The beginning of chapter 23 starts us off with the
end of empires in world history. In the 1900s, European colonial rule over
Africa and Asian seemed to be something permanent that would remain with the
countries the British were in control of. Not long after that the end of
empires and colonial rule is gone. The book notes that the first major
breakthroughs started with Asian and the Middle East when multiple other
surrounding countries gained their own independence such as Burma, India,
Pakistan, etc.
What
was different about these calls for independence was the main want of having
their own national identity and not to be grouped with the ruling nation. An
example to his would be the America’s throwing off British, French, Spanish and
Portuguese rule from their colonies. We can thus compare America’s take with
Asia and Africa’s want for Independence. There were a few differences between
the two. Both did want equal international status to that of their formal
rulers, but many colonized people were from European origin also sharing in
their culture, in the Americas. This was not the same case however for Asia and
Africa. They not only wanted political independence but they also wanted to
affirm their own cultures that had been pushed aside during the colonial era.
This
sense of ending European rule however was not always a widespread idea, not did
it come quickly to mind right away in those countries. The book then arises the
question of, how then did the empires meet their end? The book notes three
different approaches in explaining this. One approach says that the
“fundamental contradictions in the entire colonial enterprise…rendered its
demise…inevitable.” The book states it that, colonial rule had dug its own
grave. The values they held in course with their actions were opposite and did
not work overall together. One example the book mentions is that, “The
increasingly democratic values of European states ran counter to the essential
dictatorship of colonial rule.” Another question that arouse from this was the
timing around the fall of the colonial rulings and what prompted it to happen.
Historians note this as the notion of “conjuncture”, which is the coming of
several different factors and developments coming at the same time. Social and economic circumstances within the
colonies caused a move towards anti- colonialism. The third approach that
historians put the focus on are specific people’s and groups who deliberately
wanted to bring down colonialism.
Two
specific instances that the book feeds us with are the strive of Independence
in India and in South Africa. Both accounts are similar, yet completely
separate from each other as well. India was under British colonization and achieved
it overall through peaceful protests with such help from leaders as Mohandas
Gandhi. India received its independence when Britain left the country to go to
WWII. However, India gained its independence as two separate countries, as
secular mostly Hindu India, and Muslim Pakistan. Because of this separation of
religions within India this cause for many of their people to die and many
refugees having to move to be with their respective religious groups.
Africa
on the other hand already had their independence in 1910. The struggle that
South Africa had “… was against the internal opponent rather than against the
distant colonial authority.” South Africa had white English people, who
represented less than 20% of the overall population, which was part of the
reason for black South Africans to want this “independence.” However, unlike
India which gained their independence through mostly peaceful movements,
whereas it didn’t work well at all with Africa. Once Africa did win their
freedom, they also dealt with division, having to do with religion or race, any
other factors, as well.
The
book gave these two countries to compare how they achieved independence, as
well as noting that circumstances were not the same when taking in a deeper
look.
No comments:
Post a Comment