MAKING OF THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

There exists this rule throughout history where if a place exists and has something someone else wants Britain will, without a shadow of a doubt, stick their greedy paws in there and attempt to control the means of production or just control the place altogether. Where else is this more prevalent than in Bombay India. While it is true that Britain made an absolutely insane amount of money from all over India through the exploitation and exportation of the people and their resources the effects in a local setting are quite dramatic and are seen in Bombay quite well. Bombay’s export was cotton. Originally cotton had been flowing steadily from the U.S. but following the end of slavery cotton production all but stopped and British textile miles needed a new source. Bombay had one cotton mill, so why not make it 136 and consume the entire coastal area in cotton based farming. India benefited from this despite the implied tone of a British take over. Bombay went from a small and slightly backwards town to a huge port city post Suez and remains a large city today.

Take this is comparison with a place like Germany. Germany is unique in that it came out of know where and became this industrial giant making iron and steel faster and more efficient than most places that were in the business. German population boomed and their economy as well. But here’s the kicker, Britain did nothing. They didn’t attempt an empirical expansion and they didn’t attempt to seize the mean of production either by force or through laws. Germany managed to form an Empire all its own with no interference.

This strikes me as odd considering Britain’s stance in the world up to this point. Their homeland isn’t that big and thus had little in the way of natural resources. No other place in the world had as prolific of a iron working system as Germany and yet, Britain did nothing. It calls into question the existence of a European superiority complex that we all know exists but does that protect them from each other? Did Germany live because it was European or was it some other factor?

At the time 1900s, we mainly see how many countries try to industrialize such as Germany from an agricultural country become a very powerful country due to steel industry. Germany was not a strong country in Europe in the early 1900s, but since their discovered the coal, iron and the strong potential, they became powerful and affected strongly to the world until World War II. Because of the numerous resources it made Germany to the most modern industry country in Europe and along with it was power. Since Germany had power they start to have issues and conflict in politics. Because of the conflicts and the power, Germany believe that they had to expand their country. They need more territories, colonies and more resources to compete with England and France. And from here, in Germany started to imperialism.

 

In 1900s, we could see that is was very important to expand the country and with USA it was not exception. The United States joined the war with Philippines to help their independence but shortly after that they asserted that they were tried to civilize the novice. This was just a reason for America to expand their ruler, because in Europe there was a race between Germany and England in industrialization. This could be a very good reason for the guerilla warfare because the Filipino was tried to reclaim their country and their independent from the USA. The United States ruled Philippine over Spain by fighting with them because of colonial violence but then applied exactly like what Spain did.

 

 

One potential shared experience occurring in the Philippines, Germany and India has to do with reactionary responses to imperial expansion, both internal and external. That is, large numbers of local residents tended to group together under novel social unions, both violent and nonviolent, to secure a foothold in the changing times. In Bombay, India, and in Germany in general, there is considerable economic changes taking place in the first years of the 20th century. In the former’s case, British imperial and capitalist influences culminated in the commercial viability of growing cotton en masse, while in the latter the imperial forces were internally directed to foster mass labor towards a quickly industrializing Germany. In fact, in both cases there was a push towards urbanization, and the construction of railroads for cheaper movement of goods and resources. The system of mass labor that served as the foundation, however, would not prove neutral, as industrialization gave way to certain social upheaval. A considerable amount of workers in both areas would push for unionization. Nikolas Osstoroth in Germany in particular illustrates a personal story of interest in Socialist organizing in response to labor conditions and pay.

 

The third example of social upheaval, this time in the Philippines, further illustrates the trend of some significant societal change in response to empire building, albeit in not the same nonviolent way as in the prior examples. Filipino resistance around this time to slow, methodical takeover by U.S. forces can be looked upon as a societal resistance, or adaptation, to a foreign force. Specifically, guerilla warfare employed by Filipino forces could arguably be akin to the organized social groups of unions in Bombay, and a blooming Socialist undercurrent or cause in Germany, both in response to the local changes done in the name of “empire”. In a written exchange between General James Franklin Bell and Mabini, a Filipino revolutionary, there can be seen a clash of ideals on the Filipino societal upheaval in response to U.S. intervention. On page 198 of “Race-Making and Colonial Violence in the U.S. Empire”, Bell argues that resistance was only justified if success were to be possible, and that fighting against the “impossible” would designate the losing combatants as “‘incompetent in the management of civil affairs to the extent of their ignorance of the demands of humanity”’. That is, the losing side should surrender for the sake of humanity, under the laws of “civilization”, and could be deemed uncivilized if they violate these principles. Mabini, however, greatly disagreed, pointing out that the winning side can always set the narrative, as the Americans thought “the U.S. war was ‘just and humanitarian’ because its army was powerful” (199). Guerilla warfare, in Mabini’s opinion, was not something the Filipino people expressly desired, but rather something borne out of necessity, a tactic they were “‘forced to adopt”’ (199). To Mabini, their guerilla warfare was a resistance to U.S. tyranny and rule. This resistance was the true “mark of a ‘civilized’ people” (199). In sum, a novel method of warfare practiced by Filipino forces against an encroaching U.S. presence could arguably be one of the many global responses, or backlash, to the pursuit of “empire”, as is the case with unionism and Socialist movements.

Race-Making and Colonial Violence in the U.S. Empire: The Philippine-American War as Race War by Paul A. Kramer expounds on the attempts of the Philippines to earn recognition of not only their independence, but of their status as an organized, ‘civilized’ government that could maintain order well enough to conduct its own affairs. The United States’ assertions that they were attempting to ‘civilize the barbarians’ in the Philippines (a citation here would essentially include the entire article) might provide reason to believe that if the fledgling institution could show their ‘civilized’ qualities, the U.S. might be content to recognize them as an independent nation. Kramer’s overall point that the war was primarily a race war, however, suggests otherwise. Indeed, following the fighting with Spain, the people of the Philippines did their best to demonstrate their ‘civilization’ by rebuilding telegraph lines, railroads, and other modern paraphernalia (pp. 181-2). Unsurprisingly, this meant absolutely nothing to the people of the United States. Mostly irrelevant as their efforts seem in retrospect, the endeavor was a pertinent reflection of a notion which permeated much of world politics at the time—the idea that industrialization and technological modernity indicated social complexity, ‘civilization’, and racial competency whether in the form of supremacy or equity (ie. The U.S. and Philippines respectively).

This judgement ran as an undercurrent to the political and social interactions of countries all across the world. From Cornelius Vanderbilt and the industrialization of Germany to the Philippines’ recognition efforts and Jaffa’s rise to significance in the Middle East, political, economic, and racial power—or the illusion of such power—stemmed from this idea of modernity. In some cases it was justified; Germany’s economic importance to Europe was very real, and the same can be said for the United States. The problem arose when these Western powers used their modernity to justify their atrocities committed in the name of civilization and such claims were revealed for the paltry excuses they were when the evidence to the contrary was both conspicuous and conspicuously ignored.  The painting of the people of Jaffa congregating along the bare shoreline of their harbor to gaze upon the wonders of the steam engine in the distance is a cogent reminder not of the power of the West, but of the blinding effects of bigotry and bias.

This week through two major lectures from guest professors, as well as a journal article, we learned about three new specific places throughout the world that experienced colonization and the resulting reactions that came from imperial process. These three new locations included Jaffa in Israel, Paris (and Germany), and the Philippines. Here we will synthesize similar aspects discovered across these examples to acknowledge similarities and patterns.

To begin in Paris in 1900, Professor Shaya described the Paris Universal Exposition as a total display of European advancement. Simultaneously acknowledged in the same lecture, areas of western Germany such as the Rhineland and Ruhr valley were rapidly advancing multiplying consistently in population and ability to produce. However while innovation and power seemed to dominate the narrative of Paris and the included areas of imperial Germany at this time, underneath there was a large developing workers coalition building. This occurred primarily due to the abhorrent working conditions present in many factories and mines.

A couple years later in 1902, US President Teddy Roosevelt racialized the Philippine-American war by describing it as a conflict between “savages” and non-savages. Much like the misrepresentation of what was occurring in Paris and Germany, since the United States was a much wealthier imperial power it was able to establish the narrative in order to protect their wealth and the greater status quo.

The silencing of revolutions occurring during this time occurred consistently in this period so imperial powers were able to remain in power and continue exploiting those they saw as resources.

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.