Spinning Wheels and Black Flags: Indian Nationalists Challenge British Rule

Major changes in British-ruled India toward the end of the long 19th century created the conditions for the emergence of the first modern nationalist movement in the colonial world. The expansion of railways, the establishment of postal and telegraph services, and the spread of printed materials (in both English and major Indian languages) helped to shape a stronger sense of “Indian-ness.” The founding of Indian-owned factories in textiles and metals marked the emergence of a prosperous urban Indian middle class and the beginning of a native working class. The inclusion of Indians in various representative councils and in the Indian Civil Service created a cadre of experienced administrators. The inauguration of the Indian National Congress, which met annually from 1885, provided a forum in which nationalist leaders from around India could develop and advance their goals.

In the immediate aftermath of World War I, the leaders of the Congress created the first mass-based nationalist movement outside the West. Many factors combined to produce this result. The ghastly intra-European bloodletting between 1914 and 1918, graphically illustrated in texts like All Quiet on the Western Front, undercut the argument that Westerns had come to Asia and Africa to raise moral standards. Proclamations by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson regarding the importance of national self-determination and by V.I. Lenin on the need to end colonial regimes were welcomed in India and throughout the colonial world. In addition, more than a million Indian men had served as soldiers under British command in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe during the war. Many came home with new confidence and a strengthened sense of national identity. Finally, the British combination of reforms and repression backfired, dramatically increasing the number of active (and passive) opponents of the colonial regime.

Central to this pivotal moment in the history of the Indian nationalist movement were the ideas and activities of Mohandas K. Gandhi, who returned to India in 1914 after spending twenty years in South Africa. Gandhi’s greatest achievement may have been his ability to persuade India’s prosperous middle classes to accept the rural and urban poor as allies in the fight against the British. In so doing, he transformed the Congress into the broad-based mass movement that eventually, in 1947, compelled the British to depart. Many of Gandhi’s admirers also revere him for his commitment to satyagraya (variously translated as “soul force,” “truth force,” nonviolent resistance, and civil disobedience) as well as his vigorous efforts on behalf of India’s untouchables, and his desire for harmony between Hindus and Muslims.

The documents I would like you to read come from the autobiography of an upper-class woman from north India, Manmohini Zutshi Sahgal, who followed her mother and older sisters into the nationalist movement in the early 1920s, all of them inspired by Gandhi. You can read excerpts from her autobiography by clicking here. How does this memoir illustrate the changes that were taking place in the struggle against the British in the decade after World War I?

After reading the documents, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What did Gandhi mean by the strategy of “noncooperation”? What roles did women play in the protests of the early 1920s? How did the roles of women in the nationalist movement change by 1930? How do you explain this change? How do the passages by Sahgal reveal the complexity of the Indian social structure in the 1920s and 19030s? What is the relationship between this complexity and the eventual success of the Congress in winning independence? When people like Sahgal and her family began to join the nationalist movement in large numbers, why did the British not leave India? Was the argument of the “white man’s burden” still important to the British? Was it a matter of economic interest? Was it British pride? Your thoughts…

A Tale of Two Promises

World War I turned into an incredibly desperate situation for Great Britain. Because of troop and resource shortages, the British fell into the habit during the war of promising national groups independent states in exchange for support. Although these promises were not fulfilled, the most erroneous folly the British committed was the issuance of two conflicting promises of an independent state located in Palestine, both to Arabs and Jews. In 1915, British High Commissioner Sir Henry McMahon wrote a series of letters (known as the McMahon letters) to try to attract Arab support against the Ottoman Empire fighting on the side of the Central Powers. In a letter dated October 24, 1915 (you can read the letter by clicking here), McMahon clearly promises British support of an independent Arab state, and in an area that would include the land of Palestine.

In 1917, in order to generate Jewish support for the Allies, the British promised the creation of a Jewish state in the same area of Palestine an exchange for said support. This promise is clearly articulated in a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a letter that is more commonly known as the Balfour Declaration (you can read it by clicking here).

Not only was neither promise fulfilled, but because of the conflicting promises issued, the British managed to essentially “double-book” Palestine, therefore creating a violent and volatile situation there. This indeed is viewed as the very root of the current ongoing Arab-Israeli Conflict, a conflict that is particularly hot in the Gaza Strip of Palestine as we speak. Ironically, after having the mistake called to their attention, the British subsequently refused to be a mediator in the conflict that it essentially created.

After reading both letters, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: How is British support of an independent Arab state implied in the McMahon Letter? For what reasons may Arthur James Balfour have been so eager to assist the Jewish population of Europe in attaining actual statehood in the traditional homeland of Palestine? How did the British manage to create anger against Britain itself in the Middle East? How did the British manage to create anger between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East? How did the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 further exacerbate, or intensify, the situation? How did the British try to justify their error in the British White Paper of June 1922? What do you predict such a situation could possibly lead to? Your thoughts…

A Call for Islamic Social and Political Action

Although the commitment to modernization advocated by Mustafa Kemal had supporters throughout the Middle East, it also had stanch opponents. Many Muslims—from all classes of society and across all educational levels—were alarmed by the prospect of a secularized, westernized future and sought instead to establish a true Islamic society guided by the Quran and conforming to Islamic law. In the interwar years their hopes were best represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1929 by an Egyptian schoolteacher, Hasan al-Banna.

Born in a small town in the Nile Delta, Hasan al-Banna as a student in Cairo after World War I was deeply troubled by the factionalism, social conflict, poverty, and religious indifference he observed in Egypt. He concluded that British colonialism and the widespread acceptance of Western values had caused these ills and that a return to fundamental Islamic teachings would cure them. In 1927 he became a schoolteacher in the Sinai town of Ismailia, where he organized religious study groups and committed himself to Islamic renewal. In 1929 he founded the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization dedicated to the realization of Islamic government in Egypt and other Muslim lands.

In the 1930s, the Brotherhood grew into a tightly knit, disciplined organization with a million members form all walks of life and a network of branches made up of numerous secret cells. It built mosques, schools, and small hospitals; sponsored youth programs, social clubs, and light industries; and publicized its religious message through preaching and publications. In the 1940s, with a great commitment to political activism, it clashed with British authorities and the Egyptian government itself. Linked to the assassination of several officials, the Brotherhood was outlawed by the Egyptian government in 1949, and Hasan al-Banna himself was assassinated by government agents in the same year.

The Brotherhood regained legal status in 1950 and since then has continued to be an important religious and political force in the Arab Middle East. It has branches in Sudan, Syria, and other Arab states, vast financial resources, and an estimated membership of 2 million. It has accomplished this despite attempts by the Egyptian government to suppress the organization on two occasions in the 1950s and 1960s after member of the Brotherhood were implicated in assassination plots and antigovernment conspiracies. The organization also has experienced bitter internal divisions between militants and moderates. In Egypt, the Brotherhood officially rejected violence in the 1980s in favor of advancing its program by winning elected office and increasing its commitment to social service activities. This moderate policy caused some of its members to defect to more militant groups. Organizations such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas, which are committed to the cause of Palestinian nationhood and oppose any compromise with Israel, are both offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The document I would like you to read is an excerpt drawn from a pamphlet issued by the Brotherhood in 1936. Directed to King Faruk of Egypt and other Arab leaders, it summarizes the goals of the Brotherhood in its early years of existence. You can read the document by clicking here.

After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: How would you characterize the Brotherhood’s views on the purpose and goals of government? According to this document, what was the Brotherhood’s conception of the ideal government official? What does the document reveal about the Brotherhood’s attitude toward the West? Are there aspects of Western culture the Brotherhood finds acceptable? What role does the Brotherhood envision for women in Islamic society? According to the Brotherhood, what are the goals of education? How are they to be achieved? What policies does the Brotherhood propose to help the poor? What is there in the statement that might help account for the widespread support of the Brotherhood among Middle Eastern Muslims? Your thoughts…

Secularism and Nationalism in Republican Turkey

The archsymbol of secularism and nationalism in the Muslim world in the interwar years was Mustafa Kemal, who first achieved prominence as a military hero during World War I and went on to serve as first president of the Turkish republic. Disgusted by the Ottoman sultan’s acquiescence to the Greek occupation of the Turkish port of Smyrna (Izmir) in 1919, Kemal assumed leadership of a resistance movement that by 1923 had overthrown the sultan, defeated the Greeks, and won the annulment of the punitive Sèvres Treaty. Exercising broad powers as president of the new Turkish republic until his death in 1938, Kemal sought to transform Turkey into a modern secular nation-state. To accomplish this, he broke the power of Islam over education and the legal system, encouraged industrialization, accorded women full legal rights, mandated the use of a new Turkish alphabet, and ordered Turks to adopt Western-style dress. Directing all Turks to adopt hereditary family names, he took for himself the name Ataturk, or “Father of the Turks” (also translated Father Turk or Great Turk).

Having consolidated his authority, Kemal decided in 1927 to review his accomplishments and impress upon his subjects the need for continued support. He chose as the occasion the meeting of the People’s Republican Party, which he had founded and was Turkey’s only legal political party. Here he delivered an extraordinary speech (you can read excerpts from it by clicking here). Having worked on it for three months (in the process of exhausting dozens of secretaries), he delivered it over a period of six days.

In the excerpts you will read, he discusses Turkey’s past and future, explains his reasons for abolishing the caliphate, the ancient office of virtue of which Turkish sultans had been the theoretical rulers of all Muslims, and justifies his suppression of the Progressive Republican Party, which despite its name was a party of conservatives who opposed Turkey’s modernization.

After reading excerpts from Mustafa Kemal’s speech, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What, according to Kemal, what were the “erroneous ideas” that had guided the Ottoman state in the past? Why does Kemal argue that nation-states, not empires, are the most desirable form of political organization? What is Kemal’s view of the West? What are his views of Islam? What arguments does Kemal offer against the continuation of the caliphate? How does Kemal justify his suppression of the Progressive Republicans? What, in his view, were the positive results of this step? Your thoughts…

The Emergence of Modern Turkey

Turkish nationalism emerged during the last quarter of the 19th century as the all-but-inevitable result of the decline of the multi-national Ottoman Empire. The new movement began among young Turkish writers living as political exiles in London and Paris who, influenced by Western European nationalist thinkers, began to consider what it meant to be a Turk (as opposed to an Ottoman) and to examine the relationships between Turkish culture, Islam, and the West. Soon they became known as the “Young Turks.” In 1908 a mutiny of reform-minded military officers who were loosely associated with the Young Turk movement succeeded in ending the autocratic regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid II who had been in power since 1876.

For most of the next, and final, decade of the Ottoman Empire, Young Turks from the army controlled the government in Istanbul. In 1915 they took the Ottoman state into World War I on the side of the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary), a policy that led to military defeat and economic catastrophe. By 1918, the once-vast Ottoman realm was no more. It had shrunk to little more than the borders of the Anatolian Peninsula. Moreover, because of fiercely contested territorial disputes with the Greeks, the fighting did not end for the Turks until 1922.

In 1923, Turkey was proclaimed a republic under the presidency of Mustafa Kemal, later called Ataturk meaning “Father Turk,” a general who had been active in the nationalist movement since 1905 and who had led the poster expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia. Mustafa Kemal was an authoritarian modernizer who in some ways resembled the Tanzimat reformers of the 19th century. He was both intolerant of political opposition and determined to bring about major economic, social, and cultural changes in Turkey. Under his leadership a program of industrialization was launched, the shari’a (the traditional Muslim legal code) was replaced by a secular system of laws, the Islamic Caliphate was abolished, numerous rights were accorded to women, the Arabic alphabet gave way to the Roman script, and the fez and the veil were outlawed as symbols of backwardness. At the time of Mustafa Kemal’s death in 1938 the new Turkish nation-state seemed to have become a successful model of modernity for the rest of the peoples of the Middle East.

The documents that I would like you to read (you can read them by clicking here) come from speeches by Mustafa Kemal during the early 1920s and from the writings of Ziya Gokalp, the most creative Turkish thinker of the late Ottoman/early republican period. Gokalp wrote mainly for newspapers and other periodicals. His ideas, especially his pleas for the Westernization of Turkey, were widely discussed by his contemporaries and were influential in the shaping of public policy during early years of the Turkish republic. How do these documents capture the dilemmas facing the Turks following World War I and collapse of the Ottoman Empire?

After reading both documents, I would also like you to think about and discuss the following: What are the main themes in the speeches of Ataturk? What did he think were the weaknesses of the Ottoman Empire? Why did Gokalp think that the Turks must adapt themselves to Western civilization? What was Gokalp’s of view of the Tanzimat reforms? In your opinion, must societies industrialize in order to achieve well-being? What is a nation in your opinion? Your thoughts…

The Peace that Failed

On January 19, 1919, thousands of diplomats, ministers, journalists, and observers gathered in Paris for the first session of the peace conference given the task of reordering the world after World War I. Participants included delegates from the thirty-two nations on the winning side, observers from the defeated Central Powers, and observers from numerous ethnic and religious groups—Arabs, Egyptians, Kurds, Irish, Zionists, Persians, Indians, Vietnamese, Africans, African-Americans, and Armenians. Women’s organizations and even supporters of the tsarist cause in Russia were also represented.

Many in attendance hoped the postwar treaties would reflect the vision of the U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson, who in January 1918 had issued his famous Fourteen Points in regard to the peace. Wilson had called for open diplomacy, free trade, reduced armies, a “readjustment” of colonial claims, and national self-determination in Europe. Although Germany would be required to return Alsace-Lorraine to France and abandon conquered territories in Russia and Belgium, there was no talk of punishing Germany or blocking “in any way her legitimate influence and power.” Wilson also called for the founding of a “general association of nations” whose purpose would be to preserve peace and guarantee the integrity of great and small nations alike.

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and French premier Georges Clemenceau had different ideas. Clemenceau wanted to protect French security by weakening and punishing Germany. Lloyd George was more flexible, but whatever moderate inclinations he might have had were outweighed by his recent election promises to “hang the emperor” and “squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak.” Their views prevailed rather than Wilson’s, and the result was the harsh Treaty of Versailles, grudgingly signed by Germany on June 28, 1919.

Germany lost all of its colonies, 13 percent of its land, and 10 percent of its population. Alsace and Lorraine, won from France in 1871, were returned to France. Northern Schleswig went to Denmark (remember all these territory shifts from Season 4???), parts of Posen and West Prussia went to Poland, while smaller bits of territory went to Belgium and Czechoslovakia. The coal mines of the Saar Basin were given to France for fifteen years, at which time the German government could buy them back. The Saar region itself was to be administered by the League of Nations. East Prussia was cut off from the rest of Germany by territory ceded to Poland, and the largely German port of Danzig on the Baltic Sea came under Polish economic control. The Germans were permitted to have no air force, a navy of approximately two dozen ships, and a volunteer army of no more than 100,000 officers and men. Article 231, the “war-guilt” clause, held Germany and its allies responsible for causing the war. On the basis of this claim, Germany was held accountable for all Allied losses and damages, and would be required to pay reparations. In 1921 the sum was set at $31 billion. The humiliated Germans deeply resented the Treaty of Versailles. In the 1920s, nationalist and anti-democratic politicians learned to play on these resentments and in doing so undermined the democratic government that had signed the treaty. Of those politicians, the most successful was Adolf Hitler, whose Nazis took power in 1933.

The reasons for German anger are spelled out in the comments and observations I would like you to read (you can read them by clicking here). They were submitted in October 1919 by the German delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, which continued to meet after the signing of the Versailles Treaty until January 21, 1920.

After reading the German comments, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: In Germany’s view, how would the country have been treated differently if the principles they attribute to President Wilson had been applied? What does the document reveal about the difficulty of applying the principle of ethnic self-determination in Europe? To what higher “fundamental” laws does the document appeal in order to strengthen German assertions? What view of colonialism is expressed in the document? Why do the authors claim that Germany has a right to its colonies? According to the authors of the German complaint, how will various provisions of the treaty hurt Germany’s economy? Do you agree with the authors of the document that Germany was being poorly treated? What response to their complaints might defenders of the treaty have made? Your thoughts…

Opposition to the League of Nations

When the peace conference convened in France in 1919, President Woodrow Wilson attended and took an active role in negotiations in the hope of preserving his proposed idealistic blueprint for peacemaking, the Fourteen Points. The resulting Treaty of Versailles contained little of the original Fourteen Points except the League of Nations, which Wilson believed would correct the mistakes of the peace treaty. The heart of the new League of Nations was Article 10, which urged league members “to respect and preserve” the territory of members from external aggression. When Democrat Wilson submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification, it came under the close scrutiny of Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Born in Massachusetts and Harvard educated (the first Ph.D. in political science), Lodge was known for his clear and forceful arguments in the 37 years he served in Congress. In a speech on the Senate floor (which you can read excerpts from by clicking here) Lodge offered his reasons for opposing the Treaty of Versailles (and the League of Nations). The Senate would defeat the treaty ratification in two separate votes, mainly along partisan lines.

After reading excerpts from Lodge’s speech, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: For what reasons does Henry Cabot Lodge oppose the treaty? What changes would he make to the treaty? How does he propose to maintain world peace? Is that possible? Is Lodge an isolationist? What is the significance of his opposition to the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles? Your thoughts…

Schedule Update/Revision For the Next Two Weeks (PLEASE READ AND RECORD CAREFULLY)

Folks, there have been several schedule changes over the next two weeks as a result of the weather day yesterday, club trips, etc., etc. At any rate, please pay close attention to this as 7TH PERIOD IS THE ONLY CLASS THAT GOT WORD ON THE FINISHED PRODUCT! So here it is for the next two weeks...

Tuesday, March 3: War Outside of Europe and Endgame (959-966)

Wednesday, March 4: Failed Peace and Nationalist Responses to WWI (966-973; 1005-1008;1014-1020)

Thursday, March 5: Nationalism Leads to Revolutions in Mexico and China (857-860; 1008-1012)

Friday, March 6: Russian Revolution (962-963 [you've already read this by now hopefully, but you may want to give it one more glance])

Monday, March 9: Global Depression and Effects on Latin America, Japan, and the USSR (985-989; 1020-1022)

Tuesday, March 10: Effects of Depression-- Fascism and Nazism (990-1000)

Wednesday, March 11: Unit 12 Test- World War I and Responses [no review day so study well]

Thursday, March 12: Change over Time Essay (Topic TBA)

Friday, March 13: Peer Review of Change over Time Essay

[FIRST PERIOD, LEAVE THE REST OF THE MONTH ALONE, I TINKERED WITH THE REST OF IT WITH YOU GUYS, BUT PLEASE DISREGARD ALL OF THAT NOW]

Wilson's Fourteen Points: The Plan for a New World Order After the Great War

In late 1917, as the U.S. troops began arriving in France, Woodrow Wilson was dismayed by events in Europe and Russia. On the Western Front, the Allies reported horrific casualties, starvation, and mutinies. Various peace proposals by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain, and Pope Benedict XV languished. At the same time, sweeping political changes hit Russia. In March 1917, rebels overthrew the monarchy and established a provisional government headed by Alexander Kerensky. Despite the poor condition of the Russian army, Kerensky refused to withdraw from the war. He soon faced a host of problems including a dispirited populace, the desertion of non-Russian peoples from the empire, and political opposition. In November 1917, Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Lenin ousted Kerensky and called for the creation of a workers’ state. They issued a unilateral cessation of hostilities against the Central Powers and published the secret treaties that had triggered the war. More on this on Friday!

Searching for a higher purpose to the war’s unprecedented carnage and a way to undermine the international appeal of communism, Wilson offered bold plans for ending the conflict and reshaping international relations (you can read the Fourteen Points by clicking here). Beginning with the Fourteen Points, Wilson made numerous speeches calling for open diplomacy, free trade, resolution of territorial disputes, and disarmament. In October 1918, after the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II and the establishment of a republic, the German government approached Wilson with a peace proposal based on the Fourteen Points. Although Britain and France had reservations about freedom of the seas and reparations, they accepted the terms and an armistice ended World War I on November 11, 1918.

After reading the Fourteen Points, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What are the major elements of the Fourteen Points? Why did they represent such a major shift in foreign affairs? Why do you think that the Fourteen Points inspired so many people? How did the Versailles Treaty differ from the goals of the Fourteen Points? Your thoughts…

Total War: The Cost of Unlimited Conflict

War, of course, has always been destructive. But until the late eighteenth century, practical constraints limited its scale and the devastation it caused. The emergence of modern society, which allowed nations to overcome so many traditional limitations, freed them from most of the old constraints on warfare as well. When World War I erupted in 1914, people were unprepared for what was to follow—over four exhausting years of carnage in the very heart of the “advanced” world. When analyzing the after-effects of World War I, the focus should be not just on the immediate cost to the losers—or the winners—for the impact of total war cannot be measured solely by the number of the dead and the defeated. Total war deeply affected the living and the victors too, and in ways far beyond their immediate losses. The economic, social, psychological, and moral effect these wars had on those who survived them must be taken into account, along with the legacy they left to all who came after them later in the twentieth century.

The war consumed unprecedented quantities of funds too, and hard-pressed governments appealed to their people for wartime loans to finance soaring budgets. France, known for its artists, benefited from their help in launching poster campaigns in 1915 to bring this appeal to the masses. Soon other governments followed suit, using propaganda posters like the ones we looked at in class and on this blog last week, to raise funds, solicit enlistment, and boost morale. The document I would like you to read now helps to explain why such measures were needed in order to sustain popular support for the war. Taken from the final dispatch written by the head of the British Expeditionary Forces on the western front, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, at the war’s end, it outlines the overall scope and nature of the conflict (you can read this document by clicking here). Often called “the butcher of the Somme” because of his willingness to expend so many forces in that battle, Haig here details the enormous needs of an army fighting a modern mass war of attrition.

Field Marshal Haig’s final dispatch, as commander of the British Expeditionary Force, offers a broad assessment of the first total war. As Haig explains, by 1916 and 1917 the war had lapsed into a series of “indecisive battles” waged only to “wear down” the enemy through attrition. What did he find so unique about this war, leading him to think that Britain’s “existence as an empire and civilization itself…were at stake?” Think about the “factors peculiar to modern war” that he lists, as well as his comments of the “mechanical contrivances” introduced in the war and the complications occasioned by the size of the armies. What is Haig referring to in those remarks? His remark about the way women bolstered “our declining man power” merits attention too. Women gained the vote in England and other democratic nations right after the war. How might total war have hastened this change? Your thoughts…

The Armenian Genocide of 1915: The Forgotten Genocide

Genocide is a word that was not coined until the 20th century (in late 1942 to be exact), but because of new and unusual human behavior the term was coined to describe systematic mass murder. There have been only 3 events that have been officially declared by the United Nations as genocides (Armenia 1915, the Holocaust, and Rwanda 1994) although one could certainly make a good case for several more (Cambodia in the 1970s, Bosnia in the 1990s, Darfur now, just to name a few). The first officially declared genocide, the mass killing of Armenians by the Ottomans in retaliation for their suspected collaboration with the Russians during WWI, tends to be forgotten. This is an even that is chilling and disturbing, both in its ruthlessness and in its organization. It certainly underscores the shift in human behavior that has developed by means of nationalism and made possible by industrialization. You may want to take the time to investigate this event further. The Armenian National Institute has an excellent website that you can access by clicking here. As always, the BBC has some excellent information on the genocide as well that you can access by clicking here.

An American Soldier on the Western Front

The First World War witnessed unprecedented bloodshed. New weapons including poison gas, airplanes, and submarines made mass killing easier. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers died in ghastly trench warfare. Although it took the United States several months to recruit, train, and deploy an army, the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) played an important role in the Allies’ victory. In May 1918, AEF forces helped to stop German advances at Château Thierry and Belleau Wood. Four months later, 1.2 million Americans joined Allied troops in the bloody battles of Meuse-Argonne. At the same time, the U.S. Navy aided the British in a transatlantic convoy system and mining the North Sea. Their combined efforts defeated the German submarine campaign against Allied merchant ships.

In an excerpt from his diary, Clarence J. Richmond, a Marine private, describes his combat experiences in France. You can read this excerpt by clicking here.

After reading from Richmond’s diary I would like you all to reflect on and discuss the following: How does Richmond portray conditions at the front? What are his duties? How does Richmond seem to feel about combat? Do you think his response was common? Explain. In your opinion, what would be the most difficult aspect of combat? Are there any positive aspects? Your thoughts…

Woodrow Wilson's Declaration of War Message

When war erupted in Europe during the summer of 1914, few Americans were eager to participate. President Woodrow Wilson declared the United States neutral “in thought as well as in action.” But maintaining neutrality proved quite difficult. Powerful cultural and family ties connected many Americans to Great Britain. Financiers and industrialists viewed European trade as the key to boosting a slow economy. At the same time, millions of Americans of German or Irish descent felt no affinity for the British. Pacifists, progressives, and socialists opposed war on moral grounds and feared that U.S. entry into the conflict would end social reforms at home.

Although Americans remained divided in their opinions of the war, the desire for expanded international trade and a bias against the Central Powers soon drew the United States into the conflict. German U-Boat attacks, especially the sinking of the Lusitania, generated popular demands for vengeance. At first, the Wilson administration persuaded the Germans to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare against ships traveling to Great Britain. In 1916, Wilson won reelection vowing to keep America out of the war. Within months, however, desperation compelled the Germans to resume unrestricted submarine attacks. Convinced that U.S. involvement in the war could ensure a “peace without victory” (and angered over the Zimmerman Telegram), Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917. You can read this declaration by clicking here.

After reading Wilson’s declaration I would like you all to consider and discuss the following: Why does Wilson believe that the United States must enter the war? How does Wilson describe the Germans? Why does he distinguish between the German government and the German people? According to Wilson, what are America’s war aims? Your thoughts…

Enjoy the Surprise Day Off... See You Tomorrow

Well I didn't even know snow was in the forecast yesterday until around 10am. Apparently some parts of Gwinnett received 5 inches of snow yesterday, but it was the ice this morning that resulted in school cancellations it seems. At any rate, it seems that the make-up day will be next week, the 13th, as we had a workday planned for that day and you all had a day off. If that remains the case, go ahead and push everything on the calender down and a day until March 13th. In the meantime, you can check at the scenery from yesterday below...

The Experience of World War I

World War I was an unprecedented conflict in many ways. It involved much of the globe, though the centers of major fighting were in Europe and the Middle East. It showed the power of industrial society and organization to deepen conflict, causing immense causalities and also extensive economic and political disruption. And it was an agonizing human experience.
The two documents I would like you to read deal with the military experience in the trenches shared by all the combatants (you can read both by clicking here). The first document, from a memoir by the Austrian musician Fritz Kreisler, offers an overview of the early stages, suggesting initial excitement, followed by deadening conflict. Kreisler also notes the confusing impact on memory itself.

The second document is from the war’s most famous novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque. Remarque had served in the German army. He wrote vividly about the nature of trench warfare and the physical and mental burdens it imposed.

The war permanently changed Europe’s position in the world and greatly affected European politics—leading, for example, to the rise of fascism and Nazism. It also colored the life of a whole generation that found their expectations and rhythms totally shattered. The analytical challenge is to recapture this experience, at least in part, and discuss how it related to the larger changes the war produced.

After you have finished reading both documents, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What was the mood at the outset of the war, and what caused it? What were the main features of trench warfare for the troops involved? What would happen to people who managed to live through this experience? What makes Remarque’s writing so powerful? Why would people want to read a war novel of this sort? What was new about warfare as Remarque and Kreisler describe it? What were the wider implications of the fighting, for example for the political values of veterans after the war had ended? Can you see connections with some of the new political and cultural movements of the 1920s? Your thoughts…

Twenty-four Hours on the Western Front

Until 1914 Henry S. Clapham had led a conventional life, notably lacking in adventure or excitement. Born in 1875 in the town of Hull, he graduated from Queen’s College in Taunton, a boarding school for the sons of well-to-do families. After clerking in a law office, he married and began a career as a solicitor in London. His favorite entertainment was the card game bridge. In the fall of 1914, however, he answered the call to enlist and by January 1915 was a soldier in the British army fighting to hold back the Germans in northern Belgium. He fought there until October 1915, when a hand wound made him unfit for further service. On his return to England he resumed his career as a lawyer and, like many other returning soldiers, prepared his diary notes for publication as a book, which appeared in 1917 with the title Mud and Khaki- Memoirs of an Incomplete Soldier. It went through several printings and was republished in 1930 (you can read excerpts from it by clicking here).

Clapham’s book describes his experiences fighting in and around the northern Belgian city of Ypres, a commercial city of some 200,000 in the low, wet, largely unforested region that abuts the English Channel. It was the site of three major battles, one in the fall of 1914, another in 1915, and the last and bloodiest in 1917. Clapham fought in the so-called Second Battle of Ypres, which began in April 1915 when General Erich von Falkenhayn ordered a German attack on the entrenched English, Canadian, French, and French colonial troops to firm up German lines and divert allied troops form an anticipated offensive further to the south. After the Germans abandoned their major offensive in late May, fighting continued in the region, as Clapham’s memoir clearly shows.

The Second Battle of Ypres saw the introduction of poison gas on the Western Front. Chlorine gas, a product of the German dyestuff industry and developed by the giant German chemical company IG Farben, could be released from cylinders or delivered by artillery shells. It stimulated the lungs to produce fluid, causing the victim to drown. Thousands of soldiers around Ypres died as a result of German gas attacks, but the effectiveness of the new weapon diminished when soldiers were supplied with respirators, or gas masks, and learned that holding a wet (often urine-soaked) handkerchief over one’s nose and mouth provided some protection. Such countermeasures stimulated both sides to develop other types of poison gas, including phosgene, which causes asphyxiation, and mustard gas, which causes severe blistering.

After reading excerpts from Clapham’s account, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: As far as can be determined by Clapham’s account, what were the actual results of the one day of fighting he describes? What aspects of the fighting did Clapham and the other men find most unnerving? Wars inevitably cause immense human suffering. But the suffering in World War I for soldiers and civilians alike was especially traumatic and unbearable. What is there in Clapham’s account that may explain this phenomenon? Your thoughts…

The Romance of War

When the soldiers marched off to war in the summer of 1914, crowds cheered, young men rushed to enlist, and politicians promised that “the boys would be home by Christmas.” Without having experienced a general war since the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 and with little thought to the millions of causalities in the American Civil War, Europeans saw the war as a glorious adventure—an opportunity to fight for the flag or Kaiser or queen, to wear splendid uniforms, and to win glory in battles that would be decided by élan, spirit, and bravery. The war they fought was nothing like the war they imagined, and the disparity between expectations and reality was one of many reasons why the four-year struggle was fraught with such disillusionment and bitterness.

The four illustrations I would like you to study (you can see all four by clicking here) portray the positive attitudes toward the war that all belligerents shared at the outset and that governments sought to perpetuate as the war dragged on. The first, entitled The Departure, shows a German troop train departing for the battle front in late summer 1914. The work of B. Hennerberg, an artist originally from Sweden, it originally appeared in the German periodical Simplicissimus in August 1914. That Simplicissimus would publish such an illustration indicates the depth of the nationalist emotions the war generated. Noted before the war for its irreverent satire and criticism of German militarism, Simplicissimus, once the fighting started, lent its full support to the war effort.

The second illustration is one of a series of war-related cards that the Mitchell Tobacco Company included in its packs of Golden Dawn Cigarettes in 1914 and early 1915. It shows a sergeant offering smokes to the soldiers under his command before battle. Tobacco advertising with military themes reached a saturation point in England during the war years.

An Australian recruitment poster issued in 1915 serves as the third illustration. Although Australia, like Canada, had assumed authority over its own internal affairs by the time the war started, its foreign policy was still controlled by Great Britain. Hence when Great Britain went to war, so did Australia. The Australian parliament refused to approve conscription, however, so the government had to work hard to encourage volunteers. This particular poster appeared at a time when Australian troops were heavily involved in the Gallipoli campaign, the allied effort to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war. Directing its message to the many young men who were members of sports clubs, it promised them an opportunity to enlist in a battalion made up entirely of fellow sportsmen. Such battalions had already been formed in England.

The fourth poster was produced and distributed by the newly formed British Ministry of Munitions in early 1917 to encourage women to accept jobs in the munitions industry. This was just one example of the broad government attempt from 1915 onward to enlist women in the war effort as medical workers, police, agricultural workers, porters, drivers, foresters, members of the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps, and, most important, factory laborers. This particular poster shows a young and attractive English woman offering a jaunty salute to a passing soldier as she arrives for work. During the war approximately 300 “munitionettes” were killed in explosions or from chemical-related sicknesses. Women who worked with TNT came to be known as “canaries” because of the yellow color of their skin. Despite such hazards and relatively low pay, approximately 950,000 women were working in munitions factories by war’s end.

After studying all four illustrations, I would like you all to consider and discuss the following: What message about the war does each of the four illustrations seek to convey? In what specific ways does each poster romanticize the life of a solder or female munitions worker? What impression of battle does the English tobacco card communicate? What does a comparison of Hennerberg’s painting and the English poster of the munitions worker suggest about changing views of women’s role during the war and in society at large? Your thoughts…

The German Army Marches Through Brussels

In August 1914, Europe went to war. The main rivals were Great Britain, France, and Russia versus Germany and Austria-Hungary. One nation after another declared war, and even nations that had been guaranteed neutrality, like Belgium, were drawn into the conflict. When the Belgian government refused to let German troops pass through its country, Germany invaded. The eyewitness account that I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here; read pgs. 122-124), by American journalist Richard Harding Davis, describes the invasion of Belgium by the massive army.

After reading the document I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What were Davis’s impressions of the German army? What forces of nature does Davis use to describe the German army? How are such descriptions appropriate to describe this army? What does Davis mean when he says the German army has “lost the human quality?” What does he describe as the German soldier’s “strongest weapon?” Why? What comparisons does Davis make between the German army and the United States’ army? What intimidation tactics are described in the document? What prediction could one make about German behavior and the nature of this new impending war based on reading this document? Your thoughts…

Whapey Awards Season 4 Winners!

For the second season straight, Japan won best government as a result of their last minute shocking appearance in the series. In all, Japan took home 4 awards, including the grand prize of Best Government. The other winners are listed below...

Best Government: Japan

Most Influential Society: Britain

Most Influential Person: Napoleon Bonaparte

Best Leader: Mahmud II

Worst Leader: Empress Dowager Cixi

Best Conflict: Russo-Japanese War

Best Social System: Japan

Best Economic System: Capitalism

Best Labor System: Industrialization

Worst Labor System: Indentured Servitude

Best Invention: Steam Engine

Worst Invention: Factories

Most Influential Writer: Karl Marx

Best Cultural Contribution: Industrialization

Best Movie: Mean Girls (in helping to understand Japan)

Some of these wins were a bit inconsistant (i.e. Best Labor System Industrialization but Worst Invention Factories???). At any rate, get ready and get set, because tomorrow is THE SEASON 5 PREMIERE!

Test Tomorrow and Whapey Award Deadline REMINDER

If you need to discuss the test, you can do it here. I'm reluctantly unlocking the blog so you can speak back and forth. Reluctantly because I want to keep the ballots hidden for Whapey Awards voting, but that won't be possible in the final stretch unfortunately. That being said, the deadline for voting is at 11:59 pm, and I could use some student volunteers tomorrow to help tally the votes. So far only 43 ballots have been submitted, and that's an incredibly LOW turnout... I hope more start churning in. PLEASE DO NOT COPY AND PASTE OTHER'S BALLOTS AS THEY COME IN THIS EVENING... IF I CATCH THAT YOU WILL NOT HAVE YOUR BALLOT COUNTED, AND YOU WILL NOT GET CREDIT FOR A POST. Cheers!

Slumdog Millionaire Wins 8 Oscars Including Best Picture! Jai Ho!

Ladies and gents, we have been following the Oscar race all season here on this blog, and tonight is the long awaited event, the Oscar ceremony. You guys are not only well informed regarding history at this point, but because you have a film geek as a teacher, you know exactly who all the front-runners are in tonight's ceremony. All indicators are that Slumdog Millionaire will take home the big prize of Best Picture, and probably a few other awards (it is nominated for 10 total). Look out for the nomination leader, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with 13 nominations, to do well in the technical categories. Finally, look for Kate Winslet to finally win her overdue Oscar for her performance in The Reader. As always, the BBC offers the best analysis of anything news-worthy, including tonight's ceremony. You can click here for their excellent full coverage. Want to fill out your own Oscar ballot? Click here to pull one up, fill it out, and see how you do. I will be updating this blog as the awards start being announced, right around 8:30 pm on ABC.


And the winners are (as they roll in)...


Best Picture- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Director- Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Screenplay- Dustin Lance Black, Milk
Best Adapted Screenplay- Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire
Best Foreign Language Film- Departures
Best Animated Feature Film- Wall-E
Best Actor in a Lead Role- Sean Penn, Milk
Best Actress in a Lead Role- Kate Winslet, The Reader
Best Actor in a Supporting Role- Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
Best Actress in a Supporting Role- Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Best Documentary Feature- Man on Wire
Best Cinematography- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Score- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Song- “Jai Ho”, Slumdog Millionaire
Best Film Editing- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Art Direction- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Costume Design- The Duchess
Best Makeup- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Visual Effects- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Sound Mixing- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Sound Editing- The Dark Knight
Best Live Action Short Film- Spielzeugland
Best Documentary Short Subject- Smile Pinki
Best Animated Short Film- La Maison en Petits Cubes

Awards Tally
Slumdog Millionaire- 8
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- 3
The Dark Knight- 2
Milk- 2
Departures- 1
The Duchess- 1
La Maison en Petits Cubes-1
Man on Wire- 1
The Reader- 1
Smile Pinki- 1
Spielzeugland- 1
Vicky Cristina Barcelona- 1
Wall-E-1

So there you have it folks, we close the book on another film year. Was there any doubt that Slumdog Millionaire was going to go all the way? Now it's midnight, so I say good night everyone! Congrats to all the winners!

The Season 5 Preview

Ladies and gentlemen, the Season 5 Premiere, the fifth and final premiere of the fifth and final season arrives on Thursday, February 26th. This series has gone by so fast, it is hard to believe it is already coming to a conclusion. Season 5, though, may just be the most chaotic yet. As I preview Season 5 here today, one must begin to wonder: What will future historians have to say about the last 100 years of human history? How will they interpret the wars, revolutions, economic transformations, new ideologies, technological breakthroughs, demographic trends, cultural changes, and all the other events and developments that took place? What part will recent events such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 play in their accounts? How will they explain the seeming contradiction between humankind's stupendous achievements and abysmal failures? From the perspective of the early twenty-first century, no one can answer questions such as these. Future historians' views of our past will be shaped by events that have not yet occurred and by values and concerns unique to their own era. What seems of great consequence to us, therefore, may be insignificant to them, while developments we barely perceive may be important parts of their stories.

It would be surprising, however, if future historians did not note the importance of the dramatic shift in world relationships that we will witness take place in the middle of the twentieth century. The world of the early 1900s will be a Eurocentric world. Europeans will be the best-educated and wealthiest people on Earth, and a few European states--Great Britain, Germany, Russia (becoming sort-of European), and France, along the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, and a European offshoot, the United States--will be the masters of Africa and much of Asia. When one speaks of Great Powers during this time period, they will all be European states. Despite its new industrial might and a few colonies, the United States will still not be a major player on the world scene yet. After the Second World War, Europe's primacy will end. The Europeans' colonial empires will disintegrate, their paramount role in international relations will shift to the Soviet Union and the United States, and their economic importance will decline in the face of global competition.

Future historians undoubtedly will also highlight the phenomenon of globalization, a word and concept that will come into common usage at the end of the twentieth century to describe the unprecedented scale of integration and interaction that will come to dominate relationships among the world's peoples. Human interaction, of course, is nothing new. Long-distance trade, migration, travel, missionary activity, wars of conquest, and the diffusion of new ideas and technologies all have been part of history for thousands of years. But interaction on a global scale did not begin to increase rapidly until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when Europeans first sailed to Africa, the Americas, and Asia and opened a new era in commerce, migration, and biological exchange.

During the twentieth century, however, breakthroughs in communications and transportation will virtually obliterate the limitations of time and space, and the exchange of goods and ideas among the world's peoples will reach undreamed-of levels. It will become the age of world wars, multinational corporations, global communication networks, the World Wide Web, and thousands of international organizations.

Historians assuredly will also note other developments: the ongoing rush of scientific, medical, and technological discoveries; the spectacular expansion of the world's population (from approximately 1.7 billion in 1900 to 6.7 billion in 2009); the decline of the world's rural population and the growth of cities, best represented by megacities such as Tokyo, Mexico City, São Paulo, and Mumbai; and the emergence at least superficially of a shared global culture, symbolized by the Internet and the ubiquity of McDonald's restaurants, blue jeans, American popular music, and twenty-four-hour cable news networks.

What else historians will say about the twentieth century is open to conjecture. They undoubtedly will take note of inhumanities and cruelties that we will sadly witness in Season 5: its appalling war casualties, its use of torture, and its genocides, not just against Jews in World War II but also against Armenians in World War I, Cambodians in the 1970s, and Bosnians, Kosovars, and Tutsi in the 1990s. Will such developments be described as aberrations or the beginning of a new trend toward brutality and callousness in human relationships? Historians surely will discuss the emergence of over 100 new independent states in Africa and Asia after the demise of colonialism. Will their stories be celebrations of economic and political achievement or tales of failure and disillusionment? They will note that the twentieth century will be marked by signs of both growing religious fervor and indifference; environmental disasters and growing environmental consciousness; and the globalization of culture and the continued appeal of nationalism and ethnic identification.

In looking toward the future, optimists will affirm their faith in progress, holding fast to the dream that reasonable human beings are capable of shaping a future of peace, harmony, and a just sharing of the world's wealth. Pessimists will ponder population projections, inevitable energy shortages, worsening pollution, and perhaps a nuclear winter, and warn of the coming of a new "dark age." However things develop, Season 5 will launch humankind on new paths that will determine its future for years to come. Get ready, get set, and fasten your seat belts for the Season 5 Premiere on Thursday, February 26th!

The Season 4 Whapey Awards

Ok folks, now that season 4 is officially over, it's time for awards season. Once again, this is our opportunity to award the "best" in world history at the end of a season. This is also a great opportunity to reflect critically on content learned. The categories for voting will be listed below, and all you have to do, is nominate your selection in a comment post. Voting closes at 11:59pm ON TUESDAY. We'll tally the votes, and the winner will be announced Wednesday, January 25. If any of you are in need of volunteer hours and would like to come in after school or during 6th lunch on Wednesday to tally votes, I'll be happy to have you. That would be a great help. Happy voting. Here are the categories for season 4...

[NOTE: DO NOT COPY AND PASTE OTHER VOTERS' BALLOTS. YOU MAY ONLY COPY AND PASTE THIS ONE TO FILL IN. VOTE INDEPENDENTLY!]

Best Government:

Most Influential Society:

Most Influential Person:

Best Leader:

Worst Leader:

Best Conflict:

Best Social System:

Best Economic System:

Best Labor System:

Worst Labor System:

Best Invention:

Worst Invention:

Most Influential Writer:

Best Cultural Contribution:

Best Film Set During Season 4 Nominees:

--Lagaan: Once Upon a Time In India

--The Last Samurai

--Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

--Mean Girls

--Out of Africa

--The Twilight Samurai

Images of the West in Late Tokugawa and Meiji Japan

In the decades after the first Europeans arrived in Japan in 1542, their ideas, dress, weapons, and religion proved attractive to many Japanese. As many as 500,000 Japanese converted to Catholicism, military leaders put European firearms to use in their civil wars, and in the 1580s and 1590s some Japanese showed an interest in European fashion and cuisine. After the Tokugawa suppressed Christianity and implemented the seclusion policy in the seventeenth century, however, knowledge of the West soon came to be limited to the merchants who traded with the Dutch in Nagasaki and a handful of intellectuals who maintained interest in European thought. For most Japanese, memory of the South Sea Barbarians disappeared.

The arrival of Commodore Perry in 1853 and the opening of Japan to foreign trade in 1854 changed this dramatically. Inspired by a mixture of fear, awe, and curiosity, the Japanese developed a deep interest in the West, and a flood of printed material about Europe and the United States appeared in the 1850s and 1860s. Then after the Meiji Restoration of 1868, imitation of the West became a patriotic duty. Employing Western science, technology, military organization, and government practices would make Japan strong and prosperous. Adopting Western fashion, etiquette, grooming habits, architecture, and culture would make the Japanese respected and admired. In the late 1880s, however, a reaction against overzealous Westernization set in. Since then, the Japanese have managed to strike a balance between borrowing from the West what was necessary for their modernization and preserving the essentials of their traditional culture.

The six illustrations I would like you to look at (you can see all six by clicking here), covering the period from the 1850s to the late 1880s, provide insights into changing Japanese views of the West. They also serve as reminders that these changes in attitude underlay the political, military, and economic transformation that made Japan a world power.

The first two illustrations are tile prints that appeared shortly after the arrival of Commodore Perry in 1853. Forerunners of modern newspapers, tile prints were produced quickly and anonymously after newsworthy events and sold for a few cents. The first print depicts one of Perry’s “black ships,” so called because of the dark smoke that belched from their smokestacks. The Japanese text provides information on the ship’s dimensions and the length of its voyage to Japan. The second print depicts Commander Henry Adams, Perry’s second-in-command.

The next illustrations both appeared when the drive to emulate Europeans was fully under way. Illustration three is part of a series of woodblock prints published in the 1880s entitled Self-Made Men Worthy of Emulation. The individual depicted here is Fukuchi Gen’ichiro, a journalist who served as editor-in-chief of Tokyo’s first daily newspaper. He is shown as a war correspondent covering the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877, a rebellion by disgruntled samurai against the new Meiji order that was suppressed by the imperial army. The accompanying text (with an erroneous birthdate) reads:

“Fukuchi Gen’ichiro was born in Nagasaki in 1844. An exceptionally bright child, he could recognize characters at the age of five and had begun to read and write at about the age of seven. He resolved to enter the service of the Shogunate and, upon coming of age, entered the government, in the service of which he traveled three times to Europe. He then entered into a successful business career. In 1874 he became president of the Reporters’ Association. He personally covered the Satsuma Rebellion in the south. Received by the emperor, he respectfully reported his observations to the throne. His style seemed almost supernatural in its logic, force, and lucidity. He is one of the truly great men of Meiji.”

The next illustration appeared in a popular book, written by Kanagaki Robun and published in serial form in the 1870s. Entitled Hiking through the West, it relates the adventures of two Japanese travelers during a trip to London and back. The illustration depicts, from right to left, an “unenlightened man,” dressed in the garb of a samurai, a “half-enlightened man,” and an “enlightened man.”

Even in the years when the Japanese enthusiasm for things Western reached its height, some opposed Japan’s headlong rush to Westernize. Government censorship caused most of these critics to remain silent, but a few managed to get their ideas into print. Cartoonists Honda Kinkichiro and Kobayashi Kyochika were two such individuals. Honda’s cartoons, usually accompanied by English captions and a Japanese text, appeared in the 1870s and 1880s in the weekly humor magazine Marumara Chimbun. His cartoon “Monkey Show Dressing Room” was published in 1879, shortly after Dr. Edward S. Morse introduced Darwin’s theory of evolution in a series of lectures at the newly founded Department of Zoology at Tokyo University. The text reads, “Mr. Morse explains that all human beings were monkeys in the beginning. In the beginning—but even now aren’t we still monkeys? When it comes to Western things we think the red beards [a Japanese nickname for Westerners] are the most skillful at everything.”

Kobayashi, who contributed cartoons to Marumara Chimbun in the 1880s, published his cartoon in the Tokyo Daily News in 1891. It depicts the New Year’s Dance held in Rokumeikan, a pavilion built by the government in 1883 to serve as a venue for fancy-dress balls and other entertainments involving Westerners and Japan’s elite. About the dance floor, dominated by ill-matched Western and Japanese couples, is a sign that reads, “Hands Dance, Feet Stomp, Call Out Hurrah!”

After looking at the six illustrations, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What impression of the West is conveyed by the prints of Perry’s ship and his second-in-command, Commander Adams? What specific details help convey this impression? In Hiking through the West, what are the most significant differences between the three figures? How does the artist convey a sense of the “enlightened man’s” superiority? What is there in the drawing of Fukuchi Gen’ichiro and in the accompanying text that makes him “a man worthy of emulation?” Why do you think the artist chose to depict Fukuchi while he was covering the Satsuma Rebellion? What messages are Honda and Kobayashi attempting to convey about Japan’s campaign to Westernize? Compare and contrast the depiction of Westerners in “Hands Dance…” with the earlier depiction of Commander Adams. What changes and continuities over time do you notice in these illustrations in terms of perceptions of the West? Your thoughts…

Patriotic Duty and Business Success

From the moment they seized power, the Meiji reformers sought ways to modernize Japan’s economy, especially in those industries on which modern military power depended. After a rocky start in the 1870s, Japanese industrialization proceeded rapidly, and by 1900 the nation had become a major economic power through a combination of government subsidies and individual entrepreneurship.

The greatest success story in Japan’s economic transformation was Iwasaki Yataro, the founder of one of the nation’s most powerful business conglomerates, Mitsubishi. Born into a poor farming family, Iwasaki gained a rudimentary education and held several low-level business jobs before he found employment as an official in the service of the aristocratic Tosa family in the mid-1860s. He was given the task of managing and reducing the Tosa domain’s huge debt, which had resulted from massive purchases of firearms and artillery. His policies, which included paying some debtors with counterfeit money, quickly eliminated the domain’s deficit. In 1871, when the domain abandoned its direct ownership of business enterprises, it gave Iwasaki eleven steamships and all the assets connected with its enterprises in the silk, coal, tea, and lumber industries. In return, Iwasaki was expected to pay off some new Tosa debts and provide employment for former samurai. With this to build on, he systematically wiped out foreign and domestic competition and, through a series of shrewd (and frequently cutthroat) business moves, turned Mitsubishi into Japan’s second largest conglomerate, with interests in shipbuilding, mining, banking, insurance, and manufacturing.

Iwasaki wrote a letter that I would like you to read to his employees in 1876 during Mitsubishi’s battle with the British Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company over control of Japanese coastal trade (you can read the letter by clicking here; read #4, pgs. 356-357). He had just cut fares in half but had also reduced wages by a third.

After reading Iwasaki’s letter, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: Why does Iwasaki believe that the Japanese must prevent foreigners from becoming involved in the coastal trade? According to Iwasaki, what is at stake in the competition for control of Japan’s coastal trade? What advantages and disadvantages does Iwasaki’s company have in its rivalry with the Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company? How does Iwasaki attempt to inspire greater dedication and effort from his workers? Your thoughts…

The Meiji Restoration in Japan

Far-reaching changes transformed the lives of the Japanese people during the second half of the 19th century. In 1853-1854, ships from the United States appeared in Edo (Tokyo) harbor and forced the Tokugawa shoguns to end the policy of isolation they had enforced for more than two centuries. For the next 15 years, the country was racked by political turmoil and economic crisis, the latter development a result of Japan’s sudden plunge into the global economy. Finally, in 1867-1868, the daimyo from two of the largest domains, Satsuma and Choshu, joined forces to overthrow the rule of the shoguns in the name of “restoring” the full authority of the emperor.

Having just come to the throne, the emperor chose the name Meiji (Enlightened Rule) for his reign, which lasted until 1912. As he was in his mid-teens and too young to lead the Japanese state, a coalition of mostly younger samurai, many of who came from Satsuma and Choshu, quickly grasped the levers of power and began to rule on behalf of the “restored” Meiji emperor. In an astonishing turnabout, the new leaders of the country dismantled the essentials of the Tokugawa system—ending the privileges of the daimyo and the samurai—and launched Japan on a course of thoroughgoing modernization.

Learning much from study missions to the United States, Western Europe, and Russia, the Meiji oligarchs established a modern system of banking, constructed a railway system, organized a national army and navy, founded a Western-style system of education, and in 1889 put in place a system of constitutional rule. Two brief and victorious wars, against China in 1894-1895, and against Russia 10 years later, demonstrated that Japan was now a major force in international relations. No other country outside the West so transformed itself in the 19th century.

How do the documents I have listed below illuminate important aspects of Meiji Restoration, suggesting that there were both major achievements and some significant new problems?

A Gentleman's Five Pleasures (read #20)
The Charter Oath, 1868 (read #18)
Okubo Toshimichi: On the Role of the State in Industrialization, 1874 (read #10, pgs. 321-322)
Farmers, Silk Workers, and Miners During Industrialization
Yamagata Aritomo: A Letter on Japanese Foreign Policy, August 1914

After reading the five documents, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: How does the excerpt from Sakuma Shozan (“A Gentlemen’s Five Pleasures”) illustrate leading ideas of the Meiji Restoration? In what ways did the Charter Oath break with Tokugawa tradition? Do you see any continuities? Why did Okubo favor the development of modern industries? What did he think the government should do to stimulate the process of industrialization? What similarities and differences did Okubo see between Japan and England? What themes do you see in the passages on working conditions in Meiji-era factories and mines? How do the Japanese conditions compare with those in England during the long 19th century? What foreign policy issues did Yamagata think were most important? What were Japan’s objectives regarding China and the United States? How does Yamagata’s letter suggest some of the causes of World War II? What characteristics of Japanese life during the Tokugawa period may have contributed to the success of the Meiji Restoration? How do the results of the Meiji Restoration compare to those of the French Revolution? What is the difference between a restoration and a revolution? Why was Japan the only country outside the West to experience modernization in the 19th century? Your thoughts…

It's Coming... THE SEASON FOUR FINALE IS TOMORROW!

A Rising Sun is Emerging...

The World May Never Be the Same...

Tomorrow, The SEASON FOUR FINALE...

A Season Finale That Will Never Be Forgotton...

The Basic Tenets of Leninism

One of the most iconic revolutionaries in world history was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by his adopted revolutionary name, Lenin. The son of a government official, Lenin dedicated himself to revolution after the government executed his brother for plotting the assassination of Tsar Alexander III. After joining the Marxist-inspired Social-Democratic Party, founded in 1898, in 1903 he became the leader of the "majority men," or Bolsheviks, who, in opposition to the "minority men," or Mensheviks, demanded highly centralized party leadership, noncooperation with bourgeois liberals, and single-minded devotion to revolution.

Lenin described his ideas about revolutionary tactics in 1902 in a pamphlet entitled "What Is to Be Done?" (You can read excerpts from it by clicking here). It was directed against ideological enemies Lenin called "Economists," Marxists who believed that because Russia had just begun to industrialize, it was not ready for socialism. Social-Democrats, the Economists believed, should seek short-term economic gains for workers rather than revolution. Published in Germany, smuggled into Russia, and read by thousands of Social-Democrats, "What Is to Be Done?" established Lenin as a major party theoretician and a man to be reckoned within the Social-Democratic Party. It marked the beginning of that distinctive variant of Marxism known as Leninism.

After reading excerpts from the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: According to Lenin, how does the "critical Marxism" of men such as Bernstein endanger the socialist movement? In Lenin's view how are the goals and purposes of trade unionism similar to and different from those of the Social-Democratic Party? Why, according to Lenin, have the workers been unable to develop true revolutionary consciousness? What does he believe must be done to change this? What advantages does Lenin see in restricting the party to a small corps of dedicated revolutionaries? What kinds of activities will these professional revolutionaries carry on to further the cause of revolution? Compare and contrast the views of Lenin and Marx on the following topics: revolution, the working class, and the role of the party? Your thoughts...

Russian Peasants: Serfdom and Emancipation

More than most Eurasian societies, Russia long remained a land of small cities with limited manufacturing. Not only a majority, but a vast majority of its people were peasants well into the 19th century. Numbers alone, however, do not account for the omnipresence of peasant issues in Russian history. From a once-held position of substantial freedom and control of village lands, Russian peasants had been subjected to increasingly rigorous serfdom—by state or by noble landlords—from the 15th century onward. Their trend thus reversed that of Western Europe, where serfdom on the whole became lighter over time. The Russian economy relied on agricultural exports forced from peasant labor on the large estates, and Russian politics and society, which traded noble control over their peasants for docility to the Russian tsar, relied heavily on the subjection of the serfs.

Yet the peasants’ condition created increasingly visible problems. It violated standards of justice felt keenly by many Russians, including those open to Western ideas during the 18th and 19th centuries. Serfs rioted frequently, for peasants were quite aware of their own servitude. Furthermore, tight control of peasant labor limited Russia’s economic flexibility, making it hard to recruit urban labor and, at least in the eyes of some observers, reducing productivity on the land as well. Finally, prodded by its loss in the Crimean War, the Russian government took the step of emancipation, ending serfdom while trying to preserve the noble-dominated social hierarchy. This move redefined the peasant question but did not remove it.

The documents I would like you to read stem from two sources. The first document is an account by an early Russian intellectual, Alexander Radishchev, who wrote about the peasants’ condition in the book A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow (1790), which was repressed by the government until 1905. His account reveals peasants’ suffering and reactions and also the reformist zeal of a segment of the educated upper class (you can read it by clicking here; just read under the heading "Lyubani"). The second document presents excerpts from the emancipation decree of 1861 (you can read it by clicking here). They reveal how a new tsar, Alexander II, tried to juggle reform interests with noble resistance. The document invites appraisal in terms of how much was changed and why peasants were so widely disappointed with the results.

After reading both documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are Radishchev’s main arguments against serfdom? Where did he derive his criteria for judgment? What kind of society would he find preferable to Russia’s? What aspects of serfdom persisted from earlier decades? Was the emancipation of the serfs a radical move? Why did it provoke renewed discontent among the peasants? How did the arguments and implementation relate to earlier critiques by Westernizers like Radishchev? What does the emancipation document suggest about the flexibility of Russia’s authoritarian politic structure? Do these two documents provide clues as to why Russia encountered less social protest than Western Europe did during the first half of the 19th century, but more fundamental protest movements by the century’s end? How does Russian Emancipation compare with the French Revolution's attack on manorialism? Your thoughts…