought with it great capital. In the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the Jewish and Christian minorities were given full rights as forced upon by western Europe. This resulted in investors from Christian and Jewish communities to move to cities like Jaffa and invest in businesses or schools. Many missionaries came to establish Western schools that were suppose to enlighten the people of the Ottoman Empire to western philosophy.  In Bombay, Imperialistic Britain takes control over Indian farms through debt created by the Indian farms to the British and invested large cotton mills. The amount of cotton mills increased from 1 in 1856 to 136 in 1900 after the building of the Suez canal and the American Civil ware increased trade with India. This mass development also greatly increased the population of Bombay as many tried to flee the tenant farming style of the countryside created by the British. Where these European powers went, they were good at establishing their control with a support of their people as they were able to use these other countries for their raw products.

The success of imperialism seemed to lack for the United States. The United States at this time saw the success of western Europe and tried to emulate it in the Philippines. Though many were against it as it causes “the erosion of domestic republican virtue and freedom through imperial corruption, tyranny, and militarism”(Kramer). Though these individuals opinions were based on the idea that these corrupt actions would lead to uncivilized filipinos infiltrating their society as they tried to assimilate. The lack of success the United States had in imperialism was a result of their isolationism and numerous raw materials. The American people did not support these advancements for a humanitarian purpose, but they desired to be isolated from the world as they felt they did not need others to succeed.

Countries in Latin America saw the potential economic gain they could receive from the modernization of Western Europe and wanted to capitalize on it. They enjoyed the benefits brought by European nations and tried to be liked by these European nations and create a partnership. Latin American countries  were “efficient exporters of raw materials”(The Export Boom as Modernity) to the developing Western Europe that needed these raw materials for their industries. For countries like Brazil it was seen that their economy was based heavily on raw products like coffee beans and rubber. Though countries like Brazil began stripping their environments, they also started to develop. In Rio de Janeiro, the population increased from 275,000 in 1872 to 1,1560,000 in 1920 while great public works developed large cities with more European design. As many of them were new countries, for example Brazil’s independence was in 1822, they needed economic boosts to ensure their survival. This change in Latin American economies shows  their acceptance of European expansion.

Japan’s developing nationalistic mindset and lack of willingness to be used by Western Europe prompted them to create their own empire. Japan saw the expansion and development of Western Europe as “an epidemic that carries with it only harm; much less against civilization, which is always accompanied by both harm and good, but by more good than harm.” (Fukuzawa Yukichi). Japan also did not want to be used like Latin America, China, or Korea but instead be a great empire. hey saw themselves as an ancient culture compared to the developing Latin America as their nationalistic tendencies grew.  The Western European powers would appear to be a great aspiration for them to strive towards. By separating themselves from these other nations, Japan hoped to be seen as an equal to the powers of Western Europe. After events in China like the Opium Wars and Boxer Revolutions lead to Japan and European forces having control of port cities and Beijing. The allowance of Japan to join the European forces proves their desire and inevitable success at separating themselves from the rest of the world and Eastern Asia.

 

 

Bright and Geyer argue that the great divergence “does not project well to the end of the century” (295) as countries all over the world created their own “modern” societies by adopting some western practices and developing their own. The ideas of westernization does not result in some form of enlightenment but instead, one way of development. Thinking of  the world needing to catch up to the west assumes that the west is doing something, in terms of human development as fundamentally right. This is seen as the great convergences has “los[t] cogency and descriptive power,  at least since the 1970s” (295). Each country has its own idea of right and wrong and moving towards a western European model is not fundamentally what each country wants to do. I agree with the authors in stating that the west of the world finds its own ways to react to the changing western Europe instead of trying to being it. Fighting to keep their social and political independence as more and more competitors appear in a more global economy is the main focus in non western nations.