Setting: the modernist era. A time when individual interests were both emphasized and degraded, art became virtually unrecognizable, and survival of the fittest permeated society. Thinkers began to explore the idea of humans as irrational beings, abandoning the conventions of the Enlightenment to explore the darker side of the psyche. This new intellectual sensibility was manifested in Nietzsche's nihilism, a singular doctrine which lacked the optimism of religion and the (rather ridiculous) approach of perspectivism. However, Nietzsche's philosophy is not untouched by the reaches of imperialism and Romantic exoticism. His theories about repeated lives and divine death echoed Hindu and Buddhist doctrine; thus, western philosophy began to take on a distinctly eastern feel.
Although Nietzsche influenced many high profile people, only one literally internalized his teachings--Sigmund Freud. Freud, a pop culture icon in his own right, is commonly associated with sex, death, and therapists. These associations are not altogether incorrect, but Freud's thoughts are (naturally) more complex, and he probably had quite a few unconscious philosophies which he failed to share with us. Unconsciousness aside, Freud attempted to use his theories to define "the human." Freud's human is base, unthinking, aggressive, repressed, governed by intricate levels of consciousness and egotism. On a superficial level, Freud doesn't seem to have missed the mark. We all have socially unacceptable thoughts and feel the influence of social conditioning. However, between all the uncontrollable forces that govern the human psyche, Freud somehow loses sight of the physical, real individual. A human is much more than a series of synapses and warring instincts. Freud was so caught up in the complex terrain of the psyche that he lost sight of the overall delicacy of the body. He does not explain the physical actions that seem automatic, like blinking and breathing, perhaps attributing them to the activity of an infinite subconscious. He trivializes conscious thinking and self-consciousness--the very qualities that define the human condition. After all, are we not afraid of dying because we consciously acknowledge the inevitability of our death? Don't we define humanity as impermanent because we recognize death? If Thanatos governed our non-erotic selves, as Freud suggests, we would not understand mortality, and our death instincts would simply lead us to "simplicity." Yet, this is not the case. We are painfully aware of our time, and we think we understand what it means to die. Instincts do not allow such lucidity. Freud seems to have forgotten, momentarily, that we are not wolves, and that the anxiety of the human condition comes from knowing what we are.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Russia Today: Global 3000
With our recent debate about Russia, I thought this was a very timely Deutsche Welle report. Although not directly connected to revolution, the plan for the city outside of Moscow seems to be a classic manifestation of the Russian desire for expansion and modernization. The currently bankrupt project hearkens back to Peter the Great's ambitious founding of St. Petersburg, or at least that's what the Russian government's saying. Thoughts?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Raging Hard for Counter-Imperialism
Dear Classier Hoeing,
I largely agree with your argument. To a certain degree, imperialism has allowed us to lead a "first world" lifestyle in the United States, Europe, and other "select" parts of the globe. Economies stagnate without new markets, raw materials, and resources; imperialism allowed Europe to jump start the long process of globalizing. However, I don't believe that standards of living would be less had the invisible hand not extended itself over the "unoccupied" territories of Africa, the Orient, and the Americas. Every region of the world had experienced the flux of empire. China, Egypt, the Aztecs and Incas. I think that had the natural rise and fall of isolated empires continued, new technology would gradually emerge, and the process of forming the so-called "global village" would arise from the integration of these disparate technologies.
This counter-imperialistic theory is by no means all about flowers and peace signs and cute furry animals living together in uninterrupted harmony. There is no way to avoid the violence that would inevitably come of power play. In fact, without European imperialism, some attempt at integration and conquer would most likely be made, and the world's wealth would still become heavily concentrated on select regions. (If Africa stayed in control of its plentiful resources, they would prove to be a major power in the world market, perhaps even an imperialist one.) So would much change? Perhaps there would be an equalization of world power. Perhaps there would be less oppression, racism, and debt. Regardless, allowing the rise-and-fall cycle of empires to continue without intervention would not drastically alter the contemporary standard of living. We're not eating the cake that we somehow have. This is just the way things happened.
I largely agree with your argument. To a certain degree, imperialism has allowed us to lead a "first world" lifestyle in the United States, Europe, and other "select" parts of the globe. Economies stagnate without new markets, raw materials, and resources; imperialism allowed Europe to jump start the long process of globalizing. However, I don't believe that standards of living would be less had the invisible hand not extended itself over the "unoccupied" territories of Africa, the Orient, and the Americas. Every region of the world had experienced the flux of empire. China, Egypt, the Aztecs and Incas. I think that had the natural rise and fall of isolated empires continued, new technology would gradually emerge, and the process of forming the so-called "global village" would arise from the integration of these disparate technologies.
This counter-imperialistic theory is by no means all about flowers and peace signs and cute furry animals living together in uninterrupted harmony. There is no way to avoid the violence that would inevitably come of power play. In fact, without European imperialism, some attempt at integration and conquer would most likely be made, and the world's wealth would still become heavily concentrated on select regions. (If Africa stayed in control of its plentiful resources, they would prove to be a major power in the world market, perhaps even an imperialist one.) So would much change? Perhaps there would be an equalization of world power. Perhaps there would be less oppression, racism, and debt. Regardless, allowing the rise-and-fall cycle of empires to continue without intervention would not drastically alter the contemporary standard of living. We're not eating the cake that we somehow have. This is just the way things happened.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
I Sound Like a Broken Record
This week, the focus has been imperialism and its effects, outside and within Europe. We all know what the products of imperialism are and now questions are being asked about how the world would have progressed differently sans outside intervention. Over at the MEHness, racism in relation to imperialism took the stage while Declan Conroy focused on individual efforts to bear "the White Man's Burden." In class, we also reviewed the economic implications of imperialism. Hobson and Lenin, naturally, believed that imperialism was the "highest form of capitalism" and indicative of the inherent contradictions of the system. London was, after all, becoming the Banker of the World, and most "colonized" territories were rich in resources that bolstered the European economy after extensive wars. I have a theory that globalization begins right with the imperialists of old, and I'm curious to see how the imperialist effort will begin the interdisciplinary process of international integration.
Taking the High Rhodes: The White Man's Burden. (Ha. Ha.)
Pre-Script: February 4 was King Leopold II's birthday. We should have had a party in class with little pointed hats and streamers and a cake decorated with bloody frosting. How festive! Moving on--
Dear Mr. Conroy,
It would be rather boring to say that I agree with your argument, but I do. However, I think that we are being far too modern in our consideration of Rhodes' morality. Now, his divisive actions seem immoral, narcissistic, and violent, but at the time he was considered to be quite the hero. His accomplishments are rather amazing, if one thinks of them objectively; he traveled to "the Dark Continent" all on his lonesome and somehow managed to successfully imperialize a large chunk of southern Africa. He was the intrepid personification of Daring and Adventure, two qualities that were highly thought of in the imperialist age. At the time, the Africans were seen as much less than human, and so his less-than-humane conquering would have been largely ignored. Naturally, the Dutch would have been outraged at the role he played in the Boer War, but since Britain was such a huge imperialist presence, their collective anger did little to tarnish his image. Rhodes was Kipling's poster boy. Even after Rhodes' actions became morally unacceptable in the eyes of society, it would be politically unfair for Britain to discredit the man who single-handedly expanded their empire. The scholarship is proof of this; Rhodes had money, and the scholarship can be seen as Britain's way of honoring his vast, nationalistic wealth. He did a lot for the Motherland, and in return, they have to keep his good name good.
Dear Mr. Conroy,
It would be rather boring to say that I agree with your argument, but I do. However, I think that we are being far too modern in our consideration of Rhodes' morality. Now, his divisive actions seem immoral, narcissistic, and violent, but at the time he was considered to be quite the hero. His accomplishments are rather amazing, if one thinks of them objectively; he traveled to "the Dark Continent" all on his lonesome and somehow managed to successfully imperialize a large chunk of southern Africa. He was the intrepid personification of Daring and Adventure, two qualities that were highly thought of in the imperialist age. At the time, the Africans were seen as much less than human, and so his less-than-humane conquering would have been largely ignored. Naturally, the Dutch would have been outraged at the role he played in the Boer War, but since Britain was such a huge imperialist presence, their collective anger did little to tarnish his image. Rhodes was Kipling's poster boy. Even after Rhodes' actions became morally unacceptable in the eyes of society, it would be politically unfair for Britain to discredit the man who single-handedly expanded their empire. The scholarship is proof of this; Rhodes had money, and the scholarship can be seen as Britain's way of honoring his vast, nationalistic wealth. He did a lot for the Motherland, and in return, they have to keep his good name good.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Hey Belgium, Way to [censored] Up The Congo! (806-816)
Although European presence in Africa was not foreign by the 19th century, as "new imperialism" became further ingrained in the hearts of capitalists and politicians, the "Dark Continent" became prime real estate. By 1914, the entirety of Africa save Ethiopia had been, shall we say, colonized by various European powers. (Quick Note: Ever wonder why Ethiopia is considered to be the Rastafari Valhalla and the source of pan-Africanism? The fact that the Ethiopian Empire was able to completely resist imperialist pressure has a lot to do with it. I'll address this more in my next post.) The French claimed a huge chunk of northwestern Africa as well as Madagascar and a relatively small portion of equatorial Africa. The British, never to be outdone, focused imperial efforts mostly on eastern Africa, from Egypt all the way down to the Union of South Africa; some territory on the Gold Coast was also claimed. The Italians, Germans, and Spanish followed behind with smaller territories. The African map was more colorful than the rainbow, and a lot less attractive; the White Men clearly heeded Kipling's call and went about their burden with ease.
Right in the middle of the European-rainbow-melee, Belgium under King Leopold II laid claim to a large chunk of land that was known as the Belgian Congo. In 1876, the International Association for the Exploration and Civilization of the Congo set out from Belgium to exploit resources in middle Africa such as rubber, palm oil, and diamonds. After facing opposition from other European countries such as Portugal and Germany, Belgium set about committing atrocities in the Congo which are no doubt the root of the current Republic's problems. Labor was either forced or close to it, and the conditions were horrible. Famine, disease, and overwork killed off hundreds of thousands of African workers. George Washington Williams, in a visit to the Congo, was appalled by the confiscation of lands from the native Africans as well as the lack of organized "civilization effort." Williams' concerns were uncommon at the time since Africans were considered to be inhuman, but they were legitimate, and he was not willing to be a passive observer of lying on behalf of the IAECC. Naturally, his address to King Leopold II did little to improve the atrocious conditions for African laborers.
I guess that's what they get for burdening the White Man. By the way, Belgium, good job [expletive gerund] up the Congo. They've thanked you for it, I'm sure.
Right in the middle of the European-rainbow-melee, Belgium under King Leopold II laid claim to a large chunk of land that was known as the Belgian Congo. In 1876, the International Association for the Exploration and Civilization of the Congo set out from Belgium to exploit resources in middle Africa such as rubber, palm oil, and diamonds. After facing opposition from other European countries such as Portugal and Germany, Belgium set about committing atrocities in the Congo which are no doubt the root of the current Republic's problems. Labor was either forced or close to it, and the conditions were horrible. Famine, disease, and overwork killed off hundreds of thousands of African workers. George Washington Williams, in a visit to the Congo, was appalled by the confiscation of lands from the native Africans as well as the lack of organized "civilization effort." Williams' concerns were uncommon at the time since Africans were considered to be inhuman, but they were legitimate, and he was not willing to be a passive observer of lying on behalf of the IAECC. Naturally, his address to King Leopold II did little to improve the atrocious conditions for African laborers.
I guess that's what they get for burdening the White Man. By the way, Belgium, good job [expletive gerund] up the Congo. They've thanked you for it, I'm sure.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Tired of Your Neighbors? Just Take Over the World! (783-93)
The European imperialist urge first emerged in 1869 with the opening of the Suez Canal. Over 100 miles long and connecting the Mediterranean and Red Sea, the Suez Canal not only opened up an easier trade route with then-Bombay; the canal was tangible evidence of the Europe's increasing financial, political, and commercial involvement outside of the mainland. Egypt, through which the canal cuts, was a semi-autonomous Ottoman state steeped in debt and political hardship. It was not long after the opening of the foreign-funded Suez Canal that European interests (namely Britain) decided to intervene before the Suez Canal itself was at risk of damage from internal conflict. Thus, "new imperialism" was born. Unlike "formal imperialism," also known as "colonialism," new/informal imperialism refers to a more subtle exercise of power in which a stronger state allows a weaker state to maintain its independence despite a reduction in the latter's sovereignty (789). Such was the nature of British rule in Egypt, and although imperialism itself was not new to the European powers practicing it, this 19th century practice allowed for the advent of a second empire built on the back of industrialization, liberal revolutions, and the establishment of nation-states. The imperialist powers in Europe took a very utilitarian view of their international intervention; with just a little external push, these non-European countries would surely improve, and thus the international community would also benefit. The result of such utilitarian and interventionist thinking was the spread of informal rule of which Britain was the champion.
Imperialism was not without its opponents, however, the most influential of which were the social critic J.A. Hobson and the Marxist Vladimir Lenin. Hobson equated imperialism with capitalism and the financial monopolies to indirect rule. In Hobson's view, the bankers were as key to imperialism and governments; he observed that once Britain established power outside of its borders, London became the banking center of the world. Naturally, the Marxists were opposed to this unapologetic spread of capitalism. Lenin, as acutely aware of the economics of imperialism as Hobson, argued that imperialism was a product of the "internal contradictions" of a capitalist economy (790). However, non-European markets proved to be too poor to meet European needs, a fact which negates the economically based criticisms of Hobson and Lenin. Advocates of imperialism saw it as more essentially rooted in nationalism and cultural improvement, pioneering a 19th century sense of European supremacy which only hinted by Romantic exoticism. The various motivations for new imperialism worked with each other in such a way that the geographic and cultural landscape of the world would be forever changed; thus, the international community began the long process of globalization which would establish some powers, diminish others, and integrate races.
Imperialism was not without its opponents, however, the most influential of which were the social critic J.A. Hobson and the Marxist Vladimir Lenin. Hobson equated imperialism with capitalism and the financial monopolies to indirect rule. In Hobson's view, the bankers were as key to imperialism and governments; he observed that once Britain established power outside of its borders, London became the banking center of the world. Naturally, the Marxists were opposed to this unapologetic spread of capitalism. Lenin, as acutely aware of the economics of imperialism as Hobson, argued that imperialism was a product of the "internal contradictions" of a capitalist economy (790). However, non-European markets proved to be too poor to meet European needs, a fact which negates the economically based criticisms of Hobson and Lenin. Advocates of imperialism saw it as more essentially rooted in nationalism and cultural improvement, pioneering a 19th century sense of European supremacy which only hinted by Romantic exoticism. The various motivations for new imperialism worked with each other in such a way that the geographic and cultural landscape of the world would be forever changed; thus, the international community began the long process of globalization which would establish some powers, diminish others, and integrate races.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
