Category: Exploration

In the New World, Africans were not only marginalized from cultural, ethnic, and social roots. They ceased to be regarded as individuals. There was a situation where differences in geographical position, social past, languages, religious beliefs, huge distances from the homeland, and scattering throughout the colonial territory did not allow for to creation of a social institution for the preservation and development of paternal African culture. The Africans were forced to adapt to a new alien and hostile environment. The process of linguistic, everyday, and socio-cultural assimilation of the Negro population began. It took over the traditions, customs, skills, and English language. This was also facilitated by the accession of Africans to Christianity. The broad missionary activities of the Baptists and Methodists laid new emotional and psychological bonds – a religion that gave the Nephites the hope of salvation, and liberation from suffering and gave meaning to their lives. This formed the objective preconditions for the emergence of a new social-racial community. The formation of the brotherly ties was influenced by racial discrimination, the ideology of ‘white superiority’, and the lifelong ‘racial inferiority’ of the black ones. The ideas of racism deeply penetrated the consciousness of the American colonists, retarding the pace of assimilation that was different in the Southern and Northern colonies. Despite the fact that throughout the New World, slavery was perceived as a mere fact, the socio-cultural, and economic situation in New England created more favorable conditions for the cultural assimilation of peoples. The multidisciplinary economy, the prevalence of farming, and the development of cities required skilled labor for slaves, which were often considered family members. They directly encountered home life, the work of white masters. Increased racial mixing, as a result of which the mulatto became part of the black population, the local in particular. In the middle of the XVIII century in the cities of New England, a stratum of free blacks appeared. On May 31, 1638, the well-known leader of the American Puritans and the founder of Connecticut Thomas Hooker delivered his first sermon at the First Church of Hartford. It said that ‘the foundation of power is based on the free consent of people, emphasizing the democratic principle of electoral power in a new colony. Thomas Hooker advocated greater religious tolerance with respect to all Christian denominations. He believed that, due to the will of God and His law, people have the right not only to elect their officials and judges but also to determine the limits of their authority. Thomas Hooker, as one of the most authoritative priests and statesmen who managed to organize the functioning of democratic processes in American colonies, is rightfully considered one of the ‘founding fathers of the United States’ and ‘father of American democracy.’

Western Christianity is a term used to denote the religious cult of the Latin model and a number of religious denominations that have common attributes attributable to Catholicism due to the long, common, historical past (Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc.). In the early two centuries of Western Christianity, there is a period of absence of a church organization as such, there were no clerics, dogmas of faith, developed cults, administrative persons, etc. This is the period of the existence of prophets, preachers, and apostles. They now believe that they had charisma, that is, the ability to teach, preach, create miracles, or heal the gifts of God’s spirit. There are first Christian communities. The plundering of Rome in 1527, its destruction by the soldiers of Emperor Charles V, and the actual captivity of Pope Roman Clement VII, had significant political, moral, religious, and artistic consequences. As a defeated side, the pope under the pressure of the emperor renounced the rights to Civitavecchia and Modena, Parma, and Piacenza. Forcibly he agreed to the coronation of Emperor Charles V and also the emperor of Italy. This greatly weakened the political positions of the Pope in Italy and in Europe. The tragic events in Rome prompted Charles V’s coronation to be moved to the city of Bologna because there was no unharmed or unspoiled church in Rome worthy of taking guests and a pompous emperor’s suite. Strengthening its position is European Protestantism – because of the decline of the authority of papal authority. In Germany, the mantle of Lutheranism has become. In England arose Anglicanism, where the head of the doctrine was the secular ruler – King Henry VIII. As a result, Britain officially refused to send money to Rome and did not recognize the rule of the pope in the state. The 6th century was the epoch of expansion of the Anglo-Saxon conquerors of Britain, and it ended with their undivided domination of the island. The Celtic peoples of the north and west of Britain who practiced Christianity (the Picts, the Scots, and the Britons) remained independent but retreated before the onslaught of the German-speaking newcomers.

The years 1620-1760 caused immense changes to the North American continent. The Native Americans first encountered European pilgrims, and in the blink of the eye, saw their world change by European pioneers. Not only did the Europeans venture to the Americas, but they also traveled to Africa. There they established a transatlantic slave exchange. This slave exchange would begin a different cultural and financial system; where the pigment of skin determines whether that person might live as a free man or be a slave for the rest of their life.

The development of Western seaborne slave exchange to Africa dates back 50 years to Columbus’s first journey to the Americas. This originated with the Portuguese, who traveled to West Africa in pursuit of gold. Prince Henry, a wealthy Portuguese founder, wished to introduce prosperity in Portugal, supported its first Europeans to exchange onto the West Coast of Africa. Portuguese sailors first received gold dust from merchants on the west coast of Africa in 1441. Portuguese traders arrived from Africa the next year with further gold dust and yet another cargo: ten Africans (Clark et al.).

Forty years after that first human shipment sailed to Portugal, Portuguese sailors were authorized by a prominent African chief to establish a trade station on the coast of Guinea. It was near an area that had been exploited for gold for many years and was named Elmina. While initially constructed to exchange in gold and ivy and other commodities, Elmina was one of many trading routes established by Europeans along the west coast of Africa that would also result in Africans being imported (Clark et al.).

Approximately 200,000 Africans were already exported to Europe and the Pacific islands by the end of the 16th century. However, after Columbus ‘ journeys, slave traders discovered a different slave market: New World plantation. Colonists have switched to the swift and lucrative production of sugar in the Spanish Caribbean islands and Brazil by the mid-1500s, a plant that required extensive focus and hard work. They tried to persuade native Americans, but many died as a result of European-led diseases. Thus, the remaining Indians did not want any part of the work, returning to the land they came to know. Through recruiting slave laborers from Africa, European settlers sought a solution to their increasing labor shortages.

Some think the first Africans in Virginia were indentured servants, similar to the white indentured servants. Despite the word ‘servant’ on paper, Africans will always look as unconventional and treated negatively. In any case, bondage evolved rapidly toward the standard work relations between black and white in the New World. All of them were indentured. They had been fed and housed during their tenure as servants. They would then be granted ‘freedom dues,’ which typically included a piece of land and provisions. No matter the pigment of skin, the people become independent. The indentured servants started to pose a threat to the property-owning aristocracy, mainly after they were released. The colonial government had imposed restrictions on the fields accessible, causing discontent amongst recently released indentured servants.

Massachusetts became the first state to acknowledge slavery officially in 1641. Many jurisdictions also followed, like Virginia. Virginia agreed in 1662 that all children who are born to slave parents would also become slaves. Slavery was not simply a condition that lasted till death; it could now be passed from generation after generation.

Virginians required work to develop corn and to develop tobacco for trade. Unlike Columbus, the Virginians could not compel the Native Americans to work for them. Despite being able to massacre the Indians, the Indians outnumbered the Englishmen and will suffer carnage. It was impossible to capture and enslave the Indians because “the Chesapeake tribes were too well armed, too numerous, and too familiar with the countryside to be easily enslaved” (Clark et al.) as the Englishmen were not.

Therefore, African slaves transpired the solution. The Africans powerlessness made oppression simpler. Native Americans had property. The Englishmen were associated with their European culture, so they were not going to enslave themselves. The Africans were ripped from their territories and civilization, constrained into a circumstance where their way of communication and customs was destroyed.

The circumstances of the Africans once captured were horrifying. The captives were stored in pens naked till all were selected and sold on land. They were pressed on board the slave ships, fastened collectively in obscurity, and sat in the smell of their fecal matter (Clark et al.).

On one event, hearing an extraordinary commotion from under the deck, where Africans were affixed collectively, the crew ship found the slaves in various phases of asphyxiation and some lifeless. Slaves frequently hopped overboard to drown instead of proceeding with their misery. One observed that the deck was “so covered with blood and mucus that it resembled a slaughterhouse” (Clark et al.).

A statute established in 1639 declared “all persons except Negroes” were to bear firearms and ammo. Three servants strived to flee in 1640; the two whites received extended sentencing to their labor and be that as it may, “the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his master for the rest of his life” (Professor Hayes).

In the seventeenth century, there is proof that English servants and Africans discovered they had the same issues, labor, a shared adversary in their masters, they carried on toward each other as equals. Black and white cooperated, associated together. The fact that laws must be passed to preclude such relations shows the quality of that inclination. A statute was established in Virginia “in case any English servant shall run away in the company of any Negroes” (Clark et al.), the person would need to give additional work more years to the commander of the delinquent negro. Accommodated this expulsion of any Virginia states, “white man or woman being free who shall intermarry with a negro, mulatoo, or Indian man or woman bond or free” (Clark et al.).

A significant contrast amidst a sentiment of ethnic abnormality and the large subjugation of many dark individuals that occurred in America. Subjection developed as some plantation framework developed. In Virginia, by 1763, there were about 170,00, who make about a large portion of the populace.

The framework was mental and physical simultaneously. Slaves were shown discipline, intrigued over with the possibility of their mediocrity to ‘know where you belong’, and acknowledge obscurity to remain an indication of subjection. In order to achieve this, there was the development of intoxicating labor, the detachment of the bondsman family, the construction of diversion between slaves by isolating them into farmland and particularly house slaves, lastly, the intensity of law and the prompt intensity of the owner to order beating and demise.

There is a complicated network of verifiable series to entrap Africans for subjugation: the franticness of hungry pilgrims, defenselessness concerning those uprooted Africans, enticement of official status to poor whites, and the intricate controls against getaway and defiance.

To what degree were the global strategies of Western governments in the twentieth century informed by a colonialist understanding?

In the twentieth century, the wind of change was blowing in the global world, according to a historically significant speech addressed by the British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan. Macmillan claimed the global policies of the British and other Western colonist countries would take account of the growth of national consciousness in African and Asia regions. However, this assignment is going to argue that, in the twentieth century, the most major global strategies made by Western governments were still chiefly informed by a colonialist understanding of the world, through examples about the causes of the decolonization of India, and the American changing attitudes of European empires and the Marshall Plan.

“The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it.”

· Harold Macmillan

During the speech, Macmillan (1960) believed the decolonization would happen due to the kindness of the British Empire to “take account of” the feelings of the people in their colonized regions, and yet the British strategy of leaving India in 1947 did not mean any kindness and made a massive migration to divided India into three parts. Firstly, the British left because they focused on their own interests, and maintaining control of India at that time was not profitable but became a huge financial burden to the British Empire. The economic conditions in Britain were affected by the Second World War, Harris (2001) also states that the old imperial economic systems of the British Empire collapsed after the war. Even though Britain was one of the winning countries in the Second World War, the British’s imperial power was weakened by the huge military spending during the war and the loss of great numbers of population and labor, moreover, there were many cities and public facilities need to be rebuilt as well. A statistic given by Moore (2008), shows before they left, the British government was in debt to India at approximately three billion pounds with a daily increase of seventy million pounds.

Furthermore, during the colonizing history of the British Empire, repressions of overseas resistance always cost a lot of their budgets, while the poor British economic conditions made the British governments start to feel powerless about repressing more resistance. The meltdown of British imperial power after the war provided a chance for Indians to attain freedom, which means increasing numbers of local revolts. In the August of 1942, a civil disobedience movement launched by the Indian Congress party commenced, this large-scale national campaign was very strong at resisting British control. Even though it was smashed by the British in the end, Marwick (2002) argue this campaign further made the British realize the situation that they could not afford any more similar upcoming resistances in India. Eventually, in the colonialist understanding, when the British considered their association with India was not profiting anymore, the decolonization of India would allow the British to disclaim their responsibility and no longer have a financial obligation to it. As Harris (2001) also pointed out that releasing colonies only caused small economic losses to empires.

The second reason why the decolonization of India in 1947 was not taken into account by the British government but a colonialist self-centered strategy, was the last action before the British left, they intentionally created the partition of India with massive migration and chaotic wars in India. White (2009) argued that the migration due to the partition of India is the largest migration compelled by political strategy in history. Although, the British government finally decided to let India become independent, the way the left was the complete opposite of what they asserted in the “Wind of Change” speech.

The chief leader of the Congress Party was Gandhi who advocated Indian unity, just like how it always was in its history for hundreds of years, even though there were different religious believers existed in the same society, they live together peacefully and governed together by themselves in the Mughal Empire which ended in 1707, then the British took control and started colonizing India. Besides the Congress Party, there was another political party in India that wanted to have a total Muslim society that differed from other religious believers in India. The British caught Gandhi in prison and gave the ruling power to the Muslim politician who was going to divide British India by religious beliefs. Therefore, after the British left India in a hurry and mess, as the chosen political party’s wish, the Partition of India made India separate into three parts and led to a great political migration. In the progress of decolonization and the independence of India, all the Hindus had to move to or stayed in India, and all the Muslims had to move to Pakistan or Bangladesh, countless conflicts and violence had arisen in India, which was not British kindness, but the strategy made by a selfish colonialist government.

Giving important aid as financial support to the European alliances through the Marshall Plan and helping the old Western European empires, such as the British, the French, and the Dutch on rebuilding their economies after the Second World War, was a significant political strategy of the USA government. In order to gain more power in the Cold War conflict, the USA needed to strengthen its European allies which were relatively weaker than the USA itself, and then the Marshall Plan was enacted in 1948 and provided more than fifteen billion US dollars to European empires. For instance, the Dutch heavily relied on US aid to reconquer their colony in Indonesia and keep the imperial economic system working. Thus, they were good at attracting US aid according to Grenville (2005), the state of Washington aided the Netherlands with five hundred million US dollars for the reconstruction of the Dutch East Indies Empire.

However, the support for helping the revival of colonialism through the Marshall Plan was demonstratively contradictory with the American argument in Atlantic Charter, as President Roosevelt once claimed in 1943 about the USA would justly terminate the imperial Empires. While the plan was exploiting the African and Asian colonies and putting people back in the imperialist’s control, then the US government started to use excuses to justify the Marshall Plan. Behrman (2007) gave one of the examples, Washington asserted that rapid decolonization during the late 1940s to the early 1950s would badly undermine the European economies, and also let to instabilities in the African and Asia regions. The first half of this statement was valid because the economic system of Western European Empires had depended on their overseas colonies for centuries, but the instabilities in Africa and Asia were not mainly due to the withdrawal of imperialists in their homeland. Furthermore, Djelic (1998) shows that the cruel treatment and violence used on smashing local resistance by the colonizers were the main cause of instability in most of the colonized region.

The changing attitudes about Empires from USA governments were surely informed by colonialist understanding, when they claimed themselves as the justice side in the Cold War period and the World police, they asserted it was the American’s duty to bring the end of Empires in a moral sense. When they needed strong alliances in the conflict against USSR, they broke the announcement which was made with the issue of the Atlantic Charter, then aided old Empires and resurrected colonialism worldwide.

To conclude, the global strategies of Western governments in the twentieth century such as the decolonization of India and the Marshall Plan were mostly informed by the colonialist understanding to maximize their profits and mainly concentrated on their own benefit.

Bibliography

1. Beschloss, M., (2003). The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler’s Germany, 1941-1945. Simon & Schuster.
2. Crozier, A. J., 1997. The causes of the Second World War. Oxford, Blackwell.
3. Cook, B., (2001). Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis.
4. Cribb, R.B., (2004) Dick, Howard, et al. The Emergence of a National Economy: An Economic History of Indonesia.
5. Ericson, E., (1999). Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941. Greenwood Publishing Group.
6. Friend, T., (2003). Indonesian Destinies. Harvard University Press.
7. Gaddis, J., (2005). The Cold War: A New History. Penguin Press.
8. Grenville, J., (2005). A History of the World from the 20th to the 21st Century. Routledge.
9. Grogan, C., (2001). Natural Enemies: The United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War, 1917-1991. Lexington Books.
10. Heider, K., (1991). Indonesian Cinema: National Culture on Screen. Honolulu: the University of Hawaii Press.
11. Iriye, A., 1987. The origins of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific. London, Longman.
12. Keylor, W.R., 1996. The twentieth-century world: an international history. Oxford, OUP.
13. Lamb M. and Tarling, N., 2001. From Versailles to Pearl Harbor: the origins of the Second World War in Europe and Asia. Basingstoke, Palgrave.
14. Milward, A., (2006). The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945-51. Berkeley: the University of California Press.
15. Reid, A., (1974). The Indonesian National Revolution 1945–1950. Melbourne: Longman Pty Ltd.
16. Overy, R., 2008. The Origins of the Second World War. Harlow, Longman.
17. Miller, R.,(2000). To Save a City: The Berlin Airlift, 1948-1949. Texas A&M University Press.
18. Prayogo, W., (2009). ‘Sekilas Perkembangan Perfilman di Indonesia’ [An Overview of the Development of Film in Indonesia]. Kebijakan Pemerintahan Orde Baru Terhadap Perfilman Indonesia Tahun
19. Ricklefs, M., (1991). A Modern History of Indonesia, 2nd edition. MacMillan. chapters 10–15.
20. Taylor, J., (2003). Indonesia: Peoples and Histories. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
21. Vickers, A., (2005). A History of Modern Indonesia. Cambridge University Press.
22. Roberts, G., (2006). Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939–1953. Yale University Press.
23. Van D., (1988). ‘Marshall Aid as a Catalyst in the Decolonisation of Indonesia 1947-1949’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 19: 335-352.
24. Wettig, G., (2008). Stalin and the Cold War in Europe. Rowman & Littlefield.

Colonialism, Language, and Religion in Things Fall Apart

Colonialism and imperialism are two sides of the same coin, both are interchangeable concepts. Colonialism is the practice of domination, where one country forces its authority over other territories and its people. Like colonialism, imperialism is a country’s political and economic control over a foreign nation. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is hard to distinguish it from imperialism, but the underlining goal of both is the domination of a foreign land. History is full of examples of colonizers imposing their religion, economics, and other cultural practices on indigenous peoples. The most impactful form of colonialism has been that of the modern era of European colonialism. This process of European settlement and political control over the rest of the world includes South America, North America, Asia, Australia, and Africa. Colonialism has not only affected the modern world but the world of language as well.

‘Things Fall Apart’ is the first of three novels written by Nigerian author Chinua Achebe. The novel is a work of historical fiction set in south-eastern Nigeria during the late nineteenth century. The novel is critically acclaimed, and Barack Obama has called it a true classic of world literature.’ The novel gives examples of how language and belief systems affected the communication between European colonialists and the indigenous people of Africa.

The novel follows the life of Okonkwo, an Igbo warrior of the Umuofia clan. A lower Nigerian clan that is made up of nine villages. The story is split into three parts, and the first part is an introduction to the life of Okonkwo and the customs of the Igbo. The Igbo people have a strong sense of tradition and social coherence, traits that seem to escape Unoka, Okonkwo’s father. Okonkwo is embarrassed by his father’s legacy of cowardice, irresponsibility, and debt. In response, Okonkwo lives his life striving to become a wealthy and fearless warrior, highly respected in the eyes of his fellow clansmen. He worries Nwoye his son will end up a failure like his grandfather and pushes him to act more like a ‘man.’At the funeral of Ogbuefi Ezeudu a highly respected elder of the tribe, Okonkwo and the other clansmen beat drums and fire their guns. Okonkwo’s gun misfires and kills Ogbuefi Ezeudu’s son. Okonkwo and his family are sent into exile for seven years to atone.

The second and third parts introduce the presence of European colonialism by way of Christian missionaries. During the second year of Okonkwo’s exile, his friend Obierika brings bad news. One of the nine villages, the village of Abame, was destroyed by a white man. Soon after, a group of six missionaries visited Mbanta to speak to the villagers. The missionaries’ leader’s name is Mr. Brown, with him is Mr. Kiaga an Igbo man as his interpreter. Mr. Kiaga tells them that there is only one God and that their Gods are false and that worshipping more than one God is wrong. The villagers begin laughing and making fun of Mr. Kiaga. Mr. Brown is not angered by their laughter and does not allow his followers to antagonize the clan.

Mr. Brown, ‘was very firm in restraining his flock from provoking the wrath of the clan.’He aims is to convert the residents of Umuofia to Christianity, but he wants to keep the peace between the Europeans and the Ibo. He also accepts the converts unconditionally, converts like Nwoye. The missionaries during their first visit to Mbanta sang a song about brothers who lived in darkness and fear. Shortly after, Mr. Kiaga begins telling stories about the son of God Jesu Kristi (Jesus Christ). Okonkwo thought they were mad, but Nwoye was moved by their stories and songs. For years Nwoye had felt lost living with his father’s abusive behavior and the clan’s traditions. Sick of both his father and the clan Nwoye and other outcasts begin converting to Christianity.

Mr. Brown frequently visited the village of Umuofia and had long conversations with Akunna a village elder. Akunna acted as the liaison between the missionaries and the Umuofians. Mr. Brown spent hours in Akunna Obi talking about religion. The conversation with Akunna on one of Mr. Brown’s visits is a major breaking point in the novel. It is the moment when Mr. Brown begins to break down the language barrier by spending time with the people of Umuofia, listening to their stories, opinions, and questions.’You say that there is one supreme god,’ said Akunna on this visit. Akunna tells Mr. Brown that the Igbo also believed in him. They call him Chukwu, according to Akunna Chukwu made the world and the other gods. Mr. Brown tells him Chukwu is the only God and all others are false. Mr. Brown continues to disagree with Akunna on this matter but is respectful of Akunna’s beliefs. And, by doing so Mr. Brown earns the respect of Akunna and other members of the Umuofia clan.

The Umuofians will eventually come to regret letting their guard down around Mr. Brown. In chapter 21, Mr. Brown has learned a great deal about the people of Umuofia and comes to the conclusion that a frontal attack will not work. At this moment we are reminded that Mr. Brown’s mission to convert the Umuofians to Christianity has not changed. He goes from family to family slowly earning the respect and trust of many in Umuofia. Eventually, Mr. Brown brings up the topic of education, saying that knowing English is an essential and highly respected skill. Mr. Brown convinces the Umuofians to send their children to the school he has built.

By using a colonial education system that valued English over the Igbos’ mother tongue. He created a way to convert more Igbos well also destroying the language barrier. Mr. Brown may be a man of God, but his approach to converting the residents of Umuofia to Christianity is militaristic. He said that a frontal attack on it would not succeed’ Frontal attack is a term used by a commander or general. Thus, following that mindset, he planned a sneak attack, the erasure of the Igbo mother tongue. The erasure of indigenous languages upon a colonial population is an almost inevitable part of colonialism. And, the establishment of a dominant language is used as a tool to keep conquered people subjected to their rulers. This can persist even after the end of direct colonial control. The missionaries are no longer directly causing the process of language erasure; Igbos are openly embracing English instead of their home language.

In the end, Mr. Brown is unable to complete his mission. He grows ill and is soon replaced by Reverend James Smith. Reverend Smith is a stereotypical European colonialist and ‘sees things as black and white.’Unlike Smith, Mr. Brown was more lenient with the convert’s continued respect for their old beliefs. Smith, however, demanded that converts completely reject their old religious beliefs. Smith’s actions ignite a fire in many of the young converts. Mr. Brown, ‘preached against such excess of zeal,’ but Smith doesn’t encourage the convert Enoch to act. Enoch, the son of the snake priest, converted after committing a crime in Umuofia. He commits another crime against Umuofia, unmasking an egwugwu during an annual ceremony. Smith ignores the words of his interpreter and refuses to start negotiations with the egwugwu. In retaliation, the egwugwu burned down both Enoch’s compound and Reverend Smith’s church. Smith considers this a show of disrespect towards the church and contacts the District Commissioner.

The Commissioner is outraged and requests that the leaders of Umuofia meet with him. Okonkwo and the leaders arrive at the meeting and almost immediately are handcuffed. They are thrown into jail, where they suffer both physical and mental abuse, but the Commissioner called it ‘justice.’After they’re released, the clansmen hold a meeting, but the meeting is interrupted by Five court messengers. Okonkwo kills the leader expecting his fellow clansmen to join him. Instead, the crowd allows the other messengers to escape. Okonkwo realizes that his clan is not willing to go to war and walks away. The next day the Commissioner arrives at Okonkwo’s compound to arrest him but instead finds Obierika and his friends. They lead the commissioner to a tree where Okonkwo had hanged himself.

The domination of a foreign land is the goal of all colonialists and the Christian missionary’s mission to bring Christianity to indigenous peoples is no different. The novel teaches the importance of how language and religion affect communication. The language barrier causes a great deal of conflict between the missionaries and the villagers. Such as The church being burned down, the clan’s leader’s imprisonment, and Okonkwo’s suicide. Mr. Brown wanted to bridge the language gap between the two sides. Well, Smith simply believed his side was right and the Umuofians wrong. If Smith had continued Mr. Brown’s work, things wouldn’t have taken a turn for the worse and Okonkwo may have lived.

Works Cited

1. Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. Penguin Books, 1994.
2. Kohn, Margaret, and Kavita Reddy. “Colonialism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 29 Aug. 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/.
3. Semali, Ladislaus M. “Chapter Five: The Case of Repressed Native or Indigenous Languages.” Counterpoints, vol. 134, 2002, pp. 53–66. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/45136136. Accessed 19 Mar. 2020.

There are very few practices that have had the widespread effects we see today on global development than the scourge of colonialism. Since its advent in the 15th Century, the imposition of colonialism has, “altered history forever” (Settles 1996, p. 2). The effects of colonialism have been both far-reaching and insidiously devastating: notably a loss of culture, language, and land; widespread economic and social inequality; and the outright genocide of native peoples. However, it would be incorrect to frame these consequences as past injustices of a long-gone system of oppression. Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson calculated that around one-third of the modern world’s inequality can be attributed to the colonial era (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012): these enduring ramifications have continued to the modern-day, and have significantly shaped the welfare, governance, and development of contemporary post-colonial nations. So too would it be imprudent to assume that the practice of colonialism was a ‘one size fits all’ policy – this paper will therefore examine some of the manifestations of colonialism: Direct Rule and Indirect Rule. As different types of colonial rule led to differing consequences and ramifications, this paper will analyze these consequences by focusing on two different case studies to correspond with each type of colonial rule: the British Raj and the Northern Nigeria Protectorate.

Perhaps the most classically recognized form of colonialism is that of Direct Rule. Pioneered by the theory of Indian-Ugandan scholar Mahmood Mamdani, Direct Rule involves the centralized administration of a colonial power over the colonized state. Mamdani designates Direct Rule as a system of colonial governance in which “urban civil powers,” (predominantly white, Christian Europeans) maintained power and authority over the autochthonous native populations (Mamdani 1996). American academic Michael W. Doyle argues that under Direct Rule, local peoples had little-to-no political or legal representation: indigenous rulers were only found in the lowest levels of administration and governance, if at all (Doyle 1986). This policy was enacted in order to allow European colonizers to maintain leadership over all facets of administration while keeping traditional local leaders in positions of subordination and subservience. By removing the power of the indigenous chiefs and elites, European colonizers were able to alienate the native population from their traditional leaders. Doyle posits that this process then allowed for the imposition and implementation of European laws and customs in place of, “traditional power structures” (Doyle 1986). In Michael Crowder’s 1964 article Indirect Rule – French and British Style, he recounts the philosophies of French administrator Joost van Vollenhoven, governor of French West Africa: “[the chief’s] functions were reduced to that of a mouthpiece for orders emanating from the outside… the chiefs have no power of their own of any kind” (Crowder 1964). In the historical context of Direct Rule, governance was managed by overseas foreign powers who sought to impose their rule over subjugated states for a multitude of benefits, including massive wealth and financial gain, the spread of Christianity, and the consolidation of power (Hoffman 2015). The appeal of this “centralized despotism” allowed for the unmediated consolidation of power and exploitation of land, resources, and peoples (Mamdani 1996), involving the “comprehensive sway of market institutions, the appropriation of land, destruction of communal autonomy, plus defeat and dispersal of tribal populations” (Mamdani 1996). To examine how the enduring effects of Direct Rule Colonialism lead to fundamentally different post-colonial states in comparison to other forms of rule, we may look at the British Raj as a case study to understand the devastating ramifications of colonial Direct Rule. Direct Rule in India was not actively implemented during the entirety of British colonial rule: it effectively began following the Indian rebellion in 1857 in which the rule of India was passed from the British East India Company to the British Crown (Tharoor 2017). From then on, the subcontinent was marred by the extensive consequences of Direct Rule. Infamously, the British practice of the extraction of resources and destruction of local industry served to have brutal consequences that endure to this day. Most notable among these practices was the destruction of the Indian textile industry. To fund the British industrial revolution and safeguard the British textile industry in Lancashire, a practice of the deliberate de-industrialization of Indian cotton and textile manufacturing was implemented (Beckert 2015). During this time, India experienced, “…the world’s most rapid and cataclysmic deindustrialization ever” (Beckert 2015, p. 171). This ‘De-industrialisation Thesis’ can be understood as one of the establishing and most significant factors contributing to the mass economic inequality that India experienced and continues to experience today. The decimation of the Indian textile industry was all the more prominent under the Direct Rule of the British Crown; the unmediated oversight and governance of the British allowed for a tighter means of economic control, further exacerbating the lasting economic inequality (Iyer 2010). The destruction of Indian manufacturing and production capacity ensured that the state’s economy remained agrarian; handicraft manufacturing in India became unable to compete with the industrialized production of textiles in North West England. India’s agrarian-based economy, therefore, became bound to and reliant on the global market of textile production, specifically in Britain (Clingingsmith and Williamson 2005). Barred from industrialization, India’s economy became unable to enter what we generally consider as ‘modernity’ today (Tharoor 2017). This, therefore, mirrors Mamdani’s theory of the colonialist appeal of Direct Rule because it facilitated the ease of the economic exploitation of resources and the manufacturing industry (Mamdani 1996). These practices of the exploitation of resources have proved especially devastating in the economic success of India and other states that were victims of Direct Rule. The extraction of raw, natural resources continues to dominate the economies of post-colonial states, lending to a “dependency complex” (Iyer 2010, p. 693) in which victims of Colonial Direct Rule rely on the extraction of raw materials and natural resources to survive (Patrick 2012). In the case of the British Raj, Direct Rule saw the shift of traditional land use patterns, from subsistence to “cash crops” of British commodities and luxuries, such as cotton, saltpeter, indigo, jute, and opium (Tharoor 2017, p. 26). These exploitative policies can perhaps be understood best by applying Immanuel Wallerstein’s Core-Periphery Theory. This theory suggests that the creation of the Developing World was due to the nexus of ‘Core States’, which featured strong capitalist and diverse economies as well as powerful militaries and their ability to exploit ‘Periphery States’, which featured homogenous economies and weak militaries for the supply of cheap labor and raw materials (Wallerstein 1974). In the case of Britain’s Direct Rule of India, the autochthonous Indian manufacturing and production centers were forced to sell their raw goods at low prices, while simultaneously rendering them reliant on the British Empire for capital. Again, these practices have led to fundamentally different post-colonial states in comparison to states of Indirect Rule or even Settler Colonialism: In the case of India, at the beginning of the British colonization of the subcontinent, the Indian economy totaled almost a quarter of the world’s economy, which was larger than all of Europe combined. By the time the British left India in 1947, it had fallen to just 3 percent (Tharoor 2015). These abusive policies have been so insidiously devastating within India, that their consequences are evidently seen to this day. Lakshmi Iyer, an Indian-American academic, argues that regions within India that were historically governed through Direct Rule garner significantly fewer political and social goods in comparison to those which were governed by indirect rule (Iyer 2010). Unlike Indian ‘Princely States’ which were governed through Indirect Rule, Indian states administered under Direct Rule received markedly less access to public goods: “Turning to the availability of health and education infrastructure, [data] indicates a statistically significant negative impact of direct British rule on the availability of schools, health centers, and roads…” (Iyer 2010, p. 703) Iyer further argues that historically Directly Ruled Indian states have, “nearly 40% higher poverty rates and 33% higher infant mortality rates… compared to native state areas.” (Iyer 2010, p. 22). This clearly demonstrates the enduring and devastating consequences of the imposition of Direct Rule on a native population, leading to a fundamentally disadvantaged contemporary post-colonial state.

While Direct Rule may be the most classically understood form of colonial rule, Indirect Rule was overwhelmingly more widespread throughout the history of European colonialism (Gerring et al. 2011). While the ramifications and enduring consequences of Direct Rule may have been comparatively worse than that of Indirect Rule, it would foolhardy to assume that Indirect administration and governance did not also have devastating long-term effects on colonial and post-colonial states. Mamdani argues that both Direct and Indirect rule were “the two sides to the same coin” (Mamdani 1996). He defines Indirect Rule as “decentralized despotism”, whereby the restructuring and institutionalization of power by European colonizers was imposed upon the native political and jurisprudential rule (‘S’ 2014). Unlike Direct Rule, under Indirect Rule, internal administration was given to the native elites. Doyle designates Indirect Rule as a system of authority in which “pre-established local elites and native institutions” are integrated into the administration of the ruling colonial power (Doyle 1986). This arrangement afforded local elites with significant power and prestige; although it would be false to state that full administration was given to the autochthonous rulers. In most cases, national, and foreign policy and defense were given to the colonial rulers to take charge of, while only internal administrative affairs were relegated to the local rulers (Iyer 2010). Despite giving the power of the local elite within the administrative system, Mamdani argues that Indirect Rule was just as, if not more disruptive to local authority than the colonial governance of Direct Rule: “In spite of its claims of being a more benign form of rule, on that tended to reproduce ‘native custom’ in a permissive fashion, indirect rule was the more hegemonic assertion of colonial power. Unlike direct rule, it aimed at changing the preferences of the mass of the colonized, not just a narrow elite” (Mamdani 1996, p. 862). Comparable to the practice of Direct Rule, Indirect Rule altered the power and perception of the local elite to further alienate them from their indigenous subjects, further discrediting them and their authority (Lawrence 2016, p. 6). Some of the lasting legacies of Indirect Rule in contemporary post-colonial states have been those of the social “cleavages” that were formed during colonial rule: inherent in Indirect Rule were the extreme divisions that were created as a result of indigenous alienation and estrangement from their local leaders. Both Mamdani and Iyer suggest that this schism allowed for the creation of serious cultural, social, and ethnic rifts which facilitated the continuation of inter- and intra-communal strife and hostility in contemporary, post-colonial states (Iyer 2010; Mamdani 1996): such was the case in Colonial Nigeria. The Northern Nigerian Protectorate, under the rule of Lord Frederick Lugard, existed as a dependency of the British Empire until 1914, in which it unified with the Southern Nigerian Protectorate to form the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. While both states employed Indirect Rule, the Northern Nigerian Protectorate is notable for its pioneering use of Warrant Chiefs (Afigbo 1974). Marred by conflict and the violent conquering of native empires, The Northern Nigerian Protectorate consolidated its power in 1907 with the British administration being pioneered by Lord Lugard. From the onset, the British colonizers struggled to gain revenue from taxing the native population: taxation was strongly challenged by emirates and wealthy merchants, who had considerable power and influence among the native population. As a result, the British overseers struggled with a large deficit, leading to understaffing personnel and a lack of resources. Because of these factors, Lugard instituted indirect authority over the local population (Newbury 2004); it was cheaper and more convenient for the British rulers to relegate specific tasks to local leaders. The inclusion of emirs and indigenous chiefs into the administration created a solution to the “native problem” (Mamdani 1996). The creation of a ‘native authority’ facilitated the ease of colonial rule; allowing for increased revenue from the tax, the extraction of natural resources (Newbury 2004), and the exploitation of local peoples. As clearly seen in the colonial rule of Nigeria, Mamdani argues that within decentralized despotism, the “native authority” are the actors that subjugate local peoples (Mamdani 1996). This argument highlights the enduring nature of Indirect Rule in the creation of fundamentally different post-colonial states in comparison to those of Direct Rule: Understanding Native Authority as the oppressive regime (as opposed to the Imperial Authority featured in Direct Rule) frames political and social unrest in the present day. Mamdani argues that a specter of Indirect Rule is enforced in modern post-colonial states as a “bifurcated” dual legal system, “in which power is divided at both the national and local levels” (Mamdani 1996; ‘S’ 2014). This, however, is not to shirk European colonizers of their blame or roles in the exploitation of colonized subjects. In reality, Mamdani argues that the native authority enforced its authority on unwritten rules from the colonial powers: “Rather than following the rule of law, local chiefs enjoyed …executive and administrative power in addition to legal arbitrariness” (Mamdani 1996). Colonial actions performed under Indirect Rule have led to severe ramifications for indigenous peoples in the name of exploitative European supremacy. This idea, however, was not as overt as suggested. While notions of a ‘civilizing mission’ and European expectations of assimilation were not as prevalent in decentralized despotism as they were under Direct Rule, it would be wrong to suggest that British colonialism in Nigeria existed for benevolent reasons, despite the rhetoric suggested by colonialists and their sympathizers. Lord Lugard infamously justified his practice of indirect rule in his book, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa: “Liberty and Self-Development can be best secured to the native population by leaving them free to manage their own affairs through their own rulers… under the guidance of the British staff, and subject to the laws and policy of the administration.” (Lugard 1922). Lawrence posits that this claim for the preservation of indigenous culture is a deliberately constructed falsehood, noting a “gap between colonial rhetoric and actual colonial governance” (Lawrence 2016, p. 1) Instead, colonial rule was one of economic and social exploitation: While indirect colonialism exploited colonized people and natural resources for their own economic benefit, it notably sought to seize control over local economies: “Improving the production methods or strengthening the economy was not important.” (Settles 1996, p. 8) In the case of Nigeria, the development of plantations for palm oil was challenged by the British, even though the process itself was wasteful and generated poor-quality oil. Because it made the colonizing power large revenue, there was little regard for the future livelihood of local African manufacturing, thus highlighting the significant long-term effects of indirect rule in the creation of fundamentally different post-colonial states. Similarly, this difference between colonial rhetoric and colonial practice can be further understood by examining some of the preliminary factors that enabled (or prohibited) colonial powers from additional exploitation. In states where there was a high mortality rate for colonizers due to disease and bad climatic conditions, colonial powers established largely extractive administrations of decentralized governance, in which poor economic growth and the further exploitation of indigenous peoples was rife. On the other hand, states which were easier for colonizers to settle often featured fewer extractive policies whereby natural resources and peoples were not exploited to the same extent (Johnson et al. 2001). Thus, the external factors behind the initial imposition of the direct or indirect rule have, “determined the economic growth of today’s post-colonial nations by setting institutions on very different paths” (Johnson et al. 2001).

By analyzing two of the most prominent and insidious forms of colonial rule, we may begin to understand how contemporary post-colonial states are able to operate on a national and global stage. Riddled with an institutional legacy, fundamental differences between states must be understood from the historical implementation of centralized or decentralized despotism.

Introduction

The study of the Comparative Empire in the Victorian period by classically educated civil servants frequently invoked classical analogies. James Mill, whose writings were heavily influential in the conceptualization of imperialism, frequently drew examples from Roman civilization in his History of India, justifying imperial rule as a necessity due to the inferior, uncivilized nature of Indian culture. The likening of India`s position under control to that of Britain`s under Roman rule was a common, standard theme in the writings of other writers of the imperial century, such as Thomas Macaulay and Charles Grant. As stated by Sir Alfred Lyall, and later quoted by Lord Cromer, imperialists sought to invoke the classical past in imperialism by seeking the history of imperial Rome for any facts or commentaries gleaned from the ancient times which might be of service to the modern empire of which we are so justly proud of. The comparison here is obvious both imperial powers proclaimed it their divine purpose to govern, supposedly in the interests of their subjects. By extending their own laws and civilization over the territories they governed, both empires established widespread order and peace. By the time of the Roman Empire`s eventual decline, many of its inhabitants lamented its loss, showing the popularity of its rule. When comparing time periods, rule in India was fleeting compared to centuries of Roman dominion. However, the perception of the success of the Empire in emulating the Roman Empire, as compared to attempts by other imperial nations such as Spain and France, is evident from its praise by President Roosevelt in 1909, who commended Britain as the most colossal example in history, achieving a greater feat than was performed under the Roman Empire. This dissertation shall analyze the extent to which the Empire managed to create a similar sense of unity and loyalty among its subjects, or whether its disintegration and its colony’s subsequent independence was instead celebrated, by focusing on 19th century India, where key characteristics of the colonial state were consolidated, shaped significantly by the Indian Mutiny of 1857. I shall begin by exploring the political ideology of Victorian Britain to understand how the civilizing mission was conceptualized, and how classically educated imperial administrators frequently invoked the classical past to reaffirm the strength and permanence of rule in India. Following this, I shall analyze how the Roman example might even serve as an anti-model to Britain, especially in the aftermath of the Mutiny, where imperialists were forced to reframe imperialism in response to the Indian rebellion to paramountcy. Finally, I shall discuss how the imperial iconography of Queen Victoria was used to validate this new model of imperialism, then conclude by considering the modern implications of the rule in India.

Study of Comparative Empire

The interest in classics in the study of the Comparative Empire reveals the significant interplay between Victorian culture and power politics, and how the subject of the empire was easily analogized to the classical world. Social, cultural, and political forces such as the complex interplay between education, race, elitism, and nationhood prompted Englishmen to make natural and immediate comparisons to ancient Rome in connection with Empire. The understanding of how these comparisons were historically conditioned, constituted, and constructed by the contemporary circumstances of Victorian Britain, as will be explored in this dissertation, will allow us to understand how imperialists related to ideas of identity, imperialism, and the reception of classical antiquity. Although imperialist thought of the 19th century was often historically inaccurate, and at times ethnocentric, racist, or condescending, analyzing how and why such attitudes were constructed and sustained will allow us to understand how the classical tradition entitled those who studied it to obtain and retain their imperial power, and hence its popularity in imperialists conceptualization of imperialism.

Javed Majeed asserts that the method of comparative inquiry used in the Victorian period was inextricably tied to the practices and discourses surrounding colonialism and imperialism. As early as the 18th century, imperial administrators studied Indian cultural history from a comparativist point of view, with Sir William Jones comparing the linguistic similarities of Sanskrit with that of Persian, Latin, and Greek. Sir Henry Maine`s comparative writings of ancient and modern imperialism (such as Ancient Law (1861)) which in turn influenced other imperialist writings on law, culture, and history, illustrate the use of Classics by non-academics though many with a background in Classics such as James Bryce and John Seeley served in some sort of academic capacity alongside their imperial careers. The Victorian political culture thus saw an institutionalized study and use of antiquity to participate in colonial and imperial discourses and to establish and legitimize a unique connection between the Romans and Empires.

Introduction to imperialism civilizing mission on both sides of the debate

In seeking a classical Roman past in imperialism, we must be wary of how the experiences of modern imperialism influence how Roman history is interpreted by scholars. Earlier in the imperial century, had expanded into territories such as Australia and Canada for the purposes of settlement and trade. Later in the 19th century, their focus shifted to acquiring territories that would be strategically beneficial to the securing of their empire. Similarly, while the Romans justified their territorial wars as strictly defensive, the period of expansion within which the Roman Empire came to be the dominant force in the world was motivated by more than just security objectives of protecting against outside forces. Roman imperialism can be traced back to three motives that Thucydides claimed for Athenian imperialism as well fear, profit, and honor. Not simply for trading benefits, the profits desired by the Romans came about through the direct exploitation of the conquered peoples the collection of war booty, and more significantly, tribute paid. Furthermore, the Romans and both came to believe it was their destiny by providence to conquer the world. Frequent classical quotations during parliamentary debates show the more or less explicit analogies between both empires, with Disraeli validating imperialism with the use of his phrase imperium et Libertas. The term imperialism itself was only introduced into the context of politics in the 1870s by Liberal leader Gladstone to denounce Disraeli`s imperial policies, which he denounced as ostentatious and aggressive. The term was then reappropriated in support of imperialism, by figures such as Joseph Chamberlain, designating a policy of philanthropy and idealism in the Empire`s colonial pursuits.

While the study of imperialism has expanded to contain its economic, cultural, systemic, and temporal aspects, this dissertation shall focus on the moral side of imperialism in India, focusing on how the classics aided in the justification of presence in India during the imperial century. Classical analogies were used to illustrate the imperial duty of administrators to promote and protect the native people’s human rights, uplifting them from the slough of traditionalism and cruelties such as the Hindi suttee custom, and the remarrying of child widows. This notion of benevolence which took root in the imperial century became known as the civilizing mission, with the moral prescriptions of idealists such as Edmund Burke leading to the expansion of Christian missionary work and the promotion of civilized values that would improve economic productivity and raise the living standards of the Indian people. Reformers such as Macaulay, influenced by Burke`s emphasis on moral rule, advocated for the transformation of the Indian education system to be more in line with the mother country to allow for the upward progression of its society, showing how imperial policies were heavily guided by their supposed moral purpose. However, the Indian Mutiny of 1857 resulted in a reassessment of the Victorian’s liberal imperialist ideology, and the belief of good governance as allowing for the reform of the native, uncivilized India. On one hand, some challenged the rhetoric of a civilizing mission, and the belief that Indian society could progress with imperial aid was replaced with a conviction that India should be ruled with a heavy hand. However, others maintained the conviction that the imperialist remained steadfast in their commitment to fulfill their moral duty and establish ordered liberty in India, both for the benefit of their subjects and to achieve their own greatness as an imperial power. Much of this debate took place back in Britain, such as in parliament, with the continued emphasis on the civilizing mission serving to strengthen imperial support among the public, bolstering the imperialists’ moral authority, and justifying their rule over India.

Victorian Context to Studying Roman Empire

Particularly in the Age of Enlightenment, rapid social change created a heightened awareness of the modernity of the imperial century as compared to the medieval period, conceptualizing the 19th century as an age of social and technological advancement. Social theorists of the Victorian period, such as Darwin, Marx, and Freud, aimed to reframe the past to explain the present, such as by using evolutionary ideas of society, species, race, and of the person, to understand and justify present imperial goals. In this regard, we see historical consciousness taking a new shape in the imperial century, with Victorians looking to classical antiquity to frame current political discourses. Historical writings referencing the classical past, such as Macaulay`s History of, became sources of power and authority, framing public discourse in Victorian Britain. Just as Virgil, Livy, and Varro wrote of Augustus and his Roman Empire, intellectual leaders such as Macaulay justified the rise of the Empire by mirroring it to Augustus’ own rule, in order to create a unique political identity and ideological past for the Victorians. Other Victorian writers such as Bryce and Cromer referred to Virgil as an imperialist and late Victorian writings found congeniality in Theodor Mommsen`s assertion of Augustus as sharing power with the Senate, rather than having absolute command of the Empire In contemporary discourses surrounding imperialism, the benevolence of the imperial project necessitated the consideration of local involvement in the government, and the classics were thus significant in framing this as graciousness, rather than a concession to the orientalism of the native Indians. In the context of the Enlightenment, Gibbon`s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Romans frames empire-building figures of antiquity and presents as gloriously searching for virtue and truth, asserting that any potential prejudice or superstition can be absolved by the purifying rationalism of philosophy. This shows how contemporary ideals were expressed in imperial ambitions alongside classical Roman ideals. The Victorians looked to Virgil`s Aeneid to frame the relationship between the imperial mission and national destiny, noting Jupiter`s prophecy of an imperium without end, with no limits in time and space. With this definition of empire, Rome`s eventual fall does not pose as a deterrent to its usefulness in the contemporary period but instead allows the Victorians to use Rome as a historical framework within which could claim its authority as an imperial power for themselves. This is known as a translation imperii (transfer of rule) the view of history as a linear succession of transfers of an imperium, where the supreme power is invested in a singular ruler or emperor, in this case, the imperial administrators of Empire, represented by the monarch. Britain`s position as a global imperial power is validated by the establishment of a political kinship with Rome. Referencing antiquity in imperial ideology served to present Empire as Rome`s successor. The imperial mission is thus seen as promising a global, expanding empire, with this hope manifested with the phrase Greater Britain used to indicate the permanence and superiority of the Empire.

In presenting Empire as superior to its ancient Roman precedent, the Victorians constructed an image of Rome as a corrupt empire, with this portrayal persisting today and shaping current stereotypes (topoi or cliches) of the Roman Empire. The reiterations of certain ideas as the standard of the Roman Empire, for instance, the cruelty of emperors, can be credited to the profusion of Victorian works about the Romans. Their reappropriations or recognition of the classical past contributed to the articulation and circulation of modern stereotypes of classical antiquity. As such, when looking at the reception history of Victorian works, one must take into account the fine boundaries between popular and elite learning, and whether history was approached in an intellectual or common capacity. Even when focusing on the formal study of the Roman Empire, one must be cautious of the circumstances in which such viewpoints are constructed, as they shape how classical antiquity is received, and how the Victorian legacy of the Roman world frames our understanding of the classical tradition.

Looking at the study of classical reception in India from a postcolonial lens, this dissertation shall analyze how knowledge of and claims to the Roman imperial past defined imperial power, and how they aided in the construction of structures of domination in India. Rather than simply referring to historiography in the period after formal independence from colonial rule, postcolonialism connotates a way of questioning, rather than rejecting, the laws surrounding classical representations of imperial power in India. Edward Said`s Orientalism puts Foucauldian discourse analysis on the power relationships in society, expressed through language and practices, into its colonial context. Rather than simply criticizing how misrepresented native Indian society as inferior to their own, one should examine the norms and values that defined those modes of representation in other words, how and why the Roman imperial past was significant to imperialists in defining their relationship with their Indian subjects. The cultural representations constructed and imposed by conceptions of power had implications on the structures of knowledge that shaped the thinking of both the colonized and colonizer, even after decolonization.

Said`s postcolonial perspective disavows the need to hypothesize a more accurate representation of imperial power, free from colonial prejudice. Rather than simply a perpetuation of the binary oppositions between an Indian race, with references to Rome`s relationship with the provinces, Bhabha asserts that the stereotype of the colonized Indians as uncivilized to justify the civilizing mission was unfixed, with a varied depiction of Indian subjects as static and helpless, on one hand, and anarchic and capable of progress on the other hand. imperialists sought the advancement of Indian society which could only be achieved through colonial domination, through the insistence on dissociating between the superior and inferior Indian races. The insecure nature of imperial authority is thus highlighted by analyzing how constantly reinforced their authority through repeated classical references so that they could claim Roman imperial power for themselves. Simultaneously, classical references also served to reject the negative characteristics of Roman imperialism, so as to construct, present, and legitimize a unique, superior ideology of imperialism.

In 1492 Cristoforo Colombo discovered The Americas. He had rallied three Spanish boats on a voyage to prove that he knew a faster way to India also proving his theory that the earth was round. He accidentally found America and mistook it for India not realizing it was a whole new world he had just found. Since they did think this was India they mistook the people native to America as Indians and they have kept that name for a while even though it is false. The natives had a prophecy that said gods and large floating islands would come from the ocean. The Europeans were mistaken for the gods and they took advantage of their kindness to take most of their land and enslave their people. It didn’t take long for the First Nations to realize their mistake but it was too late for them as the Europeans had already taken control. The Europeans had a much greater effect of the Aboriginals.

The Europeans had just found a new world and were surprised by things but they also brought a lot to there very different land. The animals that they brought over had the biggest effect on the aboriginals. It changed the way that they hunted bison because now they could travel great distances on horseback and also made hunting bison a lot more efficient and a lot faster. The Europeans also brought lots of new food variety such as pigs and cattle. The animals helped the first nations a lot but they also bought something that devastated their populations and lead to almost complete annihilation of some tribes. Disease was the biggest danger to first nations for a long time. Not only did they not have any medicine to treat serious illness they would mostly die from the common cold as they did not have the right cells to protect them from these diseases. The Europeans also brought certain plants that were never seen in America. The dandelion was one of the plants that very quickly spread and changed the way first nations farming techniques. First nations did not have access to metal tools yet so when the Europeans brought them over the America it changed farming and hunting for first nations forever. The metal tools made everything they did more efficient and was one of the few changes that were good for the first nations.

The Aboriginals had a very large impact on the Europeans also as they had their own assortment of animals, food and other technology. One of the most demanded items from the aboriginals was tobacco. It was a very big hit in Europe and was an upper class item that only wealthy people had mostly. Just like how the Europeans gave the First Nations deadly disease the First Nations also gave the Europeans a disease but it wasn’t nearly as fatal. Syphilis spread through brothels and quickly spread to thousands of people in a single day. The Europeans also got a lot of gold and silver as the ground was rich with it and was a very common trading item. The Europeans also were given many different types of fruit and vegetables such as tomatoes, potatoes, corn and pumpkins. With these vegetables the Europeans were able to grow hundreds of new crops and expand their diets with many different healthy options. One of the most important animals that the Europeans took from the first nations was the turkey. The turkey is a good source of food and is now a national bird but its origin is often forgotten.

The Europeans had a significant impact on the aboriginals as they took so much and basically nearly wiped out entire tribes of first nations. The Europeans took advantage of the Aboriginals and took control of their land imprisoned hundreds of them and put thousands into slavery. The ones that didn’t get taken were moved to extremely reduced plots of land and were forced to be told what they can do and when. The Aboriginals impact on the Europeans is pretty much in significant to the Europeans impact on the Aboriginals as most of their impact is positive and helped the Europeans greatly.

Colonial legacies can be found within Latin American political regimes like the Spaniards and Portuguese through the Allende and the Castro regime. The legacies have established social structure and unequal land holdings predominantly placing the affluent above mixed, indigenous, and Africans. Furthermore, colonial legacies are useful when examining Latin America as it compares colonialism to the long-term effects of colonialism implemented in different eras. It also focuses on the long-term effects it had on Indigenous, mixed, and Africans, which highlights how colonialism in Latin America impacted regimes, relations, and the economy.

The regimes established subsequently after colonization were failures as Cuba fell to the oppressive regime of Machado and Batista. The Machado and Batista regime’s economic capital relied on trade. When the Great Depression hit Cuba’s sugar prices fell leading to underemployment and a decrease in income. This provoked political conflict and repressive military action toward Cubans. Cubans tried to pressure Machado out through strikes, resulting in success as Machado fled Havana (Skidmore and Smith, 2013). This demonstrates how colonial legacies in the form of regimes turn out to become repressive and revert to the same economic cycle of exploiting the native people.

The culture of Cuba was desperate to have a regime that would solve “el problema de la Tierra” and as Fidel began his revolution he was received with support by the working class, students, and peasants. As the US placed an embargo on weapons Castro saw it as an advantage to overthrow Batista’s oppressive regime (Fidel Castro, 1953). However, the US was worried about their economic interests and Castro’s rule implementing a domino theory other countries would follow. The US planned to overthrow Castro because he nationalized Cuban land and American companies for Cuba’s benefit (DOS, 1959). Castro was focused on the revitalization of Cuba by tackling massive poverty, malnourishment, and lack of education that colonialism left encapsulates how colonial legacies transcend through eras. It also highlights how it impacts relations between nations due to their countries’ economic interests.

Fidel Castro’s era of rule reduced underemployment and grew the economy by 9% due to the trade of sugar. As Cuba relied significantly on the export of sugar and the use of oil, Fidel found inexpensive oil in the Soviet Union, which the US wouldn’t process in their Cuban factories. The US canceled its sugar deal with Cuba consolidated US factories. This led to the Cuba embargo which lasted until the 21 century. However, the nationalization and export of sugar, with us the USSR, contributed to the equalization of land and diminished the lack of housing, education, malnourishment, and poverty. However, this did not last for long as the US left Cuba, and projects to build new housing weren’t seen as a priority anymore as well as an increase in food shortages (Skidmore and Smith, 2013). The authoritarian regimes in Cuba reflect upon European rule as they disregarded the problems within their society and focused on trade and economic growth leaving the native people in poverty.

Overall, the colonial legacies’ depiction of unequal land and social structure was “fixed” through a new regime of dictatorship through communism. The beginning of colonialism demonstrates how poverty, diversity, and trade transcend into different eras as colonial rule grew and how within each era it impacted Latin Americans differently whether they benefited from it or not. Colonial legacies can be very useful in the analysis of Latin American regimes to deduce the long-term effects caused by colonization and how the regimes are dealing with or following the established long-term effects.

West Africa is from modern-day Mauritiana until the Republic of Congo. It was an area with rainforests around the equator, also there are savannas on both sides of the forest, there sadly is a lot of dry, dead land to the north. This all changed on 600 CE, the majority of the Africans that lived near this area, which were hunter-gatherers. In the places, where land was very dry farmers had sheep, goats, camels and cattle. Near the equator, there is an area with a lot of nature in it, in which the farmers cultivated yams, palm trees and plantains. Near the savannas, they grew crops that involved rice, millet and sorghum.

There were very big trading centres, near the rivers (Senegal, Niger, Volta, Gambia and Congo), the majority of the Africans lived in little villages, they identified themselves by families not by nationality. Normally men had more than 1 wives. In harsh times West Africans expected their near or far family members to help them. Nowadays in Nigeria, around 500 different languages are spoken.

Before the Atlantic slave trade began, Western Africans practised a lot human sacrifice. When they feared a tribe, they were able to force another tribe to offer themselves as slaves, exchanging for help. For example, in the European system the ones who seek protection or escape from hunger, they would convert them to servants for the ones that promote relief.

All the men, in different African society that were used during wars, often became slaves. Normally these men became part of an extended tribal family. There is evidence that they used them as slaves because people were mistreated because they used them as if they were theirs, when they weren’t, this all happened in the Nile River.

The European slave trade began when they started with Portugal’s exploration of the west coast of Africa, in this exploration they were looking for an alternative route, through sea, heading towards the East. The East had a lot of riches like silk and spices, and the Portuguese were very desperate to take advantage of their riches regardless how hard it was going to be to get from Europe to Asia.

Portuguese traders decided to build the ‘Elmina Castle’, which nowadays is Ghana, this was on 1482. This castle was meant to be for a secure trading place, this castle even had canyons in direction of the sea. The Portuguese feared even more a gladiatorial attack from other Europeans than an attack on land by the Africans.

The Portuguese used this castle for trading gold but as time went by, near the 16th century, they had changed their focus to enslaved people now that slavery had become popular in the New World. Portuguese people slept, prayed and ate on the superior floors, while the slaves were kept in a dungeon for weeks or months, suffering, until some ships arrived that took them either to Europe or the Americas.

Near 1444, Africans were bought by the Portuguese either to Europe or the Americas. They worked on sugar plantations in Madeira islands, in Portugal. Slave trade became more popular and started spreading all across the Atlantic because every time Europeans demanded that they needed more and more workers on intensive care crops like crops of sugar, cotton and tobacco.

As time went by, the Dutch, Spanish and English followed Portuguese steps by transporting enslaved around the Atlantic, there is an estimate that around 12.5 million slaves crossed the Atlantic, to work on the New World. A lot of slaves died in the way crossing the Atlantic.

To answer the question directly, yes— ‘unequal’ diplomatic interactions in the pre-Westphalian period can be understood as real diplomacy. According to Wallerstein’s world systems theory, there are core and peripheral states in which core countries benefit and peripheral countries are exploited, creating an inescapable unfair exchange due to the natural economic/power imbalance of the world (Skocpol, 1977). In other words, there will always be more powerful advanced countries and weaker poorer countries that add to an imbalanced and unequal diplomacy due to varying power levels. However, this does not rule it out as real diplomacy since diplomatic relationships between states are still being formed and interactions between rulers are still being made, regardless of the interactions and representations being equal or not.

An imbalance of power that leads to unequal representation during negotiations between states is thought to occur between states of different power levels. Yet, the same unequal representation can still occur when two negotiating states are of equal reputation and power. This is the case of the Treaty of Tordesillas from 1494.

Leading up to the creation of the Treaty of Tordesillas, the Portuguese were pioneers of early age exploration. With guidance from Prince Henry the Navigator, explorations towards the eastern hemisphere starting from the early 15th century continued long after his death and aided in Portugal reaching and monopolising trade routes that ran through India, Indonesia, and most of Asia (European Exploration, n.d.). Due to Portugal’s monopolisation of these popular trade routes, it is understandable why Spain was looking for a way to get to China without having to go through the Portuguese-ran posts where they would have to pay taxes, on top of wanting to catch up with Portugal’s rapid expansion towards the East. This led to Spanish King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Aragon to acquire Christopher Columbus’ aid in exploring the Western oceans in the late 15th century to navigate a possible new route to China. However, Columbus instead discovered a whole other land in what we now know today as North and South America. With both Portugal and Spain eyeing this new land to monopolise and exploit, they looked to Pope Nicholas V for a resolution as to who had the right to this newly discovered continent as was the custom back in the day for international disputes. Both Spain and Portugal were giant powers of the time. Thus, both theoretically had equal representation in negotiation because they left it to the pope to make the decision for them. The original papal decision on the issue drew a line in the Atlantic Ocean, with everything East belonging to Portugal, and everything West belonging to Spain, cutting the Portuguese out of any opportunities to explore the freshly discovered Western lands, which, for obvious reasons, angered the Portuguese (Prescott, 1854). This is addressed later which resulted in an amendment in the treaty that gave Portugal what we now know of today as Brazil. Looking at the intentions behind the original papal decision, it is extremely important to note that Pope Nicholas V was a Spaniard by birth “and a personal friend of Ferdinand” (Williams, 1922). This is where inequality in representation comes into play. The third party involved in resolving this dispute was supposed to be neutral and unbiased, feeding to the ‘equal representation’ aspect of negotiation. But by being a Spaniard by birth and a close friend of the Spanish king, Pope Nicholas V failed to equally represent both Spain and Portugal in his considerations towards his final decision. Due to his prior ties to Spain, there is a very high possibility that his initial decision was laced with bias towards his home land and his close friend.

Modern definitions of diplomacy emphasise diplomacy needing to be equal in terms of representation because of diplomacy’s inclination towards liberalism. As stated by Keens-oper (1975), “Diplomacy is a principle of order because it is a mechanism of adjustment, and the marriage of plurality, order, and change is a persistent liberal endeavour”. This, however, is only a modern viewpoint on the act of diplomacy, with liberalism only truly gaining its political meaning in the mid 18th century (Klein, 2014). This suggests that our ‘requirement’ for real diplomacy to be mutual and equal is unique to our time, which makes ruling out diplomatic events of the past that do not meet our modern definition and standards for real diplomacy rather ignorant and selfish. While we can definitely learn from the past and use events involving unfair diplomacy to mould modern diplomacy to one that is fair and un-biased, we cannot disregard them on the basis of them being ‘not real diplomacy’.

Though involving conditions that do not meet modern definitions of diplomacy which assumes equal representation and mutuality during negotiations, conflicts are still resolved, trade is still negotiated, and diplomatic relationships between foreign states are still formed. As such, yes—unequal diplomatic interactions in the pre-Westphalian period is still real diplomacy.

Bibliography

1. ‘European Exploration’. 2019. Iro.Umontreal.Ca. https://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/Genealogy/Documents/Asia/EuropeanExploration.html
2. Prescott, William Hickling. 1854. History Of The Reign Of Ferdinand And Isabella, The Catholic, Of Spain. Ebook. 7th ed. London: Richard Bentley Publisher in Ordinary to Her Majesty. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=nLn1I3VHIFMC&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA1.
3. Keens-Soper, Maurice. 1975. ‘The Liberal Disposition Of Diplomacy’. International Relations 5 (2): 908-916. doi:10.1177/004711787500500204.
4. Klein, Daniel. 2014. ‘The Origin Of ‘Liberalism”. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/the-origin-of-liberalism/283780/.
5. Skocpol, Theda. 1977. ‘Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: A Theoretical And Historical Critiquethe Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture And The Origins Of The European World-Economy In The Sixteenth Century.Immanuel Wallerstein’. American Journal Of Sociology 82 (5): 1075-1090. doi:10.1086/226431.
6. Williams, Mary Wilhelmine. 1922. ‘The Treaty of Tordesillas and the Argentine-Brazilian Boundary Settlement.’ The Hispanic American Historical Review 5, no. 1 : 3-23. doi:10.2307/2505977.