“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…

American Women Demand Equality

It's interesting to me that every time a new class of society pushes for new freedoms, the push results in another feminist push. After the Haitian Revolution, the abolitionist cause gets a huge push, and this eventually results in the abolition of slavery by law in the entire western hemisphere by 1888. Incidentally, as I've mentioned before, because many of your abolitionists were women (Harriet Beecher Stowe anyone?), a feminist movement was launched alongside the abolitionist movement, but it did not meet with much success. In the late 19th century, we begin to see a big socialist-driven push to secure worker's rights, and, you guessed it, a new wave of feminism is launched alongside it. In 1850, two years after the first U.S. women’s rights convention was held in Seneca Falls, New York, a group of Ohio women met in Salem, in eastern Ohio, to draw up resolutions on the status of women for submission to a forthcoming convention that was to consider amendments to the state constitution. The Salem meeting has a special place in the history of feminist movements because, although men attended, they were not allowed to speak, vote, or make proposals. At the close of the meeting the men in attendance organized their own association, and as their first act, voted to endorse the resolutions the women had just approved. The resolutions were received less favorably at the constitutional convention, where the delegates, all men, ignored them. You can read the resolutions passed at the Salem meeting by clicking here.

After you have read the resolutions, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What specific demands do the resolutions make in the areas of education, the family, politics, and employment? For the authors of the resolution, dependency is a key concept in their views of women’s place in society. What do they mean by this term, and what social and political practices contribute to it? What specific demands do the resolutions make in the areas of political rights, employment, education, and the family? The authors admit that not all women share their views. How do they view women who are content to accept their “idle lives” and “sterile submission?” How do they explain these women’s indifference to women’s plight? Your thoughts…

IMPORTANT CORRECTION TO THE NEXT THREE READING ASSIGNMENTS

Folks, as I was going over tomorrow's lesson, I noticed that the assigned pages on the calender is not quite correct.

Here are the CORRECT page assignments: Thursday, Feb 5th- pgs. 909-919; Friday, Feb 6th- pgs. 919-925; and Monday, Feb 9th- pgs. 927-938.

I apologize for this error on our part, and, in the interest of fairness, I'll refrain from giving a reading quiz tomorrow for those that did not get this message. However, be prepared for a reading quiz over pgs. 909-925 on Friday.

The Marxist Critique of Industrial Capitalism

Karl Marx was born in Trier, a German city on the Rhine River that had been occupied by Napoleon in 1803 and assigned to the Kingdom of Prussia by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Marx’s parents both came from long lines of Jewish rabbis, but in 1817 his father, Herschel Levi, converted the family to Christianity and changed its name to Marx to protect his career as a lawyer. Young Marx studied law at the University of Bonn before enrolling at the University of Berlin, where he was influenced by the thought of the famous philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, especially his theory that history unfolded toward a specific goal in an ongoing process driven by the clash and resolution of antagonistic ideas. After losing his job as a journalist for a Cologne newspaper because of his political views, in 1844 Marx moved to Paris, where he argued doctrine with other radicals and would-be revolutionaries and continued his studies of economics and history. He also made the acquaintance of another German, Friedrich Engels, an ardent critic of capitalism despite the fortune he amassed from managing a textile mill in Manchester, England. In 1847, Marx and Engels joined the Communist League, a revolutionary society dominated by German political exiles in France and England. In 1848, a year of revolution in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Italy, the two men wrote The Communist Manifesto to publicize the League’s program. It soon became the most widely read socialist tract in history (you can read excerpts from it by clicking here).

After 1848, Marx and Engels remained friends, with Engels giving the impoverished Marx enough money to continue his writing and political activities while living in London. Both men continued to write on behalf of socialism, but Marx’s works, especially his masterpiece, Das Kapital (Capitalism), assumed the far greater role in shaping modern socialist thought. Furthermore, Marx’s views of history, human behavior, and social conflict have influenced not only politics but also philosophy, religion, literature, and all the social sciences.

After you are finished reading the document, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: How do Marx and Engels define class, and what do they mean by the “class struggle?” According to Marx and Engels, how does the class struggle in nineteenth-century Europe differ from class struggles in previous eras? According to Marx and Engels, what are the characteristics of the bourgeoisie? Marx and Engels believe that bourgeois society is doomed and that the bourgeoisie will be the cause of their own destruction? Why? The authors dismiss the importance of ideas as a force in human affairs. On what grounds? Ultimately, what is the cause of historical change in their view? What may explain the popularity of The Communist Manifesto among workers and those who sympathized with their plight? How does The Communist Manifesto’s vision of the past and future resemble that of Condorcet’s Sketch of the Progress of the Human Mind? How does is differ? How would Marx and Engels have responded to the point of view represented by Samuel Smiles in Self-Help and Thrift? Your thoughts…

Middle-Class Success and How to Achieve It

No writer expressed the hopes, fears, expectations, and values of nineteenth-century Europe’s middle class more faithfully and successfully than the Scottish-born biographer, essayist, and businessman Samuel Smiles. Born into the family of a papermaker and shopkeeper, Smiles received a medical degree, worked as a journalist in Leeds, and held several managerial posts in the railroad industry. He wrote biographies, histories, and travel narratives, and achieved worldwide fame through his inspirational books on morality and personal behavior. Although it had been rejected by six publishers, his book Self-Help (1859) became a bestseller that went through dozens of editions and was translated into seventeen languages, including Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese. With an upbeat message that hard work, discipline, and high moral standards guaranteed success, Self-Help was followed by Character (1871), Thrift (1875), and Duty (1880). With his life spanning the century that saw the triumph of the middle-class values he championed, he died in 1904 at the age of ninety-three.

In the document excerpts I would like you to read, the first two sections, “Self-Help and Individualism” and “Habits of a Successful Men” are from Self-Help; the third section, “Faults of the Poor,” is from Thrift (you can read all of the sections by clicking here).

After you finish reading the document excerpts, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: Why does Smiles consider government incapable of solving the social and economic problems confronting early industrial England? In his view what should be government’s proper role and function? How would Smiles define the word individualism? What are the components of the “middle-class ethic” discussed by Smiles? According to Smiles, who is responsible for the poverty in England? In his view, what can be done about it? If given a chance to testify before one of the parliamentary committees about the effects of industrialization on the working class, what might Smiles have said? How do Smile’s views resemble and differ from those of Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations? Your thoughts...

The Principles of Darwinism

After pursuing his university education at Edinburgh and Cambridge, Charles Darwin spent five years on the HMS Beagle as chief naturalist on a scientific expedition that explored the South Pacific and the western coast of South America. Darwin observed the bewildering variety of nature and began to speculate on how millions of species of plants and animals had come into existence. On his return to England, he developed his theory of evolution, basing his hypothesis on his own formidable biological knowledge, recent discoveries in geology, work on the selective breeding of plants and animals, and the suggestion of several authors that competition was the norm for all living things. In 1859, he published his theories in On the Origin of Species, followed in 1871 by The Descent of Man (you can read excerpts from both by clicking here).

Once you have read the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What does Darwin mean by the terms struggle for existence and natural selection? How does Darwin defend himself from religiously motivated attacks on his work? What were some implications of Darwin’s work for nineteenth-century views of progress? Of nature? Of human nature? Defenders of laissez-faire capitalism sometimes drew upon Darwinian concepts in their arguments against socialism. Which concepts might they have used? Similarly, Darwinian concepts were used to defend militarism and late-nineteenth-century Western imperialism (empire building and domination). Which of Darwin’s theories might have proved useful in such a defense? Your thoughts…

Industrialization, Nationalism, and Internationalism in 19th-Century Sports

One unexpected but powerful result the Industrial Revolution and of growing trade connections and cultural interchange in the 19th century was the beginning of a globalization of athletics—a process that has continued vigorously to the present day. The sports involved were Western in origin, soccer football heading the list. Their dissemination was a function of Western power and prestige. Western businessmen and diplomats played their familiar games on foreign soil—colonies and non-colonies alike—and gradually local residents sought to emulate what seemed to be part of a superior, or at least very attractive, way of life.

Sports history in 19th-century Western Europe and the United States was itself a vital development. At the beginning of the century few organized sports existed. Village games and individual athletic pastimes abounded, but overall patterns were haphazard. Industrialization spurred a set of changes in sports. First, many urban people began to see the need to exercise to make up for sedentary jobs, and they also valued the social contact sports provided. Middle-class and working-class teams developed on this basis. Schools seized on sports as a diversion but also as building character: Upper-class schools first trumpeted the glories of sports, but lower-class education soon followed their lead. In this context, by the 1850s and 1860s, entrepreneurs saw new ways to make money from sports. There was new equipment to sell, much of it based on the vulcanization of rubber. There were commercial teams to organize, to draw spectators into new stadiums (which would be reached by equally novel tramways). Initial professional teams emerged in English soccer and American baseball. All these developments gave sports an unprecedented importance in modern life. They also changed sports: Athletics became more regulated, with standardized rules of play enforced by a new monitor, the official; consciousness of speed and recordkeeping increased; specialization affected sports, with different team members assigned distinct responsibilities.

The internationalization of sports brought some of the same qualities occurring in the West to a variety of other societies—starting with tremendous enthusiasm among young athletes and a wide range of spectators. Teams built by imitation and contact included a range of Latin American soccer groups, formed initially on the example of local British players. The first Buenos Aires football club, copied from British residents in the city, was founded in 1867, and a national network of teams had fanned out by the 1890s. Argentine soccer style was more exuberant and individualistic than the European version, showing a kind of cultural fusion even as imitation occurred. Japanese students began playing baseball by the 1890s and in 1896 proudly defeated a team of American sailors. At the same time, not all sports spread equally wide. The United States remained addicted to some parochial interests, like American football, not widely shared elsewhere. South Asians were interested in more individual sports, such as badminton and tennis, rather than team sports, with the exception of polo and cricket. Nevertheless, the rapid dissemination of sports as international currency constitutes a major development in world history.

The first document I would like you to read (you can read both documents by clicking here) picks up a formal aspect of sport internationalization: the revival of the Olympics in the 1890s, under the leadership of a French nobleman, Baron de Coubertin. An educational reformer, Coubertin had seen the importance of sports in American and British schools. He formed an International Olympic Congress 1894 to push for a revival of the old Greek games, but now on an international basis: His hope was that sports would transcend national conflicts. On his death he ordered that his heart be sent to Greece and buried on Mt. Olympus. His comments in the document reflect on the first modern games, held in Athens in 1896. Obviously, the movement he launched has become a major reflection of and spur to sports internationalism, although some of the initial reliance on amateurism and avoidance of nationalistic rivalries has not proved durable. At the same time some of the limitations of Coubertin’s vision have lifted as well: His statement reflects a transition in sports internationalism that hardly embraced most of the world directly. Progressively in the 20th century, but particularly after World War II, the Olympics would do steadily better as a genuinely global assemblage.

The second document I would like you to read (well, pair of documents) conveys the initial atmosphere of the introduction of soccer into Latin America. One document describes the setting for one of the first matches in which Latin Americans were confident enough to invite a British team to play against them. Elite Buenos Aires society turned out, including General Julio Roca, the president of the Republic (football had just been introduced to the Argentine army). The British team, Southampton, savaged the Argentine team and several others during the visit. The other document is from a poem by Ana Amélia (entitled “The Leap”) to the goalie of the Brazilian team, Fluminense, around 1910, again suggesting the early days of Latin American soccer in which young men from good families displayed their masculine qualities to admiring young women of the same class. The subject of her poem, Marcos de Mendonça, played for the Brazilian national team in 1919 and also became a prominent banker and industrialist. He married Ana Amélia.

Finally, I’d like you to take a moment to study the picture above (you can enlarge it by clicking on it). This sketch appeared in newspaper accounts of the Games. Along with Pierre de Coubertin’s account of the first Games, it helps determine what the organizers of the games sought to convey about the purposes of the new international competition. The parade is headed by a Greek evzone, a soldier dressed in traditional (though not ancient) Greek garb. This sketch also invites comparisons with the way Olympic Games have evolved over the ensuing century-plus. Some aspects of the Games have remained remarkably constant, but many others have changed greatly. You might want to search out a website picture of a more recent Olympic parade (the 2006 Winter Games were held in Torino, Italy and the 2008 Summer Games were held in Beijing, China) for comparison.

Once you have read and studied the documents, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What was Coubertin’s idea of internationalism? What problems did he encounter in trying to internationalize sports, and how did he handle them? What “world” was represented at the first Olympics? Why might a European find the representation an impressive demonstration of internationalism, in the context of the 1890s? How did Coubertin suggest a belief that sports might be a particularly European strength? What did Coubertin think the results of international sports might be in Greece? What does his approach suggest about belief in the larger meaning of modern sports? Why were British sports popular in Argentina? What kinds of Argentineans were first interested, and why? Are there any connections with the motivations involved in the revival of the Olympics? Can the chronology of the international spread of football organizations be explained in terms of patterns of European influence? Why have sports become such an important part of modern global culture? In reference to the picture above, is this sketch meant to favor or criticize the first modern Olympics? How can you tell? How does the representation compare with de Coubertin’s glowing description? How did the Games conceive of internationalism? What does this sketch suggest about the social characteristics of the first Games? How did the first Games compare with contemporary Olympic meets? What are the main differences? Are there any continuities? Your thoughts…

The Great Boom and Indentured Servitude in Latin America

During the period of 1870-1914, many regions of Latin America became fully integrated into the world economy. Exports of raw materials, including minerals, oil, food products, and fibers, bound Latin America to the industrialized nations. Latin American nations became dependent on the industrial world’s manufactured goods, markets for the export of raw materials, transportation, and credit.

The development of these economies altered patterns of work in the areas they affected. In Cuba, sugar plantations expanded production to supply the growing populations of Europe and North America. Although processing and transportation became mechanized, sugar planting and harvesting remained handwork. The first document I would like you to read (you can read all of the documents by clicking here), taken from the transcription of an oral history of a runaway slave, reveals the social conditions among the workers on the Cuban sugar plantations after the abolition of slavery in 1886. The Spanish government granted abolition after a violent upheaval in Cuba known as the Ten Years War (1868-1878) followed by intense pressure from foreign powers, especially Great Britain and the United States.

The second selection describes conditions on the henequen plantations of Yucatan. Demand for henequen (a cactus-like plant) fibers was directly related to the mechanization of agriculture in the United States. In 1878, Cyrus McCormick added a new knotting mechanism for grain binding to his mechanical reaper. The subsequent search for a strong binder twine led directly to henequen in Yucatan. McCormick imported hundreds of thousands of tons of henequen during the late 19th century. Exports from Yucatan increased from 40,000 bales in 1875 to 600,000 in 1910. In 1902, the same year that McCormick merged with other harvesting machine companies to form International Harvester, he also secretly negotiated lower prices for henequen with the governor of Yucatan in return for steady purchases from the governor’s export companies. With that agreement, International Harvester established its “informal empire” in Yucatan. The company neither needed to own its own land nor produce henequen directly. Production was left in the hands of local landowners and merchants, who became fabulously wealthy and who also controlled the Yucatecan state government.

The expansion of henequen production also affected land tenure and labor relations. When henequen became king, new plantations absorbed native communal land and imposed on their workers a much stricter regime of work. Seedlings and young plants required constant attention until they matured in seven years and harvesting the leaves was done by hand. The need for labor on henequen left little time for traditional cultivation of the Mayan workers’ plots of corn (milpas). Labor shortages also resulted in the importation of Yaqui Indians captured in Northern Mexico and Puerto Rican and Korean workers. But most of all, owners relied on the local Mayan campesinos, whether they wanted to work on the plantation or not.

Once you have read the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: How did the Cuban plantation workers’ conditions change (or stay the same) after the abolition of slavery in 1886? Identify the different types of workers on the sugar plantation. What were the relations among them? What do the narrator’s attitudes toward women and children suggest about family life on the plantation? What are the ties that bound the peon to the henequen hacienda in Yucatan? When and why did henequen become a valuable export product? Describe the moral tone expressed by the Englishmen who wrote the document on Yucatan. What does this suggest about their attitudes toward Latin American civilization in general? How did labor conditions in Latin America compare with those in other parts of the world in the 19th century? How did they compare with European industrial factories for example? Your thoughts…

English Workers in the Early Industrial Revolution

A key to England’s early industrial growth was the large pool of workers willing to accept low wages for long hours of labor in factories and mines. Many of these workers were displaced farmers or farm workers, forced from rural areas because of land shortages caused by population growth and the consolidation of small farms into large estates by wealthy landowners. Rural families moved to cities or coal-mining towns, where they provided the workforce for the early Industrial Revolution. Few avoided poverty, crowed housing, and poor health.

Eventually, the British government responded by passing laws to protect factory workers and miners, especially children, from exploitation. When considering legislation, parliamentary committees held hearings to gather testimony from workers, employers, physicians, clergy, and local officials. Their statements, some of which are included in the following documents (that you can read by clicking here), present a vivid picture of working-class conditions in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Section 1 includes testimony from the records of the Sadler Committee, chaired by Michael Thomas Sadler in 1831 and charged with investigating child labor in cotton and linen factories. Section 2 includes testimony taken by a parliamentary commission appointed in 1833 to investigate working conditions in other textile industries (incidentally, this is the same year the British government abolished slavery). Section 3 presents evidence taken in 1842 by a committee investigating conditions in coal mines.

Once you have read the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What differences were there between working conditions in the mines and in the cotton factories? As revealed by the questions they asked, what did the committee members consider the worst abuses of working conditions in the factories and mines? What does the testimony of Hannah Richardson and George Armitage reveal about the economic circumstances of working-class families and attitudes of working-class families toward their children? Consider the testimony of the workers themselves. Do the workers express anger? Do they demand changes? What might explain their attitudes? For what reasons do William Harter and Thomas Wilson oppose factory laws? In what ways do their views reflect the economic philosophy of Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations? Your thoughts…

Work and Workers in the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution was one of the greatest changes in Western and ultimately world history. Taking shape toward the end of the 18th century in Great Britain, industrialization dominated the 19th century in Western Europe and North America. Based on radically new technologies, including the use of fossil fuels for power, industrialization revolutionized the production and transportation of goods. It sustained rapid population growth in the West and created growing material abundance as well. This industrialization transformed a social structure once based on the land into divisions based on urban wealth and property. It fostered large organizations and a growing state capable of using new technologies and communication and marshaling large amounts of capital and large numbers of goods and people. It challenged family life by taking work out of the home and redefining the roles of many women and children. It was, in sum, as basic a change in human history as had occurred since the advent of settled agriculture.

One of the many areas altered by industrialization was the nature of work, particularly for those people who labored in the proliferating mines and factories. Some features of industrialization benefited work: Machines could lighten labor, factories could provide social stimulation, and some jobs that demanded new technical expertise became unusually interesting. But many workers found industrial working conditions a strain because they challenged a number of traditional values and habits. Certainly, changes in work provide one way of measuring the human impact of the vast industrialization process—some would say, of measuring human degradation.

The documents I would like you to read focus on three aspects of industrial work during the 19th centuries (you can read all of the documents by clicking here). The first document comes from a parliamentary inquiry on child labor, conducted in Britain in the early 1830s and ultimately the source of laws restricting children’s work. Child labor was not in fact new, so one question to ask is what aspects of the factory system made it seem newly shocking. A second, related feature of industrial work—and one that persisted far longer than child labor—was the attempt to bring new discipline to the labor force. In the second document, shop rules—in this case, from a French factory in the late 1840s—did battle with a number of customary impulses in an effort to make work more predictable, less casual. Finally, new working conditions provoked direct comment by workers through protest and individual statements. The comment offered in the third document, by an unusually sensitive German miner around 1900—among other things, an ardent socialist—is not typical, but it does express some widely shared grievances. All three documents suggest the tensions that changes in work could bring. A basic feature of Western life in the 19th century, this strain spread with industrialization to other societies later. How could workers modify or adapt to new work habits? How might changes in work affect other aspects of their lives, in the family, politics, or culture?

I would also like you to consider and discuss the following when you have finished reading the three documents: What features of child labor seemed newly objectionable in the context of the factory industry? What were the main goals of factory work rules? What problems did they address? What innovations did they particularly suggest, compared with more traditional work patterns? What does Max Lotz see as the primary problems of mine work? Were work conditions getting better or worse by 1900 in highly industrialized societies like Germany? Why might some workers disagree with Lotz’s assessment? Do problems of work in 19th-century Europe suggest that industrialization deteriorated the quality of human life? What other factors need to be taken into account? How did workers and others deal with the issues identified in these documents? Your thoughts…

"Slumdog Millionaire" Wins Again, This Time the Top Prize from the Director's Guild of America

And the winner for the DGA's awards for OUTSTANDING DIRECTORIAL ACHIEVEMENT IN FEATURE FILM is...

DANNY BOYLE

Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures)

Mr. Boyle’s Directorial Team:

Unit Production Manager: Sanjay Kumar

First Assistant Director: Raj Acharya

Second Assistant Director: Avani Batra

Second Second Assistant Director: Sonia Nemawarkar

Well folks, Slumdog Millionaire is officially that rare film that is simply too big to ignore. It is literally steamrolling and winning EVERYTHING! I'm yet to talk to someone (whether it be adults or my own students) that has not absolutely loved this film (I myself have seen in twice and consider it a rare masterpiece). The critics also have mostly overwhelmingly loved the film as well (it is currently at 94% on the "Tomatometer" on rottentomatoes.com). Slumdog Millionaire is, therefore, that rare film that the industry embraces, critics adore, and mainstream audiences warm up to as well. The last film I can remember that was able to achieve this was Lord of the Rings: Return of the King back in 2003. That film, by the way, was only the second film in history to win every award it was nominated for, including Best Picture (the first film to do that was The Last Emperor back in 1987) so get ready for a "Slumdog Night" at the Oscars later this month. At any rate, congratulations to Danny Boyle for this achievement. Mr. Boyle has been putting impressive work out there for several years now, so I'm glad he's finally being recognized as one of the great directors working currently.

Next up: The Writer's Guild Awards are next Saturday, February 7th.

Jewish Nationalism and the Birth of Zionism

Zionism, which officially began at the World Zionist Congress held in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, was the last nationalist movement to appear in nineteenth-century Europe. It was also the most ambitious. Jews had not had their own state since 586 B.C.E., when the Kingdom of Judah in Palestine had been conquered by the Babylonians, and from the time of their expulsion from their homeland by the Romans in the first century C.E., they had come to live in communities scattered across the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and the Americas. During the many centuries of their dispersal Jews held fast to the dream of returning to their homeland in Palestine, the Land of Zion, which according to Hebrew Scriptures, was theirs by virtue of their covenant with God. This pious hope, expressed in traditional Jewish prayers and religious writings, in the twentieth century became a highly organized political movement that in 1949 resulted in the foundation of the modern state of Israel (but more on that in Season 5).

Zionism originated in Europe, where in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries many discriminatory laws against Jews were lifted and Jews gained the freedom to participate fully in their nation’s economic, political, and cultural life. Old anti-Jewish prejudices were difficult to eradicate, however, and in an atmosphere of rapid social change, growing nationalism, new racial theories, and simple jealousy of the many successful Jewish physicians, businessmen, journalists, and academics, anti-Semitism intensified in the late 1800s. In France, the trial, conviction, and ultimate exoneration of the Jewish army officer Alfred Dreyfus for treason dragged on from 1894 to 1906 and revealed the depths of anti-Jewish feeling in what was supposedly Europe’s most tolerant and liberal state. German politicians routinely attacked the Jews, and in 1895 voters in Vienna elected Karl Lüger, an outspoken anti-Semite, as their mayor. Russia’s tsarist government issued new anti-Jewish laws, and to divert attention away from its own failures, encouraged mob attacks (pogroms) on Jewish communities in Russia itself and in Poland, Ukraine, and Lithuania, three regions that were part of its empire and the home of the vast majority of Europe’s Jews.

The founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, was born into the family of a wealthy businessman in Budapest in 1860. At age eighteen he and his family moved to Vienna, where he attended the University of Vienna and earned his doctorate in law. Spurning a legal career, he spent several years writing plays and fiction before accepting a job as a correspondent for the Neue Freie Presse, a Viennese newspaper. Although not deeply religious, during the 1880s Herzl became increasingly troubled by growing signs of anti-Semitism in Europe, and in the 1890s he became convinced by the Dreyfus affair and the election of Lüger that Jews had no future unless they had a state of their own outside of Europe. After publishing Der Judenstaat (The Jews’ State or as it is also translated The Jewish State) in 1896, he organized the first World Zionist Congress in Basel (you can read excerpts from that document by clicking here). Until his death in 1904 he worked tirelessly to strengthen Zionism by lecturing, organizing, writing books and articles, and seeking the support of wealthy philanthropists and important political leaders. In 1949, forty-five years after his death, his remains were flown from Vienna to Jerusalem, where they were reburied in the new state of Israel.

After you have read the excerpts from Herzl’s document, I would like you all to reflect on and discuss the following: Herzl states at the outset that the Jews “are a people, one people.” In his view why have the Jews maintained this unity despite living in communities scattered across several continents? According to Herzl, what are the concrete signs of continuing anti-Semitism in late-nineteenth-century Europe? How does Herzl explain the persistence of anti-Semitism? According to Herzl, why are “staying put” and “assimilation” not viable options for Europe’s Jews? According to Herzl, why is a Jewish state the only means for the Jews to escape their predicament in Europe? What role does religion play in Herzl’s arguments? What role, according to Herzl, should it play in the future Jewish state? Your thoughts…

Racism, Militarism, and the New Nationalism

As nationalism grew in nineteenth-century Europe, it also changed. In the first half of the century, when nationalists saw conservative monarchical governments as the main obstacle to national self-determination, nationalism was linked to republicanism and liberalism. During the middle of the century, especially in Germany and Italy, nationalism was championed by pragmatic and moderate leaders who believed that hard-headed politics, not romantic gestures and lofty republican ideals, would bring about national unification and independence from foreign rule. By century’s end nationalism was increasingly associated with conservative if not reactionary groups that used it to justify large military outlays, imperialism, and aggressive foreign policies. It also would lure the masses away from socialism and democracy.

The German historian Heinrich von Treitschke represents this later link between nationalism and militarism, racism, and authoritarianism. The son of a Prussian general, Treitschke taught history at several universities, including the prestigious University of Berlin. He also was a member of the German representative assembly, the Reichstag, from 1871 to 1884. His best-known work is his seven-volume History of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. In this and his numerous other writings, lectures, and speeches, Treitschke acclaimed militarism, authoritarianism, and war as the path to German greatness (you can read excerpts from this document by clicking here). His views struck a responsive chord among many Germans who feared socialism and democracy and yearned for the day when Germany would be recognized as the world’s most powerful nation.

After you finish reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What, according to Treitschke, is the relationship between the state and the individual? Why, according to Treitschke, is monarchy superior to democracy? What qualities of Germans set them apart from other peoples, especially the English and the Jews, according to Treitschke? Early nineteenth-century nationalists believed that all nations had a contribution to make to human progress. What is Treitschke’s view? What, according to Treitschke, is the value of war for a nation? Your thoughts…

Independence and Consolidation of New States in Latin America

The wars of independence (1791-1825), the unstable aftermath of independence (1825-1870) and national consolidation (1870-1910) marked the political transformation of Latin America during the “long 19th century.” The wars of independence led to the political separation of most of Latin America from their former colonial rulers: Spain, Portugal, and France. Often described as civil wars because they involved violent class and racial conflict, the wars of independence resulted in, not only the formation of 17 independent states, but also widespread economic devastation, social disruption, and decades of political instability. From the 1820s to the 1870s, generals, who had led the struggle for independence, recruited personal armies and fought with one another incessantly over who should rule. By the 1870s, instability gradually ended and national consolidation began. Emerging from the American born upper class, newly wealthy oligarchs, associated with the export economy (coffee, metals, oil, wheat, and beef) and foreign capital overthrew the old style caudillos and established new regimes. Based on “democracy for the few,” the oligarchs, during the last quarter of the 19th century, centralized governmental functions and formed national armies and police forces that solidified their control.

The wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon precipitated Latin America’s independence movement. This was particularly true of the Haitian slave revolt from 1791 to 1804. When news of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen spread to the French sugar plantation colony of Saint-Domingue, the mulatto population sought equality with whites. But mulatto demands prompted a rebellion for freedom among the slaves. On January 1, 1804, after 13 years of war, the former slaves officially declared Haitian Independence. Black army leaders, Toussaint L’Ouverture and Jean Jaques Desallines, defeated in succession the French colonial regime, a British invasion force and a Napoleonic invasion. The loss of life during Haiti’s struggle for independence was far greater than in the other parts of the Americas. More than one-third of the black population died. Of the 400,000 or so former slaves (the estimates are rough on the slave population, many estimates say 500,000) only 250,000 remained. Black armies killed or drove out the white population and many of the mulattoes. British and French invaders each lost approximately 50,000 men. They succumbed to the violence of war and to yellow fever. Revolutionary leaders also perished. L’Ouverture died in a French prison in 1803 and Desallines was assassinated in 1806. In the first document that I would like you to read, General Desallines “informally” announced independence on November 29, 1803, the day that Napoleon’s army withdrew. He reveals the animosities generated by slavery and 13 years of racial war and hatred (you can read the document by clicking here).

In contrast to Haiti, the least violent independence movement occurred in Portuguese America. When Napoleon invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 1807, the Portuguese King escaped to Brazil on an English ship. While there, the Portuguese King established Brazil as an independent Kingdom. When the monarch returned to Portugal in 1820, the King’s son, Pedro I, declared Brazil’s independence in 1822 to prevent the Portuguese Parliament from reestablishing colonial rule.

In Spanish America, Napoleon presented a different problem. By imprisoning the Spanish King in 1808, Napoleon undermined the legitimacy of the Spanish colonial government. As the Spanish-American upper class argued over who had the right to rule, lower class rebellions of Indians, mestizos and mulattoes, especially in Mexico and Venezuela, shaped the political future of Spanish America. Upper class creoles, the descendents of Spaniards born in America, organized armies that accomplished two purposes; they smashed lower class rebellions by 1815 and eventually achieved independence by 1825.

Simón Bolívar, the liberator of northern South America, Peru, and Bolivia, came from this creole class. His political ideas clearly expressed the biases of his social origins. He mistrusted the lower classes and advocated elite-run governments. In the second document I would like you to read, these prejudices are clearly shown in Bolívar’s advice to the legislators gathered at Angostura in 1819 to discuss the proposed constitution for the new state of Venezuela (you can read the document by clicking here).

Mexican President, Porfirio Diaz, who governed with an iron hand from 1876 to 1910, exemplified the transition to oligarchic rule. Although he was a rough mestizo military leader, Diaz enjoyed the support of the Mexican oligarchs and their articulate spokesmen. With the oligarchy’s help, he ended 50 years of civil war. Through concessions to foreign investors, particularly in mining, railroads, and oil, Diaz presided over an impressive economic boom in exports to the United States. To maintain economic growth, the oligarchy sought stability, and Diaz provided. The third document I would like you to read is from an interview given by Porfirio Diaz in 1908 to the American reporter James Creelman (you can read some of the interview by clicking here, please read pg. 236 paragraph 3 - pg. 245 paragraph 3 [it's not actually 9 pages, there are very large pictures throughout as it's a magazine article]). Diaz candidly revealed how he achieved order.

Once you have read the documents, I would like you all to reflect on discuss the following: Desallines claimed that cruelty is sometimes necessary to achieve important political ends. What is your view of this proposition? Is it a universal claim crossing all cultures? What is Bolívar’s view of the common people of Venezuela? What types of institutions does he recommend to rule these people? Why are these types needed? What role should the liberators (the leaders of the independence armies) play in the new government proposed by Bolívar? What was the relationship between the Haitian revolution and the principles of the French revolution of 1789? How did this compare with the relationship of Bolívar’s independence movement—was all of this a common part of a single age of Atlantic revolution? In what way did Porfirio Diaz, as ruler of Mexico, fulfill the ideas of Bolívar? How did Diaz view the common people? What kind of government did he establish? In what ways did his policies relate to the economy? What was Diaz’s goal for education? Using these documents together: What were some of the key issues in Latin American politics in the 19th century? Your thoughts…

Bolívar’s Dreams for Latin America

Simón Bolívar, the most renowned leader of the Latin American independence movement, was born to a wealthy Venezuelan landowning family in 1783. Orphaned at an early age, he was educated by a private tutor who inspired in his pupil an enthusiasm for the principles of the Enlightenment and republicanism. After spending three years in Europe, Bolívar returned to New Spain in 1803, where the death of his new bride plunged him into grief and caused his return to France and Italy. In 1805, in Rome, he took a vow to dedicate his life to the liberation of his native land. On his return he became a leading member of the republican-minded group in Caracas that in 1808 began to agitate for independence and in 1810 deposed the colonial governor. Until his death in 1830, Bolívar dedicated himself to the Latin American independence movement as a publicist, diplomat, theoretician, and statesman. His greatest contribution was as the general who led the armies that defeated the Spaniards and liberated the northern regions of South America.

The so-called Jamaica Latter was written in 1815 during a self imposed exile in Jamaica (you can read it by clicking here). It was addressed to “an English gentleman,” probably the island’s governor, the Duke of Manchester. The Venezuelan Republic had collapsed in May as a result of a viciously fought Spanish counteroffensive, divisions among the revolutionaries, and opposition form many Indians, blacks, and mulattoes, who viewed the Creole landowners, not the Spaniards, as their oppressors. The letter was written in response to a request from the Englishman for Bolívar’s thoughts about the background and prospects of the liberation movement.

Once you have read the letter, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: Why does Bolívar believe that Spain’s efforts to hold on to its American territories are doomed? What Spanish policies, according to Bolívar, made Spanish rule odious to him and other revolutionaries? In Bolívar’s view, what complicates the task of predicting Spanish America’s political future? Does Bolívar’s letter reveal concern for the economic and social condition of South America’s nonwhite population? What are some of the implications of Bolívar’s attitudes? Finally, based on your reading of Bolívar, what guesses can you make about the reasons why the new nations of South America found it difficult to achieve stable republican governments? Your thoughts…