Category Archives: HIST107-Archive

Passing the Torch: Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden”

Posted on by

In 1899 Rudyard Kipling composed the poem “The White Man’s Burden” in response to the American colonization of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War. With his tone of command urging the white landowners of the United States to “Take up the White Man’s burden” ((The White Man’s Burden, 1899)), Kipling is implying that the USA must now carry the torch of imperialism once held by Great Britain as well as other European nations. Kipling’s message is one of command and warning, by implying that if the United States is to become an imperial power it must commit fully to the duty and complexities inherent with this position of power. It is clearly no small task, as it requires large economic burdens as well as a large commitment of manpower to travel and conquer foreign lands.

When I first read this last year I thought it was satire. Kipling seemed to be bashing the United States for its growing imperial presence in the world with what I confused as his almost-sarcastic tone. However once I realized he was serious, consequences and costs were easier to understand. However after taking my Senior Seminar on Empire last semester, I learned about the many different imperialist nations throughout history as well as what it takes to be not only an empire, but imperialist as well. In this poem, Kipling outlines several of the tenets to imperialism:

To be imperialist, a state must dehumanize a civilization and use them as the foundation for a colonialized civilization. In the first stanza Kipling highlights this with “Your new-caught sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.” ((The White Man’s Burden, 1899)), inferring that a powerful state has overtaken a much smaller, foreign state and dehumanizing its people in the process.

As our class established last semester, a state must not only dominate indigenous folk, but it must also exploit them in favor of the colonizing state. Kipling highlights this in the second stanza with “To seek another’s profit, And work another’s gain” ((The White Man’s Burden, 1899)), explaining that colonists are using the indigenous people’s economic source for the benefit of the colonizing state.

In those two stanzas Rudyard Kipling clearly outlines two of the most important tenets to imperialism: dominating a foreign population and siphoning their natural resources into the economy of the colonizing nation. Although this is essential to the imperialist process, it is a cruel and unforgiving ritual. The colonized state is reduced to little more than a slave state through the process called imperialism, and those indigenous people’s lives suffer as a consequence.

For class tomorrow, I pose these questions:

Where else in history have we seen these same things happen? When has a world power taken over a much weaker power in order to exploit it for various (economic, military strategic, etc.) reasons? What was the reasoning behind this takeover? Was it easily justified?

A Critique of Imperialism

Posted on by

Ernest_William_Hobson_DMD1920

John Hobson argued that the capitalist market drove the imperialistic trend of the late 1800s, as opposed to nationalism. ((John Hobson, Imperialism, 1901)) Much like colonialism, imperialism is a policy that allows for one country to take control over another, generally by military force. Hobson was writing Imperialism in London just after the Long Depression, one of the worst recessions in history. The depression affected economies worldwide; however, England took the hardest hit. Being in the midst of all the economic failure around him must have prompted Hobson to criticize imperialism. Although many people were literate in England at this time, Hobson was most likely writing for Parliamentary members because they had the most political influence. 

 
Hobson argued that nationalism was a term being used too loosely; he inferred that imperialism couldn’t be considered a nationalist policy because it involved people in the empire who were not geographically, culturally, or linguistically bound. ((John Hobson, Imperialism, 1901)) He called out the British government for not focusing on their political and economic problems instead spreading their power to other parts of the world that were not asking to be controlled. ((John Hobson, Imperialism, 1901)) Hobson’s intent with this piece was essentially to tell the British government to get their act together and deal with their issues rather than create more problems in other parts of the world.

Morel’s Morals

Posted on by

Edward Morel was born in France in 1873, although he attended school in Britain and eventually became a naturalized British citizen in 1896. Throughout his life he held various jobs and was known as a British journalist, author, pacifist and politician. In 1899, Rudyard Kipling wrote “The White Man’s Burden” which celebrated colonialism and discussed the duty of the white man to civilize ‘savage’ populations. ((Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden, 1899)) Morel wrote The Black Man’s Burden in direct response to this work by Kipling. In The Black Man’s Burden, he discussed how colonialism decimated African populations through famine, forced labor and disease as well as by destroying social ties and breaking their spirits. ((Edward Morel, The Black Man’s Burden, 1903)) In this time period, there were few advocates for African rights but Morel developed an uncommon sympathy and respect for African cultures earlier in his life when working for a British shipping company. When looking at this company’s trade between Belgium and the Congo, Morel saw that no commercial goods were brought to the Congo, but valuable natural resources were brought back. Morel explored this relationship more, realizing that the resources were brought back at the expense of the native African people. He resigned his job at the shipping company and began to campaign against Congo misrule. He published his own magazine and started the Congo Reform Association to advocate for change in colonial practices in the Congo.

African colonies in 1914.

African colonies in 1914.

Morel was an unusual case for his time in Britain as many were supportive of imperialism and its ability to provide economic benefits to the controlling country. He spoke out against imperialism and brought many other prominent figures into the Congo Reform Association, eventually succeeding in changing the colonial rule there. Do you think that support from British citizens was necessary for change in colonial practices or would the suppressed peoples eventually have resisted and demanded this change for themselves? Did Morel go far enough in demanding better conditions for laborers or should he have advocated for no longer having colonies?

United Nation?

Posted on by

There was a lot of tension leading up the Austro-Prussian War also known as the Seven Week’ War. The war was fought between the Austrian Empire with the aid of Germans, and Prussia who was also aided by the Germans and Italy. Prussia ended up winning the war and therefore took control of the German states, leaving Austria as a separate country. In the first set of documents, there are several passages that show the build up to the War. In the first text, Johann Gustav Droysen, a German historian, discusses the relationship between Germany and Prussia where he implies that Prussia is already a part of Germany. Otto von Bismark, an advisor to the King of Prussia states in some of the later passages that he foresees a need for a war between Prussia and Austria because Germany is too small for both to exist under its reign. In the end, Prussia and Germany do end up uniting, creating one nation. The Imperial Proclamation states this newfound concept of unity and nationality which Mazzini discusses in his text. Mazzini, a leader in the Italian unification states that the people of Italy were fighting for the unification of their country. This idea of unification is brought up throughout the texts as either being spread throughout Europe or through each country’s individual will.

Image result for american flag

America is a very powerful, strong nation. We take our national pride very seriously, but recently I feel as though there has been a divide within the nation; or maybe this divide has always existed. A country made up of so many people from many different backgrounds is hard to unify. Do you think America is truly a united nation?

Redrawing the Map of Europe

Posted on by

Europe witnessed a dramatic rise in nationalist fervor in the middle of the nineteenth century, leading to the unification of Italy and the German states. Giuseppe Mazzini’s On Nationality highlighted the trend towards uprisings under the banner of liberty rather than uprisings for the sake of power or wealth. ((Giuseppe Mazzini, On Nationality, 1852)) With cries for liberty came cries countries to be united based on nationality. Mazzini campaigned for Italy to be a country comprised of “a human group called by its geographical position, its traditions, and its language,” which he believed would result in a peaceful nation of common peoples. ((Mazzini, On Nationality)) Mazzini, a politician and the driving force behind the movement for Italian unification, wrote to convince his contemporaries of a necessary redrawing of the map of Europe, with nationality rather than conquest being the basis for borders. Concurrently, the multitude of German states had become an object of war between Prussia and Austria.

Italian-Unification-Cavour-Mazzini-Garibaldi-300x234

Giuseppe Mazzini, Count Camillo di Cavour, and Giuseppe Garibaldi, “Fathers of the Fatherland”

In 1849, National Assembly in Frankfurt offered the German crown to the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm IV. ((Johann Gustav Droysen, Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly,1848)) In an earlier speech, Johann Gustav Droysen, a member of the assembly, argued for the superiority of Prussia over Austria because Prussia’s monarchy was “wholly German.” A Prussian Imperial Proclamation accepting the German crown in 1871 reiterated this nationalist connection. Wilhelm acquired power over Germany as a “duty to [their] common fatherland,” and asserted responsible for protecting the rights of all those in the German Empire. ((The Imperial Proclamation, 1871)) The simultaneous unifications of both nations were symptoms of nationalist zeal and a desire to live amongst, and be ruled by kinsmen. While considering the role nationalism played in shaping our understanding of nations and borders, I want to ask what influences (i.e. the French Revolution) may have spurred on the fervor in the nineteenth century, and what examples of nationalism exist today.

Italian Nationalism and Unification

Posted on by

Giuseppe Mazzini was an Italian nationalist who played a large role in the nationalist movement in Italy. In 1852, Mazzini published some of his work that focused on nationalism and the need for a unified democratic state of Italy. Mazzini mentioned in his writing that the people from the revolution in Vienna were fighting for something more than just material possessions; they were fighting for their nation.[i] The revolution in Vienna was in context with Mazzini trying to propose a unified state. He was looking to unify the people of Italy to rid their beloved nation of those who occupied it, the Austrians, and create a democratic state for Italy to be run. By ridding the state of Italy of the Austrians, Italy could be free to run themselves and prosper on their own.

In the documents of Italian unification, the Program of Count Cavour 1846 provides a point towards Mazzini’s thinking that opposes it even though it was before him. It states that “Nationalism has become general; it grows daily; and it has already grown strong enough to keep all parts of Italy united despite the differences that distinguish them”. [ii] If nationalism is growing every day then would it be easier for Mazzini to achieve his goal of a unified democratic state of Italy? If this concept grows then it will reach numerous people every day which will contribute to the nationalist movement started by Mazzini.

[i] Giuseppe Mazzin: On Nationality, 1852

[ii] Documents of Italian Unification, 1846-61

German Unification

Posted on by

Otto von Bismarck was a Prussian Statesman and a close adviser to the King of Prussia, Wilhelm I.  Upon further research, I discovered that he was born in a part of Germany under Prussian rule and would later attend the University of Berlin.  At the time this was written in , Prussia had just one a major battle over Austria in the war between the two countries.  In Bismarck’s Memoirs, he uses language that identifies with the emotions of panic and dread.  He writes certain phrases such as, “A painful illness from which I was suffering…”, and how he, “…begged the king…” ((Memoirs, Otto von Bismarck)) .  His audience for this piece would be for the king of Prussia, as well as the Prussian council deciding if Prussia should continue the war against Austria.  Bismarck’s intent of his memoir was to convince the King to stop his acquisition of new territory from Prussia, and to unify the German states under Prussian rule.  He suggests that Prussia cease fighting and create a peace treaty with Austria.  Bismarck adds that there is no value in acquiring land that would have a rebellious nature towards Prussian rule.  On the topic of the German states they had acquired,  Bismarck tells the King to not mutilate these newly gained territories but instead unite them as one country.  Under Prussian rule, Bismarck theorized that a unified Germany would be less inclined to rebel and would benefit both sides.  Under this policy, it seems that Prussian rule would become more popular in the former Austrian controlled German states.

How does Bismarck’s background affect his advice to the King of Prussia?

Would it have been more beneficial for Prussia to have strict control over the German states, or do you agree with Bismarck’s philosophy of having control over a more autonomous Germany?

Doomed to a Cycle or Constantly Improving?

Posted on by

The Marquis de Condorcet’s believed one day humankind would reach a future where the individual could be free to reason for himself and there would be no more positions of power such as tyrants or priests. ((Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, 1795)) He wrote that this future would have equality between nations, equality between individuals, and where decisions are made based on science and rationalization. ((Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, 1795)) His view directly opposes Marx’s idea we heard in class the other day, that there must be oppressors and oppressed in society until the oppressed overthrow the oppressors in a revolution. He based his argument off general world history, starting with slave owners and slaves, lords and serfs, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
In order to believe in Condorcet’s idea that there is an end all society in the future we must see that there have been large steps forward in equality. Is our world more equal and more based on rational thought than it was one hundred years ago? How about two hundred years ago? It’s very difficult to answer this question in a global setting, so I ask that we focus domestically, on the United States. From Marx’s view, is there an oppressed people in the U.S?  It is difficult for many people to see any citizen of the U.S as oppressed, due to our status as a world power, and they are right. Compared to most places in the world we could not be viewed as oppressed. But solely within our country, when looking back, there has never been such a gap in income inequality. In history, the people with power have that power due to their wealth. For the slave owners and lords they owned people and land. The Bourgeoisie owned private property. The majority of the money in the U.S is in the top five percent. When looking at income inequality from this perspective, is it fair to say that there is an oppressor and oppressed in the U.S? Furthermore, do they hold a power over us that we are unaware of?

Does the “Tyranny of the Majority” Exist Today?

Posted on by

Marquis de Condorcet and John Stuart Mill write about equality, perfection, and liberty in late 18th-early 19th century Europe. Condorcet, who wrote Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind while in hiding, presents his hopes for the future well-being of society. These hopes consists of the elimination of inequality between nations, equality progression within each respective nation, and the true perfection of mankind. ((Marquis de Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind)) Condorcet’s hopefulness arises from his confidence of the Enlightenment period. He predicts that “the time will therefore come when the sun will shine only on free man who knows no other master but their own.” ((Mill, On Liberty)) Determined that the Enlightenment will bring about the best in individuals and society, Condorcet believes that absolutism and tyranny are gone and will not repeat themselves. While Mill also believes that government as a result of the Enlightenment will become significantly less repressive, he still thinks that complete liberty is impossible. Mill writes about society’s restriction on individual power, and how individuals have the power to express their ideals and beliefs—but still limited in some regard. He believes that the majority’s power over the minority in terms of public opinion, the “tyranny of the majority” can lead to the potential exclusion of the minority, and this infringes on the individual’s sense of being in society. Towards the end of his piece, he states that liberty, which all individuals should have, consists of having a conscience, having the ability to pursue goals, and working with others for greater good. ((Mill, On Liberty)) He implies that nonconformity should not be shunned, but unfortunately it sometimes is in society. Therefore, restrictions on liberty exist, according to Mill.

Freedom of speech and expression can be dangerous sometimes, as can lack of freedom of speech and expression. I believe that the potential effects of “tyranny of the majority” are not present in today’s society as much as they had been years ago. Because of the expanding mediums for free speech through public forums on social media, individuals are becoming less concerned with what they say. Furthermore, the plethora of issues in the world today contribute to proposed solutions and opinions, which inevitably lead to vastly different opinions of how to address the issues. Therefore, the “tyranny of the majority” has dwindled in today’s social media era, as increasing world issues have led to an increase in diversity of beliefs and opinions. People have more freedom to say what they wish, but not complete freedom. Even if a majority opinion exists, individuals are not shunned for not conforming to that certain opinion because society today is becoming more progressive and thus more accepting of other beliefs.

In an ideal society, should freedom of speech be limited? Do you think the “tyranny of the majority” exists today? And do you think true perfection, as Condorcet says, is attainable?

Standards too Static? Two Perspectives on Rule

Posted on by

The Danger of ExpectationsPhoto Credit:

John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” touched on salient points of contention following the Enlightenment Period, specifically on “the nature and limit of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society” ((On Liberty, 1859)).  One can interpret this as how much restriction these leaders should rule with, and with how these rulers should go about administering these restrictions.

Mill also references the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ as the source of these problems as well.  On top of that, Mill also mentions that these rulers won’t just act through political authority, which “leaves fewer means for escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself” ((On Liberty, 1859)).  Mill means to explicate the notion that this political rule does not stop at general regulation such as taxes, but has a psychological effect on the masses as well.  To clarify, rulers had rather poor relationships with the public in mid-1850s Europe.  Mill compared rulers to vultures when he said that those under rule had a “perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws” ((On Liberty, 1859)), and the oppressed masses their prey.  Mill is trying to give us the perspective that these commoners had little to no communication with their ruler, which not only portrays a bad image of the ruler, but also puts the public at a disadvantage in expressing their needs and interests to those who can influence leaders and rulers.  Mill then poses the question of where the limits of power should be placed in regards to rulers and control over their people.  Mill’s suggestions allude to the idea that these should be concrete and unmoving standards.

Having previously read pieces of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” ((The Prince, 1532))  and agreeing with many of his concepts, I disagree with Mill’s finite standards.  Obviously Machiavelli suggests a much more dynamic system, where regulations and liberties are dependent on present circumstances.  Machiavelli also prescribes a bit of a more lax-but-distanced relationship between ruler and subject, which I find paramount in a monarchy.  You don’t want the people you rule to revolt against you, so you at least have to be somewhat receptive of their plights and opinions.  We see this fluctuation of activity in the European Union, where member states submit a monetary allotment for approval.

I believe liberties and regulations should be ever-changing; with fluctuation it is difficult to get stuck with limits that may not fit the needs of your state or your subjects should a sudden crisis occur.  More importantly this will not set any unrealistic standards for the future of your state, thus allowing you to eliminate any expectations or speculation the public may have of the future governance of their state (another important facet of “The Prince”).  I do not believe that expectations are a truly horrible thing, but in society in regards to government large expectations can sometimes lead to unrest and/or revolt if too many things are kept static.

How would you rule?  Do you think static limits and liberties are more advantageous than dynamic regulations?  Why?