MAKING OF THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

1. Tony Judt argues that it is possible to identify a number of shared “thematic shapes” in postwar European history (page 7). Describe one of these thematic shapes and explain why it emerged.

One of the thematic themes that Tony identifies is the history of Europes reduction. Tony explains that the constituent states could no longer be recognized after 1945 to an imperial or international status due to the fall of radical ideologies like fascism and communism. This, in turn, created a new Europe, with the exception of Great Britain and Germany, but even then Judt admits that these states later succumbed to this status well. The new Europe had been liberated from the war in many ways because of the fall of communism and wars, which allowed the nation-state to  gradually gain back its autonomy and reclaim  its sovereignty.

2. How did the “political topography” of Europe change in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries (p.785)? What were some outcomes of this change?

The political topography changed within the 21st century because of the cultural shift from the old-style political party to the public intellect. Throughout the years these old school political intellectuals representing a majority of communistic and fascist ideologies were becoming incrementally marginalized and the continental intellectual was starting to become more common. Once these philosophies became expunged from the continent, a new Europe started to emerge, particularly in western Europe where things like the death penalty and censorship had been almost eliminated. These events then lead to the liberties and freedoms never practiced before in Europe. Some of these events included the practice of homosexuality and abortion, two practices that once held heavy consequences, like the death penalty, in the old-style political world.

3. Judt points to the “limitations of a post-national prescription for a better European future” (p.797). How would you apply his observation to the personal statements and political posters in the documents from The World Transformed?

When Judt mentions the limitations of a post-national prescription for a better European future, he mentions a very specific instance in history that lead to an immigration and identity crisis that is also interconnected into his work, World Transformed, — the aftermath of 9/11. This particular event was so traumatic for many people not only nationally, but internationally as well, because it was classified as a terrorist attack. And because citizens uniformly sacrifice to some degree their freedoms as citizens in exchange for security from the government, this attack frightened everyone including the government. Thus, nation-states, like Europe, felt vulnerable and scared, because, as Judt mentions, “keeping citizens safe is what nations do”. These events led to an identity and immigration crisis that is then interconnected to the World Transformed article propaganda. Here we have prejudice posters and handouts claiming to help obliterate the Islamic religion (page 479 and 480). What I find most surprising, is that we find these prejudices in the new European state like France and Britain. Additionally, the economic trials that were facing Europe at this time added “fuel to the fire” expanding tensions and prejudices between foreign affairs, its citizens, and so forth.

 

1. Initially Just expresses that there is now over arching theme of European history but rather many smaller ones that contribute to the whole. One of these is that of the fading “master narrative” in Europe. This came about as a direct result of things simply calming down in a way. The heat of the 19th century ended and many nations sought to co-exist with others. Furthermore he argues that people began to lose political faith and more importantly faith in revolutionary tendencies fueled my Marxism.

2.Much like how Europe’s master narrative began to fade the large political divide began to become muddled as well. To think of it in term of topography its easy to look a ravine where one side is the Left and one side is the Right. On comes the 20th and 21st centuries and now its a crater with a large intertwined center where moderates exist in large numbers but there not a gradual shift between extremism and moderates. This could be seen in places like Germany and Britain where there are more parties than can be counted on two hands. This helped people define their political leanings better in the long run since you didn’t have to completely agree with a side to be a part of them.

3.The shift taken in the 21st and late 20th century caused many issues. For starters the idea of safety provided by the UN made everyone into a patriot for their country. Yet post 9/11 we see this pride for a country being used as a method of hate towards another. Safety in the destruction of others. That is of course if you yourself do not have to be the destroyer. The UN’s militant presence in the age of terrorism makes people from every country in the Union believe it is their purpose to express the generally accepted view point which was anti- islam. The uneducated crowd really enjoyed this and it even happened in the U.S. Back when France claimed that Iraq had no nuclear weapons the good red blooded Americans back home decided France was the enemy. Our oldest ally lost because of the UN’s ability to get everyone involved. Who remembers freedom fries. Likely not many of us since we were too young but the point still stands. Safety breeds violence and hate.

Through our reading and lectures for this week, we learned and discussed the transformation of Europe in the 20th century. We read a piece by Tony Judt showing his take on these events as well as some primary sources about the EU and the recent economic crisis. Furthermore, the lectures regarded both key events as well as a central focus on the idea of the Nation State.

The rise of Europe throughout the 20th century can be broken essentially into two parts; pre 1945 and post 1945. The readings and lectures, however, focused primarily on the latter phase. A few things that Judt initially mentions are the rise of high art/theatre culture as well as football. Being an avid footballer and fan myself, I was quite interested in reading about the rapid growth of international players joining European clubs. We can still see legacies such as Ferenc Puskás being carried on in society today with football awards named in his honor. Another thing Judt focuses on is the lost status and importance of intellectuals in Europe. There was less focus on philosophy. The political topography was changing, and Governments no longer cared for what these brilliant minds had to say. Finally, arguably one of the most important part of Europe’s new identity in my opinion would be its dissociation from other cultures such as America. Europe was set on forming its own functional society/government, and through the years that really began to take shape.

Our second reading focused on even more recent European history. These sources discussed the creation of the EU, as well as its major setback in the unemployment crisis.  Wednesday’s lecture mentioned and overviewed the struggles of many countries such as France/Greece, but the reading provided personal stories from young men and women across Europe. One in specific mentioned that they had applied for over 100 jobs and only gotten a handful of interviews. This shows just how extreme the situation is. These accounts all sounded very similar in the fact that each person felt massively discouraged, worried, and irritated with the current state of the EU and their own governments.

 

1. The first “thematic shape” Tony Judt talks about in his introduction is the the lessening world influence of Europe, what he calls ‘Europe’s Reduction’. When the Second World War ended, much of Europe emerged out of the chaos to find their economies limping, their infrastructure destroyed, and their ideologies divided. Wartime spending in the United States had catapulted its economy to a position of global prominence, while the USSR looked to be a similarly dominant economic power. The development and use of the atomic bomb by the United States, not Europe, and the ensuing arms race in which the USSR attempted to catch up, aided by claims of nuclear superiority from the Kremlin, indicated that it was Europe’s neighbors to the East and West that held primary military sway throughout the world. Finally, the Cold War itself, where the USSR and the US played ideological chess with much of the world, including Europe, was the nail in the coffin of European global dominance. Decolonization began in the 1950s, and economic growth in Europe stagnated in the 1970s. By the time the Eastern Bloc fell, Europe’s influence throughout the world was a fraction of what it had been a century earlier.

2. Tony Judt describes how, in the late 20th century, the political extremes of the decades before were becoming increasingly marginalized. Not only had communism and fascism been excised from Europe, but other contentious issues had been seemingly resolved as well; among these, Judt mentions censorship, the death penalty, abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. One major change that followed this development was the death of the public intellectual. In contrast with much of recent European history, public intellectuals had very little influence on government policy or public sentiment. Their opinions, according to Judt, were largely ignored by the beginning of the 21st century. Even in the realm of international relations, where their opinions coincided with that of the public, the work of intellectuals across Europe was largely irrelevant. Judt points out that a movement among public intellectuals like that of 2003 would have been a major event at any time in the previous century. But now, it made almost no difference.

3. Judt’s discussion on the “limitations of a post-national prescription for a better European future” largely revolves around the fact that Europe is—and will continue to be—viewed as a collection of countries that make up a continent rather than a single entity that happens to consist of countries. The reason for this division of cultures—or souls, as François Mitterand might say—is that the EU is not fully integrated. Many of the most meaningful responsibilities of states still reside on a national level. The country is responsible for civil protection, pensions, and taxation; the citizens vote for the leaders of their country, not the EU. The lack of a single European identity has resulted in a less deeply engrained faith in the EU and Europe itself. The documents and statistics from The World Transformed reflect the weakening support for international cooperation.The numbers from the Pew Research Center indicate a dramatic change in sentiment during the recession, particularly in the countries that suffered the most economic hardship during that time. The statements from the unemployed citizens are understandably negative; when the economy went south in 2008, it would have been hard not to attribute some blame to the EU, which oversees much of the macro-level economic policy for participating countries. The nationalist party posters from Britain, France, Germany, and Italy are an example of rising nationalism, a phenomenon continuing and intensifying today. The recession and the continuing national framework through which many Europeans view international relations have contributed to the anti-immigration movement. In essence, the existence of a “post-national prescription for a better European future” is very much in question.

Many of the lectures and readings touched on the growing dreams and desires of the early europeans who were born and lived through the two wars which extends to the future generations and the change in state. Fridays reading “From Michael Hunt, The World Transformed 1945 to the present” pg 338 really vocalizes the internal struggle and suffering of citizens during the war. The loss of fathers, family and homes would in most trigger hatred and unrest towards the war and those involved in it however european bonds are tighten and amended by the early generations who grow tired of the conflict. Carrying the experiences and teachings of the past to proclaim a strong desire for strengethening the lack of welfare and humanitarianism. Unlike a state of war making into a government focused on serving the people and their needs instead of the governments. This forms the basis for the reading “Europe as a Way of Life” were a higher standard of living is seen with less complexations for the citizens in terms of anything that would strike against a peaceful life. As great as an idea this is, it is simply not completely possible at the present. Europeans desire no conflict however outside forces such as immigration and terrorist attacks prove to be fatal to the people and its government who do not have proper preparations for the influx of population and lack of funding for protection against terrorism. Its important to note that they attempt to uphold their desire for no adventures and integration but feel that its necessary to protect this ideal at the cost of bending them

The Economist‘s “Africa Rising – the Hopeful Continent” article presents an interesting inquiry into the potential for the poorest inhabited continent on Earth to grow and transform in the midst of seemingly positive trends in many of its constituent states. Some people decried the publication’s neoliberal bias, and have since proposed solutions that favor the economic left. Yet evidence exists in this article and beyond that is suggestive of an Africa that could benefit equitably and to a greater extent through expanding markets, trade, and investment – decidedly capitalist concepts. The key would be to make them investment-positive and enticing for their potential role in a global economy; however, they must find stability and ensure that they are not dominated by foreign enterprises that do not benefit the African nations themselves in a colonialism-esque fashion. Socialism and its varied flavors of the day have tried and failed, despite initial optimism, to make change to Africa’s economic situation. These failed endeavors were not bolstered by misguided efforts of foreign nations to pour capital into the continental economy and hope that it will be equitably distributed through governmental and perhaps extra-governmental efforts. It would seem that Africa is ripe for investment and market-driven growth. Still, this in a vacuum would be unlikely to stimulate change on a supranational level, and given the history of strife and poverty plaguing the continent at large, it is ill-advised to put all of one’s faith into a single economic model to bring about badly-needed economic aid to Africans.