The Russian Frontier Society

Russia must be viewed from several angles during the early modern and modern periods, but one of them involves the twin themes of expansion and frontier operations. Expansion occurred in several directions—southward toward the Black Sea and Central Asia, west into east-central Europe, and of course eastward ultimately to the Pacific. Expansion placed Russia on the borders of several other major societies, including the Ottoman Empire and China. It also provided Russia with a large number of minority populations but also new expanses of land that could be settle by Russian (and other Slavic) migrants themselves. Frontier conditions developed in Siberia and other parts of Russian Asia even as the government—in principle an autocratic empire—struggled to extend controls. Minority populations pursued different kinds of economies and adhered to various religions, both local and otherwise.

Frontier societies often leave only scattered records, because the settlers themselves are preoccupied with their struggle to establish themselves and local populations leave scant written evidence. One of the sources of information about such societies, then, comes from traveler accounts. The document I would like you to read (you can by clicking here) comes from the account of an American traveler, John Ledyard, who journeyed through Russia and Siberia in 1787-1788. His materials offer insights into the Russian aspect of this new eastern frontier, and into the local Asiatic populations—which he, like many Russians at the time, lumped into the general category of Tatars—as well. He does not discuss government arrangements elaborately, but his implications are intriguing—suggesting in fact that there was not much government to discuss. He is quite aware of the possibility of comparing Russian involvement with minority peoples and with frontier conditions to situations in other societies, particularly the new United States and its native populations. While obviously not fond of Russians themselves, he suggests some of the differences between them and the natives, and some aspects of the interrelationships of the frontier.

All traveler accounts that go beyond the barebones reveal much about the travelers themselves, and their own preconceptions. In this case, some of Ledyard’s interpretive categories reflect more broadly on American ideas about peoples, and races, in the late 18th and 19th centuries.

John Ledyard was in some senses the first American explorer. Born in Connecticut and reasonably well schooled, he lacked an inheritance and spent some time finding a vocation. At one point he worked with American Natives at Dartmouth College, which provided some basis for judging the natives he encountered in Siberia. Later he traveled with the British explorer Captain Cook, and was the first American to encounter Russians on the Pacific. He trip through Russia was designed to reach the American northwest via Siberia, but it failed. Later he explored Africa and died on this trip. He published several travel accounts, including his description of the Siberia venture, and obviously informed them with his own point of view.

In the events since 1989, Russia has lost some of its former empire, but it still stretches through 12 time zones from the Pacific well into Europe. Asian Russia remains a vital part of the country, and the minority peoples whom Ledyard describes still operate in their homelands, interacting with Russians and the Russian government in complex ways.

After reading Ledyard’s account, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What were the most important features of the local populations in Siberia? What were some of the differences among the native groups? What were some of the differences between Russians and native peoples in Siberia? How did Russians and natives interact on the frontier? What were some of the key differences between Russian-native interactions on the eastern frontier and those that occurred between Americans and natives in the American west? What were the leading similarities? How does Ledyard describe the political conditions and government policies on the frontier? Is his characterization typical of frontier settings, or were there distinctive Russian features? What kinds of biases and preconceptions does Ledyard display? In your opinion, how much do these biases distort his account? How does he compare, as an observer, to other traveler accounts in other places and periods in world history? What was the role of Russian Asian expansion and its Asian frontier in world history from the 18th century to the present? Your thoughts…

A Revolutionary Formula for China’s Revival

By 1900 the prognosis for the Qing Dynasty had deteriorated from poor to critical. It had survived massive peasant revolts, military defeats at the hands of the British, French, and Japanese, and a series of one-sided treaties that made a mockery of China’s self-image as the world’s greatest power. But the government was doing little more than surviving. In 1898, a desperate attempt to revamp government, encourage education, promote agriculture and commerce, and strengthen the armed forces resulted in a flurry of decrees from the Guangxu emperor during the period known as the One Hundred Days’ Reforms. The emperor’s efforts, however, were scuttled by court reactionaries led by the Empress Dowager Cixi. Cixi then lent her support to the anti-foreign secret societies known as the Boxers, who in 1899 went on a rampage against foreigners and Chinese Christians and in 1900 besieged the foreign embassies in Beijing. The Boxer Rebellion was suppressed by a multi-national force, and China was forced to accept another humiliating treaty—one that included an indemnity of $333 million. Support for the government virtually disappeared, and many intellectuals, students, generals, secret society members, and Chinese living abroad began plotting the downfall of the Qing.

The leading revolutionary was Sun Yat-sen, a man far different from previous Chinese reformers. Born to a poor rural family near Guangzhou, Sun was educated in Hawaiian and Chinese missionary schools and developed a worldview more Western than Confucian. Galled by China’s military impotence and Qing ineptitude, in 1894 he founded the secret Revive China Society, which in 1895 laid plans to overthrow the government. The plot was uncovered, and Sun was forced into exile. After sixteen years of traveling, planning, writing, and organizing, his hopes for radical change were realized when the revolution that ended the Qing era broke out in 1911.

On his return to China from the United States, he was elected provisional president of the United Provinces of China on December 30, 1911. Sun’s moment of glory was short-lived. Without an armed force or an organized political party to back him up, Sun resigned as president in 1912 in favor of the military strongman Yuan Shikai, who one year later sent Sun into exile as part of his plan to establish a dictatorship. Sun returned to Guangzhou in 1917 and attempted to establish a parliamentary government, but by then China had descended into the chaos of warlord rule. When Sun died in 1925, the prospects of national unity and orderly government for China still seemed dim.

In the document I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here), Sun presents an early formulation of his “three people’s principles,” which served as the ideology of the United League, and organization he founded in 1905 in Tokyo that combined members of Chinese secret societies, overseas Chinese groups, and Chinese students in Japan. When the United League joined several other groups to form the Guomindang, or Nationalist, party in 1912, Sun’s three principles provided the platform for the new party. Sun presented the following analysis of his three principles in a speech to the United League in Tokyo in 1906 to help celebrate the first anniversary of the League’s publication, Min Pao (The People’s Journal).

After you have read excerpts from Sun’s speech, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What is meant by Sun’s principle of nationalism? Against whom are his nationalist sentiments directed? How is his principle of nationalism linked to the principle of democracy? What does he mean by the principle of democracy, and why does he feel it is so important to the future of China? What, according to Sun, have been the good and bad effects of “the advances of civilization?” Why have the benefits of these advances been so poorly distributed? Briefly describe Sun’s “land valuation procedure” and its relation to the principle of livelihood. What are its strengths and weaknesses? What is Sun’s attitude toward the West? How and in what ways will the future government and society of China be superior to those of the West? To what extent do they draw on traditional Chinese thought and practice? Your thoughts…

Chinese Reform Movements

During the half-century following the Opium War the emperors of the Qing dynasty faced a series of increasingly grave challenges. In the 1850s and 1860s several huge peasant uprisings convulsed much of the country. The largest of these upheavals, the Taiping Rebellion, was inspired by a convert to Christianity who preached a doctrine of communal egalitarianism and believed he was the brother of Jesus. Imperial authorities were successful in suppressing the Taipings and the other rebels, but the fighting caused more than 20 million deaths. No other country in the 19th-century world experienced a comparable catastrophe (although the severe famines in India late in the century came close).

The emperors also had to cope with relentless pressures from Western Europeans, Russians, and Americans, all of whom sought increased commercial advantages in China. From the 1840s onward, the growing disparity between the power of the Western states and China forced the emperors to agree to a steady increase in the number of “treaty ports,” i.e. Chinese cities largely controlled by western diplomats and merchants. In the treaty ports, whose very existence was deeply offensive to China’s Confucian officials, conflict between arrogant Westerners and Chinese was endemic.

In 1894-1895, as living standards for many Chinese spiraled downward and as opium addiction continued to spread, China’s leaders confronted a new source of humiliation when the military leadership in Meiji Japan seized upon political unrest in Korea, a longtime vassal state of China, as a pretext for imperialist expansion. A brief war between China and Japan ensued. Well-led, well-trained, and well-equipped Japanese soldiers quickly defeated their Chinese adversaries. The Chinese surrendered and agreed to the terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which gave control of Korea to Japan and also ceded the island of Formosa (Taiwan) to the Japanese.

Buffeted by these repeated shocks, the Chinese scrambled for an effective response. In the aftermath of the Opium War, a few officials had recommended that Chinese scholars begin to study western science and technology and that the government take the lead in establishing arsenals for the manufacture of Western-style weapons. Policies along these lines were subsequently implemented, but there was no basic reform of the Chinese government, and no Chinese counterpart to the reforms introduced by the leaders of the Meiji Restoration in Japan (more on that later in the week). However, following China’s defeat by Japan in 1894-1895, pleas by officials for thorough reform increased sharply.

The documents that I would like you to read come from the period of deep crisis triggered by the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, a crisis that culminated in the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911-1912. The documents include excerpts from the writings of Kang Yuwei (including a "Statement for the 'Society for the Study of Self-Strenthening'" [Doc 41, pgs. 152-154]and "Memorial to the Emperor" [pgs. 269-270]) and Ling Qichao (you can click here for that document; read pgs. 289-293 starting under the heading "The Meaning of 'Renewing the People'"), two of the most influential reformers. The fourth document contains key passages from the 1901 reform decree issued by the Empress Dowager Cixi (you can read it by clicking here, pgs. 285-287), the de facto head of state for most of the period from the 1860s to 1908. How did Chinese leaders respond to the problems they faced at the end of the 19th century? Why did they fail?

Additionally, after reading all four documents, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: What problems were the founding of the “Society for the Study of Self-Strengthening” intended to solve? How were these problems to be solved? To whom was this appeal directed? In his memorial to the emperor, what was Kang Yuwei’s rationale for reform? What foreign models did he reject? What foreign models did he think were appropriate for China? What did Liang Qichao mean by “renewing the people?” In what ways did this idea represent a new trend in the reform movement? How did “renewing the people” compare with “self-strengthening?” How do you explain the change? Was Liang Qichao more of a reformer or a revolutionary? How do you explain the strength of Confucian teachings in China around 1900, 2,500 years after they had first been articulated? Why did the attempts to reform and preserve the Qing dynasty fail? Your thoughts…

The Plight of the Emperor’s Subjects

Zeng Guofan was one of nineteenth-century China’s truly impressive statesmen. Born into a farm family in the province of Hunan, Zeng received a Confucian education and passed the highest civil service examination at age twenty-eight. As a government official, his greatest achievement was the organization and leadership of a potent military force, the Xiang Army, which was instrumental in suppressing the Taiping Rebellion, a massive peasant revolt that raged through China between 1850 and 1864. Knowing well the problems of the regime, especially the cause of unrest among the peasantry, Zeng drew up a memorandum that I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here) on February 7, 1852, for Emperor Xianfeng. It provides a clear and balanced assessment of China’s problems at midcentury.

After reading the memorandum, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: According to Zeng, what is the key to keeping China peaceful and secure? Which aspects of the government’s tax policies does Zeng deplore? How, according to Zeng, does the behavior of local officials, soldiers, and magistrates affect the lives of the Chinese people? Zeng states at the end of his memorandum that he will draft a plan to address the shortcomings of the tax system. What do you guess he will propose? How does Zeng propose to remedy the problem of corruption? Does his solution have a reasonable chance of success? Why or why not? Your thoughts…

The Opium War: China and the West

During most of the Ming dynasty and the first half of the Qing dynasty, Chinese emperors presided over a prosperous and orderly society. Jesuit missionaries to the Qing court, who had some success in winning converts, sent numerous letters to colleagues in Europe that were strongly positive about what they observed. Leaders of the European Enlightenment such as Voltaire based their views of China on the Jesuit reports and praised the Chinese political system for its stability and reasonableness.

Around 1800, however, much began to go wrong in China. By this date the Chinese population, which had been growing rapidly for the past three centuries, began to press hard against the available food supply. In the past, the Chinese had been among the world’s most innovative people with regard to technology, but for reasons that are poorly understood, this was no longer the case. Living standards in China, which scholars think were roughly comparable to those in Europe up to 1800, began to plummet. In addition, Chinese emperors after 1800 were less competent than those who had reigned during the first half of the Qing period.

The emperors’ problems were exacerbated by the actions of the British East India Company and other Western traders who began to ship huge quantities of opium to China around 1800. Attempts by the Qing authorities to halt the trade in opium (which was grown in British-controlled India) proved ineffective, and addiction to the drug began to spread. In response, Emperor Daoguang dispatched one of his most highly regarded officials, Lin Zexu, to Canton (present-day Guangzhou) in 1839 to find a remedy. It was in this context that Lin addressed his famous letter to Queen Victoria. Lin also blockaded Canton harbor and had a large quantity of opium seized and destroyed. The British responded by attacking Canton and several other Chinese ports. Overwhelmed, the Chinese surrendered. By the terms of the 1842 Treaty of Nanjing, the Chinese were forced to open several ports to trade, to cede the island of Hong Kong, to grant extraterritoriality to British subjects residing in China, and to make other significant concessions (which were soon extended to other Western governments).

The two letters that I would like you to read illustrate the contrast in Chinese and British thinking about the conflict over opium smuggling. How does Lin’s letter (that you can read by clicking here; Doc 1, pgs. 24-28)—which may have never have reached its destination—reveal how the Qing authorities saw the dispute, while also suggesting reasons why the Chinese were easily defeated? How does the letter from Lord Palmerston (you can read that letter by clicking here), the British Foreign Secretary, shed light on the perspective of the British?

After reading the letters, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What were Lin’s objections to the opium trade? What was his solution to the problem of opium consumption in China? Was he a Confucian? How well informed was Lin about England and about Chinese relations with England? What does Lin’s letter suggest about the traditional goals of China’s leaders in international relations? What changes in the 19th-century world made the attainment of these aims problematic? How does Palmerston’s letter differ from Lin’s? Are there any similarities? Was there any basis for compromise between the two governments? Were Lin and Palmerston nationalists? Why did the use of opium spread in China during the 19th century? How did the Chinese response to the growth of European wealth and power compare with those of Russia in Season 3 and the Ottoman Empire in Season 4? Your thoughts…

The Beginnings of Arab Nationalism

Of all the non-Turkish ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs were the sultan’s least troublesome during the nineteenth century. Attached to the Ottoman state through deeply ingrained habits of loyalty and the perception of the sultan/caliph as protector of the Islamic community, or umma, the Arabs, unlike the Balkan Christians, Kurds, and Armenians, experienced no surge of nationalism and made no demands for independence or greater autonomy. This changed in the years directly preceding the outbreak of World War I, when Arab nationalism suddenly intensified. It gained strength during the Arab revolt against the Ottomans in World War I and has continued to be a significant part of the region’s politics to the present day.

Although Arab nationalism became a political force only on the eve of World War I, its roots can be traced back to the nineteenth century, when publications of Arabic language printing houses and the establishment of schools and universities in major Arab cities under the auspices of French Jesuit and American Protestant missionaries sparked renewed interest in Arab history and literature. These same missionary schools also introduced Arab students to Western science and Western ideas of constitutionalism and liberalism. Continued Ottoman misrule and military losses in the Balkans also encouraged the growth of Arab consciousness. The Ottoman Empire, some suggested, was no longer capable of defending the interests of Islam, and a few went further to suggest that the Islamic community would continue to decline until its founders and natural leaders, the Arabs, regained control.

Arab discontent intensified after the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. Although many Arabs had supported the Young Turks’ political agenda before the revolution, they turned against the new regime after it replaced Arab officials with Turks, stripped many old Arab families of their local authority, mandated the use of Turkish throughout the empire, and encouraged the further secularization of education and the law. Arab political organizations formed in Cairo, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and Aleppo, with some advocating greater Arab autonomy within the empire, and others demanding Arab independence.

Independence clearly was the goal of the author or authors of the “announcement” to the Arabs that I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here), which appeared in Cairo in the summer of 1914. It may have been written by a supporter of Major Aziz Ali-al-Misri, a decorated Arab officer in the Ottoman Army and founder of the Covenant, an organization of Arab officers dedicated to Arab independence. Arrested and condemned to death by Ottoman officials in early 1914, he was released later in the year and allowed to go to Cairo as a result of foreign pressure and public outcry among the Arabs.

After reading the document, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: The author’s nationalism is directed against both the Turks and the West. What, specifically, are his views of each? Does he have a deeper aversion for the Turks or for the Western nations? Why? In the view of the author, what lessons can the Arabs learn from the Armenians? How does the author define “Arab?” What role does religion play in connection with the author’s nationalism? How committed is he to Islam? What are the author’s goals for the Arab people? How does he believe these goals can be attained? Your thoughts…

Crisis and Reform in the Ottoman Empire

For most of the long 19th century, the sultans of the Ottoman Empire sought to reform the institutions of their extensive and diverse realm in order to stave off the growing threat of European and Russian pressures. The sultans had known since 1683, when a coalition of European armies forced the Turks to give up their second siege of Vienna and then pushed them south toward the Balkans, that Ottoman military strength had declined from its peak at the time of Suleiman. Additional defeats at the hands of European and Russian forces during the 18th century indicated that the “gunpowder gap” between the Turks and their longtime adversaries to the north and west was widening.

For the Ottoman leaders, the ominous trend in military affairs was confirmed in the most shocking way by the French invasion and occupation of Egypt in 1798. Although essentially self-governing under the Mamluk dynasty, Egypt had been a part of the Ottoman Empire for three centuries. The ease with which Napoleon Bonaparte and his soldiers took charge in Egypt—even though the British forced them to leave a few years later—registered as a genuine disaster to the Ottomans. As French policy in Egypt unfolded in the summer of 1798, it became clear to at least some of the Ottomans, that the “great divergence” between the West and the Islamic Middle East was not limited to military matters but that it also included political, economic, and cultural factors.

The response of the sultans and their advisers to the French invasion was in many ways enlightened, if ultimately inadequate. Selim III (reigned 1789-1807) tried to introduce changes in the military and in the system of imperial administration, but could not overcome resistance by powerful vested interests, especially the now-corrupt Janissary corps. His nephew and successor, Mahmud II (reigned 1808-1839) accelerated the reform effort and was able to abolish the Janissaries, establish a small number of secular schools, and reduce the role of Muslim judges (qadis) in the judicial system.

Under the leadership of Mahmud’s two sons, Abdul Mejid (reigned 1839-1861) and Abdul Aziz (reigned 1861-1876), the movement for reform, now known as Tanzimat (“reorganization”), became more sweeping. The Ottomans expanded the number of secular schools, issued modern law codes, and sponsored the construction of factories, railways, and steamships. When Sultan Abdul Hamid II (reigned 1876-1909) agreed to a constitution providing for a parliament, the reform movement seemed to be entering a new stage, one that might include the establishment of liberal political institutions.

But Abdul Hamid II dismissed the parliament soon after it convened, having become fearful that the process of reform was going too far. He then set aside the new constitution, allied himself with the conservative ulama (Islamic scholars), and governed autocratically during the remaining years of his reign. Although reform did not end entirely, the era of the Tanzimat movement was now over. One of the most significant efforts at reform undertaken by a non-Western elite in the 19th century had fallen short of its goal of full modernization.

In the first document I would like you to read (you can read them all by clicking here), the Ottoman Egyptian historian Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti expresses his admiration for the research institute, known as the Institute of Egypt, the French established in Cairo in 1798. Jabarti’s reaction to the French is important because he was one of the most learned scholars of his time in the Middle East. The second and third documents illustrate basic ideas of the Tanzimat movement as expressed in two key imperial rescripts (decrees) issued by Sultan Abdul Mejid. How do these documents clarify the challenges facing the Ottoman reformers?

After you have finished reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What impressed Jabarti about the French scholars and scientists in Cairo? What do his reactions suggest about the relationship of Middle Eastern scholars to European developments such as the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment? What does the establishment of the Institute of Egypt suggest about the relationship between the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, and about the impact of the French Revolution on the Middle East? According to the two Ottoman decrees, what problems were most worrisome to the Turkish authorities—political, economic, or religious? What remedies did the sultans propose? Based on your reading of the decrees, which groups in the Ottoman Empire would have been most receptive to the reforms? What groups would have been hostile to them? What implications did the Tanzimat movement have for the role of Islam in the Ottoman lands? Is there a conflict between the teachings of Islam and the desire to be modern? How did the Ottoman attempts at reform compare with similar efforts in Russia in Season 3? What circumstances made the Ottoman situation distinctive? Your thoughts…

Next Week is Registration

Folks, next week (Wed and Thurs) is registration week for social studies. I've talked with all of you except for you guys in 1st and 3rd periods. Please do me a favor if we haven't talked yet... please EMAIL ME (a.k.a. don't post this to the blog) your desired classes for next year. My assumption is that most of you will take AP US next year, but please confirm this with me. Also if you are interested in taking either AP Psychology, Psychology/Sociology, or Controversial Issues/Philosophy, please let me know so I can sign you up for those classes. Next week is Societies at a Crossroads week, so it's a big week, and we won't have time to talk about this during class, so PLEASE EMAIL ON THIS IMMEDIATELY if we haven't yet talked (THAT WOULD BE EVERYONE IN 1ST AND 3RD PERIODS). Thanks.

Unit 10 Test Tomorrow

Feel free to discuss test issues here... the blog is open for business...

The Sting of Racism in World History

If you have been reading the blog closely since the Season 4 Premiere, you may have noticed a new and significant theme in some writers, i.e. the attention given to perceived racial differences and hierarchies. Rudyard Kipling’s poem, "The White Man's Burden", first published in 1899 in a leading American magazine, is one of the best known illustrations of the late 19th century trend toward racialized thinking in England and the United States. On this same blog, the documents by the English soldier F. D. Lugard and the French Prime Minister Jules Ferry, both written somewhat earlier than the Kipling poem, suggest a context in which the existence of racial hierarchies was taken for granted by many Europeans and Americans. Also noteworthy in documents from around 1900 is the use of racial categories by Kang Youwei, a Chinese reformer of the 1890s, and by Yamagata Aritomo, a Japanese military leader (you’ll be reading both of these documents next week).

The documents I would like you to read now illustrate the rise of racism in the late 19th century by drawing on the memories of two influential writers and political activists who came of age in the 1890s, W. E. B. Du Bois and Mohandas K. Gandhi. Du Bois grew up in a small town in western Massachusetts, earned a Ph.D. in history from Harvard (becoming the first African American to do so), wrote numerous scholarly works of history and sociology, was one of the founders of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), and had a long career as a writer and activist on behalf of racial and social equality in the United States and internationally. The document I would like you to read from Du Bois (you can read it by clicking here) centers on a memory from his childhood and is taken from his classic collection of essays, The Souls of Black Folk, in which he wrote that “the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color-line.” Mohandas Gandhi, later called Mahatma (“Great Soul”), was born to a wealthy Hindu family in western India. After completing legal studies in London, he decided to practice law in South Africa, then a British colony with a large Indian expatriate community. The document I would like you to read by Gandhi comes from his autobiography (you can read excerpts from it by clicking here; please read pgs. 111-115), first published in the 1920s, and recalls his introduction to racial prejudice in South Africa shortly after his arrival there in 1893. How do these two documents help one to understand the growing importance of racism in the late 19th century world?

After reading the documents, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: What did Du Bois mean by “twoness?” How did Gandhi respond to the insults and mistreatment he received in South Africa? What political, economic, and cultural developments explain the rise of racism in the 19th century world? What was the connection between American racism and European discussions of imperialism? To what extent was Du Bois correct about the importance of the “color-line” in the 20th century? What is a race? What has happened to racism in world history since the early 20th century? Your thoughts…

For 1st Period ONLY- Operation SCRAP Donations are Actually Due THURSDAY

Folks in 1st period, I apologize that I read the email sent to me wrong, all donations listed on my board are due on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH. You all made the pledge to donate all of these items, so the pledge must be kept. Between tomorrow and Thursday, all of the following items must be brought in...

Tote bag (recycling bags from the grocery store) (3)
Pencils (12)
Pens (6)
Markers (3 small boxes)
Colored pencils (3 small boxes)
Erasers (6)
Glue stick (3)
Spiral notebook (3)
Pack of notebook paper (3)

I'll have a box under the list on my board tomorrow. As you drop supplies, please adjust the number of that supply still needed on the board. Thanks.

Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

Victory in the Spanish-American War thrust the United States into the new position of world power, but problems in the Western Hemisphere attracted American interests. Many Caribbean countries were plagued with political instability, and violent revolutions broke out. Compounding the problem was the poor financial state of these countries. Concerned with stability in the region, and wary that hostile foreign powers might use military force to collect debts from these countries and establish a presence in the hemisphere, President Theodore Roosevelt intervened in the domestic affairs of neighboring countries to provide stability and order. This intervention also created investment opportunities for American bankers and businessmen. Such shortsighted activities became a pattern and helped create a legacy of distrust between Latin American nations and the United States. In his 1904 annual message to Congress (that you can read excerpts from by clicking here), Roosevelt offered an explanation for intervention in his famous “corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.

After you have read the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: According to Roosevelt, for what reasons would the United States intervene in a Caribbean basin country’s affairs? What are the potential problems of becoming an “international police power?” In what instances would the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine be used? Your thoughts…

“A Colombian View of the Panama Canal Question”

Since the 1840s, Americans had considered constructing a central American canal to facilitate inter-ocean transportation, but little was done until the 20th century. A French company—Compagnie Universelle du Canal de Panama—obtained the rights to build a canal in the Colombian province of Panama in 1881, but the effort ended in bankruptcy. When an American commission recommended a construction of a canal in Nicaragua, representatives of the defunct French company, who held the rights to a Panama canal, lobbied Congress to adopt their route. When the group, led by Philippe Bunau-Varilla, lowered their asking price for the rights to build in Panama from $109 million to $40 million, Congress authorized an American canal zone 10 miles wide for $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. As the Colombian government considered the treaty, Raul Perez, Colombia’s ambassador to the United States, published an article in The North American Review that I would like you to read (by clicking here; please read pgs. 63-68). Although not representing Colombia’s official position, the article indicates apprehension over America’s intervention as well as Colombia’s potential loss from the canal.

After reading the article, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: For what reasons does Raul Perez oppose the Hay-Herran Treaty? In what ways does Perez propose a better treaty for Colombia? What happens to Colombia’s interest in the canal a few months after this article appeared? How would Alfred J. Beveridge respond to Perez’s views? Your thoughts…

Aguinaldo’s Call for Philippine Independence

The Spanish-American War began with a stunning naval victory in the Philippines for the United States. The plan was to inflict severe damage on the Spanish colony of the Philippines in order to coerce Spain to liberate Cuba. Commodore George Dewey and the Asiatic squadron destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay, but lacking sufficient numbers of troops, they could not occupy territory until an expeditionary force arrived from America. Helping liberate the countryside was Filipino nationalist Emilio Aguinaldo. He had been leading a rebellion against the Spanish colonial government before the war broke out in 1898. Understanding that the American motive in the war was to liberate Cuba from Spanish colonial rule, Aguinaldo assumed that helping American forces remove Spanish troops might mean independence for the Philippines. Aguinaldo and his supporters even established a temporary government. When they realized that America would not leave the Philippines, Aguinaldo issued a call for independence and rebelled against the United States, touching off a war that lasted nearly three years. You can read his declaration of independence, as presented in The Outlook, a popular news magazine, by clicking here.

After you read Aguinaldo’s declaration I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are Aguinaldo’s reasons for waging war against the United States? In what ways does Aguinaldo use references about America to support his case for Filipino independence? For what reasons does Aguinaldo dismiss “this autonomy America offers?” Your thoughts…

Mark Twain, “To the Person Sitting in Darkness”

In 1896, Filipino rebels led by Emilio Aguinaldo began fighting battles to expel the Spanish. Aided by U.S. arms, Aguinaldo’s troops won several battles and issued a declaration of independence in June 1898. But within months, Spain ceded the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam to the United States in exchange for $20 million. Unwilling to disband their provisional government or agree to U.S. control, Filipino forces attacked U.S. soldiers. Four years of fierce guerilla warfare ensued. Dispatching 125,000 troops, the United States lost 4,000 men in the struggle. At the same time, over 20,000 Filipino soldiers and perhaps 200,000 civilians perished. In 1902, Congress reached a compromise in which a presidential appointee governed the islands in conjunction with a Filipino assembly. In 1946, the Philippines were actually granted independence.

Many Americans opposed U.S. imperialism. Prominent citizens including William Jennings Bryan, Jane Addams, and Andrew Carnegie argued that acquisition of foreign territories violated national ideals. Some anti-imperialists also claimed that U.S. colonies would jeopardize white supremacy and undermine capitalism.

Mark Twain was a vociferous critic of imperialism. Twain’s writings including The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn brought him international acclaim. He traveled widely and encountered indigenous peoples in several countries. In much of his work, Twain used satire combined with facts to comment on international relations. He was also an active member of the American Friends of Russia and the Anti-Imperialist League. In an essay I would like you to read (you can by clicking here; please read pgs. 265-271), Twain attacks the imperialistic ambitions of President William McKinley and other world leaders.

After you have read the essay, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: Why does Twain oppose imperialism? How would you describe the tone of Twain’s writing? Do you think it is effective? How does Twain characterize U.S. involvement in the Philippines? Compare Twain’s essay to Albert Beveridge's speech. How do their interpretations of imperialism differ? Whose arguments most closely resemble your view of imperialism? Why?

Albert J. Beveridge Calls for an American Empire

Fueled by capitalism, nationalism, white supremacy, and sensationalized journalism, a drive for territorial expansion consumed the United States in the decades following the American Civil War. Imperialists set their sights on potential U.S. colonies in Latin America and Asia.

After the United States won the Spanish-American War in 1898, Americans were bitterly divided over whether or not to annex the Philippines. The debates escalated after a vicious guerilla war erupted between Filipino rebels and U.S. soldiers. Albert J. Beveridge, a first-term Republican senator from Indiana, was one of the most ardent advocates of imperialism. Noted for his speaking abilities and fervent nationalism, Beveridge traveled to the Philippines in order to gather information. The voyage only intensified his belief that the United States should acquire a colonial empire. I would like you to read extract highlights of one of Beveridge’s speeches supporting annexation of the Philippines by clicking here (please read pgs. 23-26).

After reading the speech, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: Why does Beveridge think that the United States should annex the Philippines? Do you find his arguments convincing? Explain your answer. How does Beveridge describe Asian people? What is the meaning and significance of his use of terms like “civilization,” “Anglo-Saxon,” and “our race?” What legal justification does Beveridge use to justify imperialism? Compare Beveridge’s arguments to those of Mark Twain. How do their interpretations of imperialism differ? Whose arguments most closely resemble your view of imperialism? Why? Your thoughts…

Queen Liliuokalani’s Response to American Imperialism in Hawaii

Over the past five hundred years, both the tempo and the direction of encounters between strangers in the Pacific have been radically altered by the rise of Western powers to global predominance. By the nineteenth century, countries like Britain, France, and the United States were provoking a massive challenge to traditional ways of life all across the globe. The “world revolution of westernization” destabilized and disrupted indigenous societies while challenging their sovereignty. These were NOT relationships of mutual interaction, but relationships of extreme domination. In the case of Hawaii, not even constitutional innovation could prevent incorporation into the United States’ growing imperialist system. It is important to focus on the indigenous side of the harsh imperial world of the nineteenth century in order to restore voice and agency to peoples who have too often been treated as silent and passive victims of “progress.”

By the second half of the nineteenth century, it was clear that out of all of the Western powers, the United States posed the greatest threat to Hawaii. After the entrance of California into the United States in 1850, its ambitions in the Pacific became much greater. The Hawaiian monarchy cultivated a political alliance with Britain, but pressure from the United States was becoming harder and harder to resist. American interests in Hawaii were both strategic (the islands were an ideal base from which to pursue a more aggressive Pacific policy) and economic (the development of plantation agriculture in such crops as coffee, sugar, and fruit gave Americans another incentive to settle in Hawaii and become involved in its internal affairs).

American interests were increasingly antagonistic to the Hawaiian monarchy, particularly during the reign of the last two independent rulers of the islands, King Kalakaua and Queen Liliuokalani. The government became indebted to the sugar magnates, and nonnative members of the legislature did not hesitate to point out the administrative and financial shortcomings of the kingdom. As American settlers grew impatient with the monarchy, the United States government was becoming alarmed by German activities in the Pacific. Americans were active in the formation of the Hawaiian League, which forced the king to accept a new constitution in 1887, under which he became a mere figurehead with no active role in government. The king’s only alternative was to be forcibly removed from power. When Liliuokalani tried to reassert royal power, she was deposed. In 1893, a republic was declared with American settlers in control. Five years later, Hawaii was annexed to the United States. A century of innovation in indigenous political and constitutional development had come to an end.

The document I would like you to read is taken from the memoirs of Hawaii’s last monarch, Queen Liliuokalani. Again, Liliuokalani was overthrown in a revolution led by American settlers, who created a Hawaiian republic. The excerpts from her memoirs I would like you to read (you can read them by clicking here; please read pgs. 366-372) were written in 1897, after she was removed from power but just before the Hawaiian Islands were officially annexed by the United States. One purpose of her autobiography was to influence public opinion in the United States to prevent that annexation.

After you have read the document, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: Does Liliuokalani seem to accept or resist the idea of Western cultural superiority? What is the purpose of her plea to the American people? What do think she is trying to accomplish? How do you feel about the Queen’s argument regarding the United States’ actions in Hawaii? Your thoughts…

Incidentally, the call for Hawaiian freedom and independence continues in the early 21st century. Check out the website of the Hawaii Independence Party by clicking here.

The Decades of Imperialism in Africa

I would like for you all to read four documents that all date from the period 1880 to 1910 (you can read all four documents by clicking here). This was the “great age” of European imperialism in Africa, when virtually all available territory was swept up by the British, French, Germans, or Belgians. African political and economic life was transformed by the inescapable European presence.

The first document comes from German Southwest Africa. It is unusual because it was written in Swahili by an African trader. A prosaic account of theft on a trip to an inland tribal village, the statement shows how some Africans and their new rulers could interact to apparent mutual benefit.

The second document briefly describes the new work system the Europeans brought. It uses the derogatory term kaffir, taken from the Arab word for pagan, to describe labor in the British-controlled mines in South Africa, while at the same time it claims great benefits from the jobs. The vantage point is that of an owner and Westerner. What might the workers have thought of this system?

The third document, also from British-controlled southern Africa, describes a characteristic legal arrangement used to deprive African chiefs of their land. It was carried through by agents of Cecil Rhodes. By granting full powers to the concession holders, this land-use agreement made later incorporation into the British Empire possible.

The fourth document, from French-held Mali in the region below the Sahara, was issued in 1890 by a French military commander who let no African stand in his way. The arrangement described was meant to regularize a local government, in part by playing different groups against each other, while disclaiming French power. What roles were reserved for the imperialist forces?

Collectively, the documents on the imperialist impact raise a number of basic questions. How did the Europeans view Africans at this point? How did imperialist penetration and controls compare with earlier colonial outposts that existed during Season 3? What accounts for the change? Finally, how would Africans perceive the new imperialism, and how might their reactions differ?

Imperialism is recent in African history. Understanding its impact, its limitations, and the responses it provoked is vital to a grasp of African patterns even after imperialism subsided. What gains did Europeans think they were bringing to Africa through imperialism? How did Europeans treat local rulers? Why did Europeans find it appropriate to relegate Africans to low-level, dangerous, and low-paying jobs? What is the evidence on this subject in the Kimberly mines document? What do these imperialist documents suggest about the effects of European conquest on Africa and Africans at the end of the 19th century? Your thoughts…

The Fate of the Ndebele

If you want proof of the remarkable changes in Africa during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, consider the fate of the Ndebele (pronounced en-duh-bee’-lee) and the life of one of their sons, Ndansi Kumalo. In the early nineteenth century the Ndebele were pastoralists living in southeastern Africa, a region of political turmoil and economic hardship as a result of overpopulation and drought. In the 1820s, they fled from the warriors of the Zulu chieftain Shaka, who in just a few years created a large and formidable Zulu state in southeastern Africa. The Ndebele moved to a region north of the Vaal River but ten years later were forced off their land by Boer trekkers, Dutch pioneers from the south who sought grazing land for their cattle. The Ndebele moved north of the Limpopo River to a region that is part of modern Zimbabwe. Despite their years of flight, they were able to subdue other groups in the region and establish a sizable kingdom with a population of 100,000.

But the Ndebele could not escape danger. This time it came from the British, who, under the famous imperialist Cecil Rhodes, were anxious to exploit the region’s mineral wealth. In 1888, the Ndebele chieftain, Lobengula, signed an agreement with Rhodes that gave the South Africa Company mining rights in exchange for 1,000 rifles and a monthly stipend of 100 pounds. Friction grew when European settlers began establishing farmsteads around 1890, and war broke out in 1893. The Ndebele were defeated, and they were defeated again when they rose up against the British in 1897. The Ndebele then made one last journey to a vast but arid reservation their new masters provided.

One of the Ndebele who made this journey was Ndansi Kumalo. Born in the late 1870s, he was raised as a warrior to protect Ndebele land and raid neighbors for wives and cattle. He fought against the British in the 1890s and took up farming after the Ndebele’s defeat. In 1932, he caught the attention of a British filmmaker who was in Southern Rhodesia to make Rhodes of Africa, on the life of Cecil Rhodes. He was recruited to play the part of Lobengula, the Ndebele chieftain. To complete the film he traveled to England, where he took in the sights of London and made his first plane flight. He also related his life story to the English Africanist Margery Perham, whose transcription of it serves as the basis for the document I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here). Rhodes of Africa was a modest success, and after it opened, Ndansi Kumalo returned to Africa, where he rejoined his large family. In the excerpt I would like you to read he describes events of the 1890s.

After you have read the document, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: Who was to blame for the outbreak of hostilities between the Ndebele and the British in 1893? How did conditions following the war lead to the 1897 rebellion? The conditions of the Ndebele rapidly deteriorated after the suppression of the rebellion. Why? Aside from raising revenue, what might the British have hoped to achieve by imposing, then raising, taxes on the Ndebele? What economic changes did the Ndebele experience as a result of their subjection to the Europeans? Do you agree with Ndansi Kumalo that the arrival of Europeans was a mixed blessing? Why or why not? Your thoughts…

The Realities of Legitimate Trade on the Oil Rivers

Between 1792 and 1836 one by one the maritime states of Europe and the United States outlawed slave trade, and although smuggling continued (no fewer than 3 million slaves were sent to the Americas in the 1800s), the centuries-old dependency of many African merchants and rulers on the transatlantic slave trade came to an end. Great Britain, the world’s leading slave-trading nation in the 1700s, took the lead in enforcing the new anti-slaving laws in the early 1800s by dispatching ships of the Royal Navy to patrol the African coast. The British also sought to persuade African kings and chieftains to end their dependence on selling slaves and provisioning slave ships in favor of “legitimate trade.” For merchants of the villages on the Niger River delta and the regions just to its east and west, legitimate trade primarily meant trade in palm oil, produced from the nut of the oil palm, a tree that flourished in a relatively small region just beyond the coastal swamplands. A traditional African food, palm oil had been one of the products Africans sold to European slavers, who added it along with pepper to the gruel they served slaves bound for the Americas. In the nineteenth century demand for palm oil soared in Europe, where it was used as a lubricant and as an ingredient in soap and candles. By the 1860s, more than 40,000 tons of palm oil were being exported from Africa annually, and the many creeks and rivers in the Niger delta and its vicinity came to be known as the “oil rivers.”

This shift to legitimate trade in palm oil was a mixed blessing for Africans. Producing palm oil was arduous, labor-intensive work, involving harvesting and sorting palm nuts, cooking them, boiling them, skimming off the oil, and pouring the finished product into thirty-six-pound tins that were transported to the coast in large canoes. As a result of the heavy demand for labor, domestic slavery in palm oil-producing regions actually increased in the 1800s. In addition, the palm oil trade heightened tensions and conflict among the numerous small city-states of the region, whose merchant-chieftains purchased the oil in the hinterland, transported it to the coast, and sold it to Europeans. Finally, as the documents that I would like you to read show African merchants were at a disadvantage in their dealing with the Royal Niger Company, which with the backing of British officials imposed and enforced a host of new trade duties and regulations. Such regulations and duties became especially burdensome from the 1880s onward when the introduction of petroleum-based lubricants in Europe softened the market for palm oil.

The two memoranda I would like you to read (you can read them both by clicking here) reveal some of the problems and frustrations faced by African palm-oil merchants in their dealings with the British. Both memoranda were produced by the king and chiefs of Brass (also known as Nembe), a city-state on the Niger delta with a long history of involvement in trade. More so than other African traders, the Brassmen resisted the British. They complained to British officials, evaded regulations, and occasionally attacked British steamboats and trading facilities. British authorities fined the merchants of Brass for their smuggling and attacks on British property, but they ignored their many petitions of grievance.

After you have read the two memoranda, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: On the basis of the information contained in the two memoranda, describe the economic changes experienced by the merchants of Brass as a result of their dealings with the British in the nineteenth century. What specific grievances do the Brass chiefs have in their dealings with the British? What specific changes in British policy do they seek? In what respects are the Brass traders at a disadvantage in their dealings with the British? How do the Brass traders perceive themselves in their relationship with the British? Do they consider themselves equals of the British? How do their attitudes compare with those of the African slave traders described in Equiano's narrative during Season 3? Your thoughts…

[NOTE: The advertisement above is not from this time period, but it does drive home the point of palm oil being used in soap (hence the brand name "Palmolive")].

“With the View of Bettering… Our Country”

During the partition of Africa, African chieftains signed hundreds of treaties that effectively gave European states or trading companies control of African lands and resources. The document that I would like you to read is an example of such a treaty (you can read the treaty by clicking here).

This “standard treaty” was utilized in the late 1880s by representatives of the Royal Niger Company, founded in 1879 as the United African Company by the merchant adventurer George Goldie Taubman. Competing with the French for trade on the Niger River, the company was commissioned by Queen Victoria in 1886 as the Royal Niger Company and given a trade monopoly and the right to exercise political authority in the region. After receiving the royal charter, the company’s representatives had to move quickly to head off the French, so they drew up a set of standard treaties in which one needed only to fill in the blanks. Using templates such as the one that you are going to read, British representatives of the trading companies concluded no fewer than 373 treaties with chieftains of the region between 1884 and 1892. These treaties served as the basis for the Niger Districts Protectorate, which in turn became the British colony of Nigeria.

After you have read the “standard treaty,” I would like you to consider and discuss the following: By accepting this treaty, what were the chieftains giving up? What benefits were the Africans to receive by signing the treaty? What does use of the standard treaty signify about English attitudes toward and knowledge of the Africans? What does the treaty indicate about the motives of the British in Africa? Your thoughts…

Images of Imperialism in Great Britain

Although late-nineteenth-century imperialism had its critics, there is no doubt that in the major imperialist states it had broad support, not just from investors, missionary groups, and civil servants who had direct interests in Africa and Asia but also from the general populace. Imperialism had this appeal for several reasons. For many it confirmed their faith in progress and their belief in the superiority of white, Christian Europeans over the rest of the world’s peoples. For ardent nationalists it was an endeavor that tested and demonstrated the nation’s strength and vigor. For those who found their lives in industrial society drab and tedious, it provided vicarious adventure, excitement, and a sense of the exotic.

Late-nineteenth-century popular culture provides ample evidence of the public’s enthusiasm for imperialism. Especially in Great Britain, the premier imperialist power, novels, poetry, plays, children’s books, advertisements, music hall entertainment, and publications of missionary societies were filled with positive imperialist images, themes, and motifs. Youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts (founded in 1908) and the Girl Guides (founded in 1910) sought to inculcate the values of service to Britain’s imperial cause. This constant exposure of the public to material connected with the British Empire reinforced imperialism’s appeal and strengthened support for the government’s expansionist policies.

The documents I would like you to look at are actually all visual and provide several examples of how British popular culture propagated imperial values (you can view them all by clicking here). The first group of illustrations appeared in An ABC for Baby Patriots by Mrs. Earnest Ames. Designed to be read to young children, it was published in 1898 in London and went through several printings. The illustration that accompanies the letter N depicts a British naval officer showing off a flotilla of Royal Navy ships on maneuvers off Spithead in the English Channel. The foreigners are a German on the left and a Frenchman on the right.

The second illustration is taken from The Kipling Reader, a collection of stories written for young adults by Rudyard Kipling. It was published in 1908 and illustrated by J. Macfarlane. Kipling, one of the most popular British writers of the era (again this is the guy that wrote The Jungle Book), is best remembered for his strong support of imperialism and his glorification of the heroism of the British soldier in India and Burma. This particular illustration depicts Scott, a character in the story “William the Conqueror.” Set in India during a famine, the story centers on the romance between Scott and a young woman nicknamed “William” while they toil to save Indians from starvation. Scott has saved hundreds of babies by feeding them milk from a herd of goats he has managed to maintain. In this illustration, he approaches William, who sees “a young man, beautiful as Paris, a god in a halo of gold dust, walking slowly at the head of his flocks, while at his knee ran small naked Cupids.”

The third illustration is an advertisement for Lipton Teas, which appeared in 1897 in the popular weekly the Illustrated London News. The Lipton Company was founded in Glasgow, Scotland, by the son of a poor Irish shopkeeper, Thomas Lipton. He opened a small food shop in Glasgow in 1871 and by 1890 owned 300 food stores throughout Great Britain. In 1890 the multimillionaire decided to cash in on the British taste for tea. Growing tea on plantations he owned in India and Ceylon and marketing it in inexpensive small packets that guaranteed freshness, the Lipton Company soon became synonymous with tea drinking throughout Europe and the United States. Advertisements for its tea appeared regularly in the Illustrated London News during the 1890s and early 1900s.

The fourth and fifth illustrations are cartoons published in the popular English humor magazine Punch, founded in 1841. Although noted for its political radicalism in its early years, by the late nineteenth century Punch had adopted a more moderate political stance, one that reflected the perspectives of its largely middle-class readers. The first cartoon, “On the Swoop,” was published in 1894, a time when the European powers were consolidating their territorial claims in Africa. It shows an eagle, representing Germany, about to pounce on an African village. By then it was clear that the German acquisition of Tanganyika had ruined the British imperialists’ dream of establishing a string of contiguous British colonies in east Africa that stretched from Cairo in Egypt to Cape Town in South Africa. In the second cartoon, “Britannia and Her Suitors,” was published in 1901, a time when Great Britain was still studiously avoiding entanglements in the diplomatic alliances then taking shape among the continental powers. It shows Britannia dancing with a figure representing its colonies, while in the background the German emperor Wilhelm II, then allied only with weak Austria-Hungary, look on unhappily. Further in the background Tsar Nicholas II of Russia dances with a figure representing France, with whom Russia had been allied since 1894.

After you have studied the illustrations, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What view of Africans and Asians are being communicated in each of the illustrations? What message is being communicated about the benefits colonial subjects are accruing from their status? What images are communicated about the British in their role as imperialists? What concrete examples of nationalism can you see in the various illustrations? How many of the justifications for imperialism presented in Jules Ferry's speech can you find represented in the illustrations? Using evidence in the illustrations alone, what conclusions can you draw about the reasons for imperialism’s popularity within the general British population? Your thoughts…

The Fall of Vietnam

In 1802, decades of civil war ended in Vietnam when Nguyen Anh unified the country after his conquests of Hanoi. Taking the name Emperor Gia Long, he and his successors attempted to govern the country according to the principles of Confucianism, which had played an important role in Vietnamese politics and thought for many centuries. The Nguyen emperors’ efforts to stabilize Vietnam and turn it into a model Confucian society led directly to the persecution of Vietnamese Catholics, who, as a result mainly of efforts by French missionaries, numbered 300,000 by the nineteenth century. When Vietnamese Catholics were implicated in a rebellion in 1833, Emperor Minh Mang ordered the imprisonment and execution of converts and European missionaries. Three years later he closed Vietnamese ports to European shipping (sort of reminiscent of an earlier Japan isn't it?). These steps caused the French, who sixty years earlier had helped the Nguyen Dynasty gain power, to send naval vessels and troops to Vietnam, ostensibly to protect Christianity but also to advance French imperialism. Fighting broke out in earnest in 1858, and although the Vietnamese staunchly resisted, Emperor Tu Duc accepted a settlement in 1862 by which he ceded to the French three southern provinces around Saigon.

Four years later, an anti-French rebellion broke out in a district west of Saigon, then under the governorship of Phan Thanh Gian, one of Vietnam’s leading statesmen and head of a delegation sent to Paris in 1863 to negotiate with the French government. When he failed to suppress the revolts, the French sent in troops and demanded control of the provinces. In 1867, Phan Thanh Gian acquiesced and then committed suicide, but not before he wrote two letters that I would like you to read (you can read them both by clicking here), one to Emperor Tu Duc and the other to administrators in his district.

After reading the letters, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What is the basis of Phan Thanh Gian’s hope that the emperor can save Vietnam from further humiliation at the hands of the French? What is Phan Thanh Gian’s view of the French? What evidence of Phan Thanh Gian’s Confucian training do you see in the letter? Why did Phan Thanh Gian decide to acquiesce to the French? Your thoughts…

A Call to Expel the British—the Azamgarh Proclamation

On May 10, 1857, in Meerut in northern India, soldiers from three Indian infantry regiments that were part of the army maintained by the British East India Company shot their British officers, released all prisoners from jail, and marched on the nearby city of Delhi, which fell on May 11. In June and July, similar mutinies occurred across northern India, and with scattered support from peasants, landowners, and a few native princes, for a time the rebellion appeared to threaten the very basis of British authority in India. In the following months, however, British forces regrouped, and with the help of loyal Indian troops, crushed the rebels in 1858. Though brief, the Indian Mutiny, or as it is also known, the Sepoy Rebellion, was bitterly fought, with atrocities committed by both sides. Two months after it ended, Parliament passed the India Act, which stripped the East India Company of its political authority and placed India directly under the Crown.

The significance of the Indian Mutiny continues to be widely debated. To some historians it represents the first true expression of Indian nationalism. To others, it was simply a series of army mutinies that never garnered much support outside the north. There is more unanimity about its causes. It was triggered by growing discontent among the Indian troops (sepoys) in the East India Company’s Bengal army, discontent that boiled over into rebellion when the British introduced new cartridges greased with cow fat, which made them obnoxious to Hindu soldiers, and pig fat, which made them obnoxious to Muslims. This was only the spark, however. The rebellion gained support from many different groups, some with specific grievances over British rule, and some with vague fears about British intentions. Some of these grievances and concerns are revealed in the document I would like you to read (you can by clicking here, please read pgs. 177-180).

The document, known as the Azamgarh Proclamation, was issued in the summer of 1857, supposedly by one of the grandsons of the eighty-two-year-old king of Delhi, Bahadur Shah. Although the king had little authority, even in Delhi itself, he was a descendant of the great Mughal rulers of previous centuries and still was considered “emperor of India,” since the Mughal Empire had never been officially abolished. Some of the rebels, including the author of the Azamgarh Proclamation, harbored the unrealistic dream of restoring Mughal authority once the British had been expelled. Primarily for this reason, the Indian Act, which stripped the East India Company of its political authority, also abolished the Mughal Empire.

I would also like you to consider the above picture for a moment as well (you can click on the picture to enlarge it). As I have already mentioned, the fighting in northern India in 1857-1858 was fierce. Both sides were responsible for numerous atrocities, i.e. the use of unprovoked and indiscriminant violence directed at defenseless victims. As the British soldiers (mainly loyal sepoys) retook cities that had been held by the rebels, they killed huge numbers of civilians. In addition, the British executed many suspected rebels without trial, often by hanging. Some of the suspects were tied to the barrel of cannons, which were then fired. Unforgettable and unforgivable for many British was the rebels’ execution of several hundred British occupants of the fortress at Kanpur, including many women and children, after they had surrendered and been guaranteed safe passage. In the aftermath of the rebellion, hastily constructed gallows, like the one photographed in the picture above in 1858, lined the ancient Grand Trunk Road in northern India.

After you finish reading the document, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What incentives does the author of the proclamation offer to those who would join the rebellion? For each of the groups discussed (zamindars, merchants, artisans) what, according to the proclamation, have been the detrimental effects of British rule? What role does religion play in the proclamation? How do the views of the author of the proclamation differ from those of Rammohun Roy? What solutions for India’s problems does the proclamation suggest? How did the 1857 rebellion in India resemble or differ from the French Revolution? What is the difference between a rebellion and a revolution in your opinion? On the basis of the photo above, who seem to be the executioners? Is anyone who would likely have been involved in the execution missing from the photo? How do you explain this? Why do you think this photo was taken? Who do you think took it? For whom was it probably intended? Your thoughts…

A Plea for Western Schools in India

Rammohun Roy, the father of modern India, was born into a devout high-caste Hindu family in 1772. He showed an early genius for languages and a keen interest in religions. By the age of twenty he had learned Arabic, Persian, Greek, and Sanskrit (the ancient language of India) and had spent five years wandering through India seeking religious enlightenment. He then learned English and entered the service of the British East India Company, ultimately attaining the highest administrative rank possible for an Indian. In 1814, at the age of forty-two, he retired to Calcutta, where he founded several newspapers and a number of schools, and campaigned to abolish the practice of widow burning, or sati. He also established the Society of God, dedicated to combining Christian ethical teaching with certain Hindu beliefs. He spent his final years in England, where he died in 1833.

Roy wrote a letter I would like you to read (you can by clicking here, please read pg. 111-113) in 1823 to the British governor-general of India, Lord Amherst, to oppose a British plan to sponsor a school in Calcutta to teach Sanskrit and Hindu literature. Roy believed that Indians should study English and receive a Western education.

In 1835 the debate over Indian education was settled when a British government committee decided that Indian schools should offer an English-style education. In the words of the committee’s chair, Thomas B. Macaulay, the goal was to produce young men who were “Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.”

After you have read the letter I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: How would you characterize Roy’s attitude toward the British? Does he seem comfortable offering the British advice? Explain your answer. What does he especially admire in Western civilization? What does he consider to be the weaknesses of an education based on traditional Indian learning? According to Roy, what implications would a Hindu-based educational system have for India’s political future? Your thoughts…

Motivations and Justifications for European Imperialism

The spread of European imperialism throughout Africa and much of Southeast Asia and the Pacific was the most important development in world history during the late 19th century. It was fueled by Europe’s great advantages in weaponry and industrial productivity. Imperialism brought new domination, new exposure to European-dominated world markets, and new cultural contacts to the colonies involved, plus new needs for resistance and definitions of regional identity. For the Europeans, imperialism brought new economic opportunities but also additional responsibilities, and it unquestionably heightened militarism and nationalist rivalry.

Analysis of the motives of European imperialists is not the only question imperialism raises—the interactions with conquered peoples are even more complex and important—but it is intriguing. Motivations require assessment of conditions within Europe, on the part of governments, imperialist adventurers, and even ordinary people, many of whom supported imperialism enthusiastically. They built on beliefs about economic and military needs, but also intellectual developments such as the rise of social Darwinism with its arguments about racial competition. The result of the various sources of imperialist rhetoric was an array of justifications, not all of which were consistent; here is an obvious challenge to historical interpretation.

Analysis of the causes of imperialism also provides a partial entry into discussions about impact. Imperialists presented several different faces to the people in the colonies, from rank exploitation to humanitarian concern. It is important to consider the policy implications of the various arguments for imperialism, and the potential reactions of Africans or Asians to these policies.

I would like you to read a few documents in connection with motivations for imperialism. The first document is from a book by a British soldier, F. D. Lugard, published in 1893, defending the expansion of the empire in East Africa (you can read it by clicking here). The second document is from a speech by Jules Ferry, French prime minister, in 1884 (you can read it by clicking here). Finally, the third document is the famous poem by British author Rudyard Kipling (yeah, the same Kipling that wrote The Jungle Book, which, I hate to be a killjoy here, is full of imperialist propaganda), first published in McClure’s Magazine in February 1899 (you can read it by clicking here).

After you have read the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are Lugard’s main arguments for imperialism? Are the arguments entirely consistent? Would they lead to harmonious policies? How do Lugard’s arguments compare with those of Jules Ferry? Where do they overlap, and where do they differ? What aspects of the European and world economy in the 19th century helped provoke imperialism? Was imperialism economically beneficial to the European powers? How do Kipling’s arguments compare with those of Lugard and Ferry? What was the “white man’s burden?” How important were religious and humanitarian arguments in actually causing imperialism? How important were they in shaping how imperialism worked out in Africa? What kinds of arguments for imperialism would be most popular in Europe itself, and why? What attitudes toward Africans are suggested in the three documents? Are they entirely consistent? What do the arguments for imperialism suggest about potential African reaction? What kind of future did the imperialists envisage for Africa? How do their implicit forecasts compare with what actually happened in Africa in the 20th century? Your thoughts…