Author: Shahroz Zaman

Colonialism in India entered through the British East India company purely for trade over lucrative goods like spices. But as the British dominion grew and following a revolt the government took direct ownership over the majority of the subcontinent. Through a imperialist policy of specifically dividing the myriad of religions into specific groups either through census or general education on the differences made it so that each group no longer had a fluid identity. The British had fixed a specific identity for each religion and grouped in thousands under one umbrella. From there as seen in “Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge”, we understood how the British collected this data in an effort to properly administer the region but the underlying subtext was to form these divisions within the population in order to ferment hatred between religious groups instead of focusing on British rule and their extraction of the resources of India. Yet, even when the British left the Indian subcontinent, those ethnic divisions fermented by their rule remained. Resulting in the eventual splitting of the continent down Islamic and Hindu lines, in which the majority of the populations were of those specific religious groups. The splitting itself resulted in the death and displacement of millions through violent conflict at the border. The hatred and resentment built directly as a result of British rule has lasting consequences, with two wars fought and continuing nuclear tensions to this day.

An essential concept for understanding the 20th and 21st century is Colonialism. Colonialism is the process of acquiring political control over another country, pushing cultural norms on the native population, filling it with settlers as well as utilizing the economic resources it may offer. Key aspects of colonialism include the propagation of racial hierarchies, exploitation of the native population through slavery or indentured servitude and major cultural shifts within the country under control. The significance of colonialism is that it has left a legacy of racism, ethnic devisions and untethered economies in the countries it has directly effected across the world. But at the same time it has been a contributing factor to the development of globalization, development of countries and trade as well as the creation of formal diplomatic boundaries still recognized to this day in some cases.

Essay Question: Which factor played a greater role in the development of nations, colonization or decolonization?

Answer: Colonization most likely did because it initiated the foundations for nationalism that would later become the conflicts that started decolonization, moreover the European countries that usually colonized less developed countries had offered those countries greater outlets for trading as well as communication. This connection of other countries had made the economies in the colonized countries grow at a accelerated pace. These factors overall helped the less developed countries engage in more globalization as well as develop their economies on a level that could survive against the massive powers of Europe during this time. De-colonization does not play as big of a role because the nationalism utilized was initially developed during the colonial period.

Emily Huwigt/ Paris Stirrat/ Alex Pollitt/ Eric Wasserzug/ Kamron Knowlton

Through Professor Holt’s lectures and the readings this week, we have been able to get a more detailed and nuanced explanation of the role of colonialism in the formation of modern Latin America. This week we went even further in an effort to understand the wide ranging effects of neocolonialist influence directly because of US interventionism against the spread of communism and how it has created the current dominant paradigm within South America.

One of the most significant conceptions about South America is it’s inherent poverty and corruption. Yet as we learned in a multitude of readings and background information, what delayed growth more than anything else was regime change, most of which were done through coups. For example in Chile with the rise of Pinochet, a general, to the leader of the country was directly due to US support against the pro socialist sitting president, Salvador Allende. This serves to highlight the complex role the United States took up in the America’s, that of a Imperial hegemon protecting it’s ‘area of influence’ against any conception of threat posed by Communist ideals.

These crusades launched by the US administration were only compounded following events such as the Cuban revolution, which they believed posed an active threat to American safety and thus the US did everything they could, even if it meant leaving the region in the hands of totalitarian dictators or chaos. To continue with the example of Cuba, the US tried having Fidel Castro, it’s leader following the Cuban revolution, assassinated a total of several hundred times because of his communist ideals and his formation of close ties with the Soviet Union. Through that we can understand how, despite the popular support of many of these socialist figures that arose across the continent, the US placed it’s foreign interests foremost, much to the loss for most other countries on the continent.

Throughout this week, via our lectures and readings we have been focusing mostly on Africa as a continent and the catastrophic changes brought about by European colonialism. We examined the dramatic effects the scramble for Africa had on the African identity and the racist perception left behind following decolonisation in the late 19th century.

It showed us exactly how European involvement in Africa completely pushed aside Africa’s linear progression to a more widespread and advanced continent by displacing the culture and economies of the region. Firstly by making the colonies completely reliant on their overlords, their entire economy was shifted to the whim of them, making it so that those regions could not effectively develop wide ranging and diverse economies. Secondly, by displacing the culture they effectively eroded the sense of identity of thousands of cultural groups across Africa, perpetuating the idea of their inherent inferiority to their colonizers and pushing their imperial overlords cultures upon them. This created a sense of divergent identity still pervasive today, resulting in a complex form of entanglement which has altered peoples perceptions of themselves, thus not allowing them to develop independently in that sphere.

Following decolonisation, not only did colonisation leave an attached identity onto the colonial subjects but also on the nations that colonised them. Racist perceptions continue to persist on the nature of Africa, as shown in the Economist article with the entire continents current perception across the planet being one of disease and poverty, which is linked to a idea of African “laziness”. Which effectively completely ignores the widespread changes brought about by colonialism in a controlled narrative that doesn’t try and link back to the West. In reality it was directly the displacement of identity, economy and culture that places Africa in it’s current position in the world and the fact that the West continues to misidentify that only furthermore shows the complexity of the racial stereotypes that were created as a direct result of the scramble for Africa.

East Asia in the 20th century was a continent dominated by a westernized, aggressive and nationalist Japan. This week we learned of the last dynasty of China, the Qing and the factors that led to their downfall and thus the dissolution of the state. With the impact of European ideas of identity, the Manchu Qing were quickly seen as distinct and a minority within the large Chinese population they ruled. Combined with the Opium wars, which placed China firmly under Western control through forcing Opium into China as a replacement of the depleted silver the West could no longer provide. The opium wars showed the population about the true weakness of the Imperial government in contrast to the West, which was directly shown by the opening up of embassies in Beijing. China’s fall as the hegemon of Asia resulted in resentment within the population, one aspect of which was shown by the people led boxer rebellion which sought to drag Westerners out of China because the government could not. The eventual overthrowal of the imperial government was expected after the humiliation placed on the nation.

In contrast Japan, who had been under Chinese hegemony reacted in a completely different way to Western Imperialism. Instead of open defeat by Western powers, they used the fact that the United States was able to open up the country by force as a means of rationalising the need to modernise. Like China, Japan too overthrew their government but in direct contrast to them, it was by the elites in order to perserve the cultural traditions through the ascension of the Meiji Emperor as the head of state. Japan was able to selectively keep their sense of cultural identity while still modernising in order to not be colonised and dominated in a Western controlled world. Through this then Japan was able to quickly militarise and consolidate an Empire by invading and subjugating Korea and even going further and starting to colonise their former overlords by taking over Manchuria.

The key difference between the two countries was the nature of their response to a Western dominated world. While Japan modernised, knowing that not doing so would allow it to be dominated, China, who was eclipsed by multiple issues across the nation, from the worst civil war humanity has ever seen to the racial tensions spread out across it’s society, was unable to do the same. Resulting in Japan overtaking China as the premier Empire in the region.

Within this week we talked about the issue of the establishment of global connections through imperialism which effected the world over. We understood how through the use of Western Empires and thereby their global spanning influence, the smallest changes in a completely different region of the world effected other parts for the first time in human history. In the example of the US civil war, we were able to understand how the global cotton trade was driven to a standstill as a direct result of the war, and thereby the raising of plantations in India by the British so they could continue to produce.

The theme of imperialism as the dynamic factor in the creation of global connections also occurs in Germany during the same period. As they industrialise and become a global player, they increasingly wish for a global hegemony like the other European powers in order to cheapen the supply of raw products entering the country. Through this we can understand how global connectivity pushed these perceptions of Empire while at the same time reinforcing the idea of continued expansion. Thereby allowing even more power to flow into Europe through just the existence of that perception.

When we turned to Jaffa in the 19oo’s, we also further understand how global connections were able to build up the town to a massive Mediterranean port where before it had been a simple village. We talked about how the development of the area was pushed by the British through their funding of projects like railroads within the Ottoman Empire. Something that both exerted soft power over the Ottoman’s but also helped them take control of the holy land. When full control was established and the region became a global port in it’s entirety, ideas were pushed of the development being a result of European influence, something we saw pushed in India through the example of the cotton plantation too. Making us understand how global connectivity was used as just another way to reinforce stereotypes of European supremacy by a supposed development that really only benefited those European powers.