MAKING OF THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Essential concept- Colonialism is the relationship of domination of indigenous by foreign invaders where the latter rule in pursuit of their interests. The motives were not purely economic and can actually be argued to be strategic for example America in the Philippines.

Significance- It shaped the tensions in the colonial territories in the 21st century/ modern age in terms of their economy, culture

essay question that cuts across regions and time in the 20th-21st century

Colonialism was a driving force to creating the geopoliticalenvironment of the 21st century. What are two regions that experienced colonialism? How do  these two countries or regions compare in their experience of colonialism, and how did colonialism imprint on their country today?

Colonialism is a running theme that is prevalent across regions especially in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia

One essential concept for understanding the 20th-21st century is, colonialism.

Colonialism- Western/industrialized powers like the US, occupying another nation for foreign control of the nation for the purposes of influence, economic and geo-political gain, resources and other benefits

Significance

• resources extracted from  countries fueled the industrial revolution
• created a legacy of transculturalization
• left many colonized nations/cultures damaging effects

Question:

Compare and contrast extraction-based colonialism and settler-based colonialism. Why are some former-colonalized nations better off than others?

Noah, Lilly, Vu, Will, Jordan

1.) One essential concept to understanding the 20th-21st century is imperialism. Imperialism is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through military force, aggression, and coercive diplomacy. Imperialism was mainly used as a mechanism to extract resources and labor to grow the wealth and domain of imperial powers. Imperialism holds many implications to modern era. This can be seen through the conditions in many formal imperialized states. For example, in many African and Latin American states, there is much instance of political corruption, as well as social inequality and racial hierarchies. This is a result of lack of infrastructure left behind by imperial powers as well as the lingering affects of racism and a sense of social superiority. Imperialism can also be seen as a cause of war, as states were fighting for more domain and territory.

2.) In your opinion, to what degree was Latin American imperialism similar to that of African imperialism, and in what ways were they different?

Similar: Both used violence as a way to control indigenous populations; Both resource based economies; As a result, both experienced extreme poverty, as well as social and political tension

Differences: Latin America had a larger religious base,  More cultural syncretism, Latin America had more imported slavery/labor, A lot more politically motived (A result of communism) // Africa was used a lot more in proxy wars, used labor through indigenous populations, demographic political turmoil as a result of a greater surviving indigenous population

 

This weeks lectures really focused on the inequalities, corruption and the effects of transculturation in Latin America very much similar to the extent of what happen and or what is happening in Africa as well.

Latin America is subject to, compared to other nations over a long period of time, a large scale of sudden historical integration with a mixer of people and cultures irreversibly changing the dynamics of Latin Americas structure and representation. Outside foreign forces such as the Slave trade driven by European countries as the growing demands for many cheap labours to produce raw material goods. In turn distributed a massive influx of Africans to later be somewhat assimilated into Latin America after the abolishment of Slavery. The structure of the population consisted of the local natives, Africans and Europeans, a vast cultural difference. The large population of African could presumably do no better for their own good as many were formal slaves with no education and political experience. Even with the removal of European colonialism which set the stage for the structural groundwork of inequalities that now characterize Latin America. The European hierarchy of unequal power was only replaced with a slightly better alternative, for example Bolivars, that have no choice but to be based upon their “successors” as Latin America has never seen any longterm stable success and justice. The common people of Latin America have so little to cherish compared to Americans that anything a smigden better is shockingly praised and fought to continue despite the underlining corruption it may entail such as grid-locking the political system so that a select few can stay in power indefinitly. On page 318 in the third paragraph of “galeano upside down” a nice quote continues this arguement and inquiries additional thoughts. In particular “Perhaps that explains the case with which it fell, without pity or glory, and the rapidity with which a new power emerged featuring the same personalities.”.

Two major points I saw from this week of lectures and readings was the cosmopolitan culture of Latin America and also the impact the cold war had on post-colonial Latin America. Latin American is a mix of indigenous peoples, Europeans and Africans. These three extremely broad culture and racial groups lead to a great exchange of culture that altered Latin America, nations and groups involved. The natives to Latin America were devastated by disease as about 90% died from interactions from Europeans, while the rest were subject to racial segregation. Africans were brought to Latin America via the Atlantic Slave Trade since a work force was needed to obtain raw materials for the European powers that controlled the lands to gain a profit and fuel their ongoing conquest and wars.

After both World Wars, European powers struggled to keep their lead in the world. This resulted in a shift of power to the capitalistic United States and the Communist Soviet Union. Their political war was fought in vulnerable nations of Latin America. This was seen as “the U.S. veto has blocked or closed off to the point of strangulation most of the political experiments that have sought to get at the roots of violence” (Galeano) that was underway in Latin America, Though the Soviet Union also played similar roles to aid their Cold War motives. The people of Latin America were finding their own ways to govern themselves, but the world powers saw them as pawns. This was seen in Cuba with the Cuban Revolution. Both the United States and the Soviet Union aided a side they felt was right for the Cuban people, or more likely what was best for them. As Cuba elected Fidel Castro in a legal and democratic  manner, the United States felt afraid of his socialistic tendencies and cut off relations while also attempting to murder and overthrow him. The Soviet Union saw Castro as a way to expand their Communist power and even placed nuclear weapons in Cuba faced towards the United States.

An issue to be addressed is the continued implicit colonial shadow present upon much of Latin America during the 20^th century, even after supposed decolonization had occurred. Colonial control of Latin America before the 20^th century oversaw systemized racist hierarchies, unequal land ownership between the top few richer families and the poorer classes, and the forceful application of foreign cultures with the domestic. As Dr. Holt noted in her lecture on Monday, the legacies of colonialism—economic, social and political—are what “set the stage for the entrenched inequalities that characterize much of Latin America today.”

Selfish foreign intervention did not stop after national independence for many Latin American countries, however. The propped-up governments and proxy wars of the Cold War served to continue colonial control by another name. On page 318 of the “Upside Down” piece, Eduardo Galeano notes that for much of the 20^th century, capitalism of the West and the “real socialism” of the Eastern bloc vied for influence in the countries still seeking an independent role in the global order. The problem here, for Latin-American countries who tried to emulate or capitulate to either side, was the truth that “so-called socialism had sacrificed freedom” and that “capitalism sacrifices justice day in, day out.” Any attempt at self-governance that clashed with either ideology was often met with both covert and public organized backlash from the two giants of the Cold War.

These two paths were often not just suggestions, but rather mandates in some cases for certain unfortunate countries. The United States, in its efforts to stem communism from reaching its doorstep, opted to meddle in Latin American affairs to prop up candidates and groups to power. As Dr. Holt noted, the U.S. was originally optimistic about Fidel Castro’s rise to power in Cuba. However, after seeing that his policies did not agree with the U.S.’s goals, they opted to first militarily intervene, which was met with utter failure. In chapter 8, page 160 of the Bayly reading, Bayly recounts the U.S. economic counteroffensive, with the setting up an economic blockade that drove Cuba towards greater political dependency on the USSR, found to be an erroneous decision after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

In one case, both the USSR and the United States played the political game with Chile’s government. On chapter 8, page 159 of the Bayly reading, Salvador Allende is said to have become the president of Chile in 1970 with Soviet financial support, as well as backing being given for his later national policies. However, Bayly also stresses the fact that Augusto Pinochet, overthrowing Allende in 1973, had had financial and diplomatic backing from the American government and the CIA as well. In the pursuit of global hegemony over the other side, the U.S. and the USSR were no better than the earlier colonizers of Latin America in their consideration of these countries as pawns.