MAKING OF THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

From the first half of the lecture on Wednesday, the guest professor talked mainly about Germany in the 1900s. He specifically referred to the Rhinelands and Ruhr Valley region of Germany. These parts of Germany were the farmland region but became the steel region in the early 1900s. This area now becoming the steel region, began shaping the rest of Europe because some of the most industrialized companies were located in this region.  Germany was not a main force in the world or in Europe prior to the beginning of the 18th century, then became a powerful force shortly after. Germany became a powerful country from 1871-1918 and pretty much stayed powerful for most of their history. I think this is interesting, because Germany went from being a mainly agricultural country to an industrial one when they realized they had the resources and potential to become a force in the world.  If they did not realize this when they did, they may not have ever became as powerful as they were and are today. In Germany iron ore and coal was plentiful, which was very beneficial for them to start a steel industry there. Without these two natural resources it would have been extremely difficult for Germany to become as successful as they did. However, since these two resources were plentiful, it allowed Germany to emerge as a foremost industrial power of Europe. This growth of power produced enormous wealth, created social dislocation, new political conflicts and a new German role in the world. This new role in the world lead Germany to believe they needed more arms in their military, especially the navy in order to compete with Great Britain; and more colonies/territories in order to expand German rule. All of these factors turned Germany into a powerful force in Europe which lead to them being one of the main countries on the Central Powers side in WWI.

Looking at lectures and readings from this week, one theme stuck out to me. As regions started to modernize, there were periods of rapid urbanization. Due to this urbanization, there was much instance of the creation of leftist and progressive ideas. After listening to the lectures on Germany and Bombay, there were a lot of parallels that were interesting to see.

With Germany’s rapid industrialization following their unification in the late 19th century, massive amounts of people moved into city centers for better opportunity and more money. With availability of capital and resources, industrialists saw it as a gateway to riches. This in turn caused terrible working conditions. Similarly, in the city of Bombay, there was much instance of industrialization as a result the Suez canal, which opened up India to European markets. British bankers took control of farms through their lending. What ensued was major investments, both agriculturally and industrially.

What I found interesting was that in both instances, progressive ideas sprung out of the extreme urbanization. In India, their independence party, which would eventually lead India to independence from Britain, was formed. In Germany, socialist parties rose, which spread nationalistic ideas.

I think these nationalistic ideas, as well as progressive ideas, spread so much during this era as a result of the urbanization. With large groups of people so tightly packed together, the spread of ideas becomes a lot easier. Also, with terrible working conditions, individuals are bound to rebel against such aggression.

I think this can also connect to Kramer’s writing on Philippine relations with the United States. Kramer shared an account from a soldier stating that “the subsequent war would not have broken out if the army of occupation would have treated [Filipinos] as people” (Kramer 174). I think that the overarching idea is that people are bound to react if they are treated poorly. They will look to better their society, whether it be by war or by politics. I think that Germany, Bombay, and the Philippines took very different routes on their historical journeys, but there were many overlapping reasons for the political and social unrest seen in the regions.

Overall, I think the theme of urbanization and industrialization causing great social unrest is very prevalent in all the areas that we discussed and read about this week. People are bound to revolt when they can share their ideas of unhappiness with each other. However, it is interesting to see the different reactions each area has. I think that plays into the different issues each group was facing as a whole. (ie. treatment, working conditions, ect.)

Through much of the readings and lectures, particulary on todays reading ” Race-Making and Colonial Violence in the U.S. Empire” you get a sense of imperilaism being justified or even caused by nationalism. To have such pride and belief in ones nation, religion and culture to only want the same for others. In fridays reading the dialogue wavers between narrators admiring the filipinos yet then some rejecting the filipinos so called “savage” ways of warfare. However as stated as well in the reading on page 174, certianly not civilized actions were recorded such as robbing, ravishing and kicking those who complained by U.S soldiers. This cannot be mistaken though as many U.S soldier did not do this as the same goes for not all Filiponos were “savages”.  In my opinion, the Filipinos were much like early america, fighting for their independence from a higher authority after being seperated. America fighting for independence and against taxation from europe while in their scenario the Filipinos heard rumor of america looking for replacement slaves and fought ever so more for independence and national identity. The U.S justified their actions of war and racial slurs with their nationalism, believing in their superiority and “civil” ways. Providing a promise of civilizing the “savages” for their own good, much better than the filipinos own nationalism. Similar scenarios occured in Jaffa were the difference between civilizing and helping the people of the ottoman empire or overextending their jurisdiction and taking advantage of them became a blurry line. Its another case of pride in nationalism to assimilate their ideals and influence into another civilization without much consideration for the civilization itself. This can also be seen by other nations such as france and ethiopia.

This week in class we revolved our lectures around the idea of innovation and the expansion of certain countries.  Throughout the lectures we learned that where the money can be earned is where the people will follow, and begin to settle there.  In contrast to the past statements, we also learned about the city of Jaffa which struggled harshly due to their limited resources and bad landscape along the port.

Jaffa was a small city on the western seaboard of the Mediterranean Sea.  The city suffered from lower levels of minerals and agriculture needs.  To make things worse the city has one of the worst ports in the Mediterranean, which is extremely shallow, has massive offshore rocks, and has natural breakwater.  This makes it impossible for larger cargo ship to port, which forces the citizens to take small boats to the anchored ship to gather the goods that are on the ship.  The city of Jaffa became the example and the vocal point of change in the 19th Century.

In Europe in the 19th century one town became the pub for industrialization. Known as the Rhineland and Ruhr Valley became known as the central location for industrialization and development.  This due to the many jobs it offered and the money it was able to produce as well the products that were being produced as well.  Another town that became famous for their involvement was the town of Cologne, which caused the mass movement of people there in order to produce steel. These massive movements helped Germany produce enormous wealth, created social dislocation, and helped get them involved in the arms race.  Another country that increased producing by the end of the 19th Century was Bombay, otherwise known as the “Mill Village.”  The country from having one mill in 1856 to having 136 by the start of the 20th Century.  The mills employed over a forth of the country giving them good lives and bring money into the country as well.  The cotton was production was very well supported by the global support of trade and Bombays port location.  Bombay was put on the map by their efforts to make the city as industrialized as possible by increasing ways of transportation by railroads. Another beneficiary is their easy access to materials and trade resources.

As you can see location means everything to the countries how how they are able to grow and develop.  As you can see countries with mainstream ports and good resources tend to adapt better and are more likely to bring in money, which isn’t the case with Jaffa.  They struggle geographically therefore life is difficult and money is hard to bring in.

As we dwell on the multitude of different ideas and cultures of the start of the 20th centruy we notice a trend amongst most countries or regions. This trend is best categorized as a “dissatisfaction” of the political or cultural landscape of one’s country.  This is most prevalent in places such as Eastern Asia or South America during this period. Rio De Janeiro is indicative of this ideology through their attempts at westernization and incentivizing immigration to their country. They attempted to “westernize” their city through redesigning their infrastructure to emulate that of western Europe as well as incentivizing immigrants from the western world to come to Rio in an attempt to slowly make the dominant race in Rio one that was synonymous to the Western world.

Similarly, we see Eastern Asia attempt this as well in the form of “De-Asianization”. Japan during this era is another place that is indicative of the belief that countries had a dissatisfaction with their current landscape which they usually viewed as atavistic. They thought that “modern civilization was incompatible with the old customs of japan, and if we were to reject the old customs the government too would be abolished at the same time.” (Fukuzawa 130). This quote indicates that japan not only viewed their government as archaic but rather if they did not change this government soon the rest of the world would eventually triumph over them, ultimately leading to their demise.

All in all, countries did not attempt to emulate the western world out of superficiality or out of certain subjective beliefs. they wholeheartedly viewed the western world as the pioneer in a new era that they felt they needed to become a part of in order to survive. They felt threatened by the advancements and felt the need for urgent change otherwise they would lose their own freedoms which they valued more than anything.

The concepts brought about by Yukichi in his writing seek to recognise the change in his country brought about through the influence of Western culture, both actively and subtly. It deals with the fact that Japan had to abandon it’s conceptions of itself and it’s place in the greater world in order to advance on a planet dominated by technologically advanced European empires. He purposefully recognizes how there was no other choice for his nation but to modernize emulating the West, because resistance to that concept would have just resulted in the island’s colonization, like had been done to most of the planet by these Empires. Thereby his nuanced understanding stems from the fact that through a self started modernisation, which involved multiple factors like an overthrowal of the old shogunate and the opening up of education to the masses, Japan was able to actively take a role in what it’s future would be. By having the choice of altering the parts of the culture they wish to sustain while phasing out the aspects that could no longer function in a modern state, they were able to forge their own empire in a Western dominated world instead of being those oppressed by it.

He then contrasts a modern Japanese nation-state to the countries of China and Korea in order to articulate what could have possibly happened to Japan had they not taken the active steps to dramatically change their society. Yukichi states that both countries are too held back by their beliefs in ancient systems like confucianism and through that too held to it’s concepts of “civility” and “humanity” to the point where it gives them an arrogance, which fuels their wish to remain static. He insinuates that in a Western dominated world, it is unsustainable to maintain that line of thought and also maintain an independence. He then further laminates on how each of those countries pushes a perception of Japanese backwardness on Westerners because of their close proximity, striking out against China and Korea for their backwardness but doesn’t try and critique the West for combining these vastly different nations under one banner. His lack of critique for the West is manifested again and again in this piece which shows a lack of depth in reasoning why Japan had to be pushed in the first place, just understanding that is the current state of affairs rather than seeking to criticize it.