Pepper was the original driving force behind European's push towards the East. The substance was in great and increasing demand in Europe for its culinary and preservative properties. The trade was controlled by Muslim and Venetian middlemen with the consequence that its price was very high. So for the earliest Europeans to venture East, there were both commercial and religious considerations. They considered themselves to be doing God's work by bringing Christianity to the benighted souls of the East and getting rich in the process. Twin considerations that have been the source of much ill in the world.
There was however one drawback right at the beginning. The East simply was not interested in what the West had to offer except for silver. This was a severe problem which the Spaniards and the Portuguese resolved by essentially becoming robbers and extorting "protection" money. This largely set the tone for later arrivals. When the Dutch came to Far East, they were able to gain control of the Spice Islands and then used that as a leverage with which to eventually control all of what would later become Indonesia. Britain, not to be left out, gained control over Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong.
Dutch rule in Indonesia was by no means enlightened. Indonesia was exploited to industrialize Holland. The colony became extremely profitable making the colonial rulers one of the most important colonial powers. The economic and social policies followed by the Dutch were designed to extract as much profit from its colony as possible without developing it. Like India, Indonesia provided raw materials for the ruling country while providing a market for the latter's manufactures. Only much later did the Dutch try to foster some sort of social development but this was a case of too little too late. It is no wonder that after World War II, Holland, having lost the colony to Japan, made a determined attempt to re-establish colonial control. Was colonial rule beneficial to Indonesia? Wikipedia's entry on the Dutch East Indies shows quite conclusively that the answer to that question is no.
The antics of the Dutch in the Far East were however a side show. The main game was over China and later Japan. In the beginning, the Chinese state proved to be powerful enough to be able to protect its interests. However, the advent of industrialization decisively tipped the balance of power in favor of the Western powers. This was demonstrated conclusively over the Opium Wars which are perhaps the only wars in history to be fought over an illicit drug. It is as though the Colombian drug cartels successfully fight the US into agreeing to allow import of unlimited quantities of heroin. The drug in question at that time was opium which was the solution to a balance of payment problem that the British had with China: the Chinese were simply not interested in any Western manufacture but the British had great demand for Chinese ones. The only payment acceptable to China was silver which meant a drain of the commodity from Britain until opium came along. The result of the Opium Wars were the Unequal Treaties which opened up the country on unfavorable commercial lines and granted special rights to Europeans. Other Asian states such as Japan and Korea also suffered from these treaties. Out of them, only Japan was able to successfully fend off the Western powers and even that was only by the wholesale adoption of Western forms and mores. Although China was never fully occupied by the Western powers, it was heavily influenced by the Unequal Treaties imposed on it and by Western ideas that represented a sharp break from traditional Chinese ones.
In all cases in the Far East, like in India and Africa, imposition of Western rule effectively ended local political, social and cultural development. Entire generations became divorced from their own history. Only much later was there an attempt made to recover what had been lost. This effort however was strongly colored by (sometimes rabidly) nationalist re-interpretations of the past. There were positive developments. A system of law and order and policing was generally imposed. Infrastructure projects wove the countries closer together. Colonialism re-arranged traditional trading and cultural links but it did put in new ones. All of these however were subservient to the needs of the colonial powers and not to the needs of the locals. Much of the time these developments were on a very small scale and did not affect the larger population which in any case counted for nothing in the eyes of the Imperial powers.
Was the effect of colonialism favorable to the Far East? On balance no. Like Africa and India, traditional structures of power and customs were destroyed. This was often done deliberately so as to make exploitation of these areas easier. Sometime this was done accidentally or out of an attempt to "civilize" the natives. Throughout this period, there was a basic assumption that the social structures, philosophies and ideas of these areas were inherently inferior to those of the West. This of course makes it all the more ironic that their descendants are seeking solace in these very same philosophies and ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment