9/11 Trauma

The effects of 9/11 continue to reverberate throughout the world. The event was a terrible tragedy which resulted in the murder (there is no other way to describe it) of thousands of innocents. Without doubt, this was a traumatic moment for Americans. The question is why is this event still such a major trauma on the psyche of Americans 10 years after the event?

America has faced far more dangerous and traumatic situations in its history. The civil war was a defining tragedy which played a decisive role in forging the nation. The two World Wars resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans under conditions far more terrible than those of 9/11 in New York. The civil rights movements had far greater implications for American development. Why then has the US reacted (and continues to react) so hysterically to 9/11? Forget about what the US is doing to the rest of the world. America has eviscerated its vaunted domestic freedoms; something it did not do during the Civil War when its very existence was at stake.

Why is the US population still afraid? What exactly is it afraid of? If the situation is considered objectively, the US is still the largest and richest economy in the world. It has the largest and most sophisticated military. No matter what its present economic troubles, there is currently no country in the world that can seriously threaten its existence or its integrity. Its way of life is in no danger of being overwhelmed by anybody. Indeed, the opposite is true. Other countries are afraid of the cultural juggernaut that is Hollywood. Its news broadcasters and other forms of cultural exports are eagerly snapped up by people around the world.

Given all this, why has a section of its population been demonised because of their religion? Why does the general population seem afraid of Muslims? Where is the fear coming from?

Related articles

• 9/11 Mental Health: What We Now Know About Trauma (huffingtonpost.com)
• Human Resiliency and Trauma (bigthink.com)

The Success of the West

An enduring question for the last 500 years has been the historic and ongoing success of the West. Why has a tiny slice of the world been able to so comprehensively dominate global discourse? Many reasons have been postulated and a large number of books published on the topic. I particularly liked Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies and Ian Morris' Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future on this topic. The way events happened have complex reasons. It is difficult if not impossible to cite one cause or one set of causes as being responsible for a particular event. To ask why the West came to dominate the world to the extent that it has is perhaps asking an impossible question. Nevertheless, it is an important question as the multitude of books and research on the topic attest.

History is both personal and social. At the latter level, history is a dance of societies adjusting to their environment and to each other. Different societies have risen and fallen over the centuries in this continuous dance. Despite this, in nearly all parts of the world, there was an essential continuity as new societies arose from and in place of old ones; this continuity was reflected in the mores and customs of the new societies which borrowed elements from their predecessors. Until fairly recently, this was a natural process and a consequence of the dance of societies.

The great disruption to this process was the rise of the West and the concomitant offshoot colonialism. Western dominance has multiple causes all of which worked in an interlocking fashion. There is no single element to which this dominance can be ascribed. Recognizing this, historians have made an effort to identify the set of elements that worked together to cause Western domination over the last 500 years. Indeed, this effort is not a recent one at all. As societies around the world came under the rule of Western powers, there were increasingly urgent attempts to understand the causes of this seemingly unstoppable process.

So what kind of elements are we talking about here? One example is the historian Niall Ferguson who in his book Civilization: The West and the Rest identifies 6 killer apps (taking a metaphor from the computing world) that together were responsible for Western domination:

• Competition
• Science
• The Rule of Law
• Medicine
• Consumerism
• The Work Ethic

Why is it important to try and look at the roots of Western dominance? What possible relevance can a topic like this have today? As I have mentioned before, history and its study is exceedingly important. Today's world did not arise in a vacuum. It is the result of the interactions of the dance of societies in the past. While Western dominance was a great disruption to the natural evolution of different societies, the dance of societies did not end; it started occurring to a different tune. The cadences of the new tune were imposed by the West. For this reason alone, this is an important area to look at. Western domination also had important consequences when the process is viewed from a global level. These are consequences that are not often appreciated. Finally, tomorrow's world will be established in a framework defined by Western societies. That in turn has important consequences for the future and again for this reason it is important to study the elements that led to Western domination. All of these - the rise of the West and its causes, the consequences of that rise and the future effects - have an important bearing on us all.

Related articles

• Niall's Ferguson six killer applications (nickfatsios30.wordpress.com)
• Civilization: The West and the Rest (thewesternexperience.com)
• Can we avoid the fate of the Mayans? (amanwithaphd.wordpress.com)
• Death of the west (whitelocust.wordpress.com)

Perceptions and Reality

There are many ways of viewing any particular event, many realities if you will. A highly significant event has occurred: Osama Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan by US forces. The most wanted man by the US was finally traced and eliminated. There are three realities to this event that I want to highlight. One is the death of Osama Bin Laden. The other is the violation of the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan by the US. The third one is the impact of this event on Pakistan's geo-political situation. One event, three realities. All three occurred. All are real.

What is telling is the reactions to these two realities by governments and people around the world. It is here that we see the importance of perceptions. Consider the first reality: the death of Osama. The news was greeted with delirious joy by Americans as the considered perpetrator of the greatest peacetime attack on US soil was perceived to have been brought to justice. In Pakistan, reactions were far more ambiguous. Some people rejoiced, some mourned, a large number were indifferent to the fact of the death. In one country, a criminal and a terrorist was perceived to have been brought to justice. In the other, for some people, a hero was martyred and for others a troublesome character was removed from the scene. Even the circumstances of the death are being perceived differently. In the US, the death is being viewed as being unavoidable. Osama Bin Laden was highly unlikely to meekly surrender and time was of essence to the US forces. Besides, their orders were to eliminate and not to capture; this order had been given by a legitimate authority viz. the President of the United States. In Pakistan on the other hand, the perception is different. If US forces have the capability to travel deep inside another nation and carry out a major operation, why could they not also disable their target? Why did they not capture him and produce him before a court? Americans value their justice and court system. Why not give this man a fair trial? After all, a cardinal principle of the justice system is that all are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why not give the man a chance to defend his actions? There is also a related but relevant question: what are the Americans trying to hide that they did not want to bring their man to trial? One reality has led to widely differing perceptions. These in turn generate different types of reactions.

The second reality to this event is the violation of the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan by the US. The fact is that in order to take out Osama, US troops had to enter and operate deep in Pakistani territory. How has this fact been perceived in the two most affected countries? In the US, this is not even a consideration. The US has reserved for itself the right to strike anywhere it deems fit, at any time it deems fit against anyone it deems necessary. For Americans this is a proper and legitimate given the important role that their country plays in upholding international law. All international US actions are viewed in this prism. The world is a dangerous place. International law needs to be upheld and given the economic and military might of the US, if the country has to penetrate another country for this purpose then so be it. On the other hand, in Pakistan and in many other countries, this is viewed as an intolerable affront to the country's sovereignty. When the US sends its troops into another territory, it is behaving as a bully using its military muscle in an illegitimate manner. This perception then drives resistance which in turn is viewed in the US as being illegitimate and intolerable.

The third reality is the impact of this event on Pakistan's geo-political situation. For Americans, this is not even a factor. For Pakistanis, this has a major impact. If the US can get away with sending its soldiers into Pakistan's territory with impunity, what is to stop others, specifically India, from doing the same? Suddenly Pakistan starts to feel vulnerable and this perceived vulnerability at both a governmental and a societal level will drive reactions to the event. The view in Pakistan then becomes that the US is not to be trusted. In turn, this feeds into a view at the popular level in the US that Pakistan is playing a double game and is therefore not a reliable ally.

One event has occurred. It is being perceived differently at different levels. These perceptions are far more important than any objective view. It is these perceptions that will eventually drive popular and governmental reactions. The danger is that these differing perceptions will lead to a massive increase in distrust and lead to instability where stability is required.

Related articles

• Osama bin Laden's Death Survey (surveyswipe.com)
• Video: Is Pakistan an enemy of the U.S.? (cbsnews.com)
• Live tweets of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and other links (aleksandreia.wordpress.com)
• Osama bin Laden death 'liveblogged' by Twitter user (mirror.co.uk)
• Osama Killing, Pakistan Media Reaction. (ramanan50.wordpress.com)

End of Times

People have long had a strong fascination with the end of times meme. The imminent destruction of the world, typically in a fiery manner, has been a staple of predictions across cultures. While most people have focused on the mechanics of the end of times, the more interesting question is why is there such fascination with such gloomy predictions? Instead of asking how the world will end, it is perhaps more pertinent to explore why people find the end of the world so fascinating.

Since the start of agriculture, humans have had a strong interest in trying to predict the future. There are excellent reasons for doing so. If you are a farmer planning to plant next year's crop, then you want to know whether the rainfalls will come on time or whether the river will flood as it should. You want some predictability in an inherently unpredictable world in order to be able to plan ahead with some degree of confidence. These and other similar reasons were probably the origin of most oracles and seers. Later on as civilization developed and people started congregating in towns and then cities, the importance of future predictions increased. Rulers would want to know what kind of surplus would be generated for use. What the result of battles with the enemy will be like. Will the people be happy or at the very least content. The ruled would want to be able to plan out their lives with some degree of precision. Over time, these arts started becoming more formalized and today we have astrologers who claim to be able to predict personal and national futures.

Along the way, another interesting development took place in the art of predictions. Regular claims of the end times started appearing with increasing frequency. These claims typically increase in frequency during times of national stress. Thus changes in dynasties were usually accompanied by such predictions. They also tend to increase in frequency during significant calendar years. When a millennium change occurs, such predictions surface with greater rapidity. Sometimes they occur due to religious reasons. For example, the early Christians were convinced of the imminent arrival of Jesus in their lifetimes. When the second millennium started, again they were convinced that Jesus was about to come. In recent times, there have been two main drivers of the end time meme. One was the change of the millennium in both the Christian and the Islamic calendars. The other was the Mayan Long Count calendar. The latter is the most accurate calendar devised by humans until the modern era. Its accuracy rivals that of the modern calendar that we use today. This calendar can be used to project dates both backwards and forwards literally thousands of years without any loss of accuracy. Yet the Maya ended their calendar at a date that corresponds to the winter solstice, 2012. Nobody knows why. This mystery has set the stage for a large degree of speculation regarding the significance of this end date.

These two strands taken together have created a buzz that has grown over time as the calendar moves forward into 2012. A variety of predictions and speculation float around the internet. Some predict the coming Age of Aquarius which will bring peace and prosperity while others predict death and destruction on a massive scale from which only a few will be saved. On the face of it, this obsession with the end times is strange. The standard of living that a large number of people enjoy would have been unimaginable to even the richest person just a few generations ago. Over time, more and more people have attained this standard. A large number enjoy amenities that their parents could only dream about. The pace of technological advance has  meant that people can now live and work anywhere in the world and not be cut off from their family members left behind. There has been an increase in the variety and quality of food available. The average age of individuals has steadily increased over the last 100 years and shows no sign of slowing down. The average intelligence of the world's population has been increasing over time as a result of better nutrition and greater security.

With all of these positives, why are people attracted towards end world scenarios? Could it be related to the rapid pace of change in society that has occurred in recent times? We are constantly and increasingly rapidly being bombarded with new technologies and ideas that constantly change the way we behave and think. The old certainties of yesterday are gone. They have not been replaced with new ones. In their place, we are left groping in the dark trying to make sense of the new world around us. The older we get, the faster the changes arrive and the more problem we have in adjusting to new realities. Perhaps the attraction of the end time predictions is that they have an aura of certainty around them.

Related articles

• The Mayans Just Didn't Get It (globalexclaimer.wordpress.com)

Perspectives on History - II

We all have a shared history. The problem is that we tend to remember it differently. History inspires a lot of passion because it strikes at the heart of how we perceive ourselves. We all like to see ourselves and our nation as having been a force for (perhaps ultimate) good. In this regard, colonialism inspires a lot of passion. The thing is that there are many factors which together affect both the happening and outcome of any historical event. To separate one strand from all rest is to view history in monochrome instead of technicolor.

Take colonialism as an example. I wrote in an earlier post (Perspectives on History - Part I) that the same historical event will be viewed and remembered differently by the participants. Their perspectives will be different along with the lessons regarding themselves that they draw. Colonialism shows this to an high degree. Was the impact of colonialism on the conquered peoples positive or negative? Arguments can be drawn for both sides. Consider India. It was ruled by the British for almost 150 years first through a proxy - the East India Company and then directly. Did India benefit? This question and questions like this for other parts of the world draw rather polarized responses. On the positive side, the British introduced modern physical infrastructure like railways and later roads and electricity. They built an excellent irrigation system that brought large areas of new land under cultivation. They imposed law and order on what had previously been lawless areas. They introduced a bureaucracy generally considered to be incorruptible. They left behind traditions of parliamentary democracy. Both India and Pakistan have benefited from exposure to English which has become a global language. On the other hand, they destroyed India's textile industry so that the British one could benefit. The physical infrastructure they did build was done so keeping in mind the Empire's needs. The needs of the people were not a paramount consideration. Indians were allowed into the higher levels of government very grudgingly and only after strong popular pressure. Even then the needs of the Empire took precedence. For example, the Government of India declared war on Japan and Germany without consulting any Indian politician. The bureaucracy they introduced was paternalistic and patronizing. This bureaucracy considered that it knew best what was good for the people under its control. So which view is correct? The answer is it depends. For a truer, more complete picture, all these different factors need to be kept in mind.

History is too rich a tapestry to be watered down. Doing so results in a far poorer understanding of where we come from. As a result we will not understand our present and will fail to understand the course of our future.

Related articles

• They're gonna die out anyway (cafewhispers.wordpress.com)
• The war against Libya in historical perspective (redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com)
• Ignoring its imperial history licences the west to repeat it (guardian.co.uk)
• What made the opium war (wiki.answers.com)
• David Cameron: Britain caused many of the world's problems (telegraph.co.uk)

Propaganda And Society

Propaganda has become so ubiquitous in the public discourse that it has effectively disappeared into the background. This has been a remarkable transformation. Earlier attempts at spreading ideas through propaganda were crude, obnoxious and obvious. These attempts generated a resistance amongst the people whose views were sought to be manipulated. But then several previously separate strands of business and research came together over the course of the 20th century. Firstly there was considerable development in the art of Public Relations. This research was pushed by corporations seeking to positively influence public opinion in their favor or in the favor of their products without it seeming as advertising. At the same time, there were major advances in the study of the human brain and mind. Rapid advances in psychology shed new light on how people absorb new ideas and get motivated. These strands were then brought together by governments during the Cold War. The result was major advances in how propaganda can be used to influence public opinion. These strand have been continuously refined since then until the result is as I have mentioned above: propaganda so ubiquitous that it has become part of the background noise.

How do we as individuals make sense of the events happening around us? The various events that we read or hear about in the media form part of an ongoing historical narrative. This is part of how we make sense of the world us. A large part of being mentally mature is our ability to do this. Most of us, no matter where we live, are convinced that the mental picture of the world that we thus form is reasonably accurate and true. But is it? How can we be sure that we are not being manipulated by the same media on whom we are dependent for our information and analysis of the world around us? This problem is most acute in developed countries whose inhabitants are convinced that all the media that they encounter is neutral and impartial.

The fact of the matter is that most media outlets in nearly all countries are not neutral. Most of them are beholden to or part of major corporations which always try to manipulate us for their perceived benefit. Today there are both individuals and corporations who control major media outlets and who are not shy of using these as instruments with which to control how we think and thus how we react and behave. Climate change is an excellent example of this. The vast majority of scientific opinion is strongly of the view that global temperatures are rising; they are rising as a result of human behavior; the effects of this rise are unknown but are highly likely to be extremely negative with a major rise in natural calamities and the very strong possibility of major crop failures. There is very strong evidence to back up these assertions. By rights, there should be no controversy about climate change. But there is. Why? Major propaganda efforts by corporations, think tanks and individuals to obfuscate the issue. The end result sought is to control the historical narrative and through that influence public opinion that there is no need to worry about climate change and business as usual can go on.

Propaganda is an incredibly useful tool in the hands of corporations and individuals to channel public view of events along particular lines. The basic aim is to manipulate the many for the benefit of the few in such a manner that the former do not become disillusioned down the road. Society's view of itself is influenced by its remembered history - its historical narrative. Influence that in the present by the effective use of propaganda and not only will the past be remembered through a particular lens but the course of the future itself can be influenced more easily.

Related articles

• What are the negative use of propaganda in world war 1 (wiki.answers.com)
• Army of Fake Social Media Friends to Promote Propaganda (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
• What Is Propaganda? (time.com)
• "Wayseer Manifesto" - Selling Freedom or Selling Psychopathy? (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
• Learn how to call out propaganda techniques by name, learn about bullies, and read biographies of bully pundits (iflizwerequeen.com)

Modern Imperialism

Does imperialism exist today? Most people think not. The dismantling of the European empires was the major story of the mid 20th century. Starting from 1947, country after country gained independence. Some were voluntarily relinquished, the prime example being India which got partitioned into two states. Others gained independence after major battles. Prime examples here were Algeria, Malaya, Indonesia and Kenya. What was startling about the process was the sheer speed with which these empires were dismantled. A major reason for this was that after World War II, Europe was essentially bankrupt both financially and resource wise. A second major reason was US pressure. Americans have traditionally been hostile to formal empires. At the end of the Second World War, they were by far the dominant power and hence in a position to "persuade" Europeans to relinquish their overseas territories.

So a happy ending right? Imperialism got successfully dismantled. The former colonies were now finally free to follow their own particular developments free from oversight of Imperial overlords who considered that they knew better than the natives. Not quite. Formal imperialism did get dismantled at an astonishing pace. However, the framework of imperialism was not dismantled. The new states found themselves enmeshed in a web of treaties and agreements that preserved the old global power structures. These had originally evolved to meet the needs of the imperial overlords. They continued to serve the same purpose from a distance. New financial structures also evolved which further enmeshed the new countries in an endless cycle of debt. At the same time, offshore banking arose from small beginnings to the massive structure that it is today. Debt and offshore banking served to suck much needed capital out of the new states into the economies of the developed world. The old ways in which the colonies had served as providers of raw materials while being buyers of finished manufactures continued largely unabated.

All of the above served to dampen the development of the new states. Some countries did develop, most notably the Far Eastern ones. However, they could do so within the framework established by the West. Their development was not smooth. It was marked by repression and a savage suppression of local aspirations. Most of them suffered for long periods of time under dictatorships which were only too ready to the bidding of the former masters.

Even now, the basic relationship between the developed and the developing (the new politically correct terms for the former conquerors and conquered) is an unequal one. Conditions have been imposed on the latter that the former did not have to face. These conditions are designed to protect the interests of Western bankers and investors. The interests of the local populations are of secondary concern at best. The aim at all times is to maintain the unimpeded flow of raw materials to the industries of the West. The primary consideration at all times has been the perpetual chase of ever increasing profitability. This chase has now started to shift industry away from the developed countries to the developing ones. The irony is that the structures that were designed to perpetuate the advantages and interests of the developed countries are slowly starting to work in favor of the developing ones.

Related articles

• The Euro-US War on Libya: Official Lies and Misconceptions of Critics by James Petras and Robin E. Abaya (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
• NATO: America's Imperial Tool (tipggita32.wordpress.com)

On Imperialism - Latin America

The American hemisphere has for a long time had an 800 pound gorilla in it. The influence of the US has been massive and unfortunately often negative for the rest of the states in the Americas. Latin America in general has suffered from the beginning of European contact till very recently. Imperialism has not only shaped the region, it has caused much suffering in the process.

The brunt of Imperialism's excesses fell on the native American population from the very beginning. They were killed off in massive numbers through war and disease until by the start of the 20th century, their population was reduced to a remnant in most areas. In other areas, they were subject to massive discrimination. Foreign rule was mostly cast off throughout the Americas by the beginning of the 19th century. But then the Latin American countries swiftly fell under the aegis of a rising hegemon: the US. The primary concern of the USA was twofold - both classic Imperialist aims. First, effectively exclude other powers from the region. In this aim, it was somewhat successful in the 1800s. Its power was sufficient to prevent European powers from imposing direct rule over South America except for a few minor outposts. However, it was not strong enough to prevent the commercial interests of the other powers, particularly Britain, from penetrating the region. It was more successful in the 1900s as its power grew relative to other nations. Its second aim was to ensure that South America remained as a provider of raw material (including agricultural products) while providing a market for US manufactures. The most effective way of pursuing these aims was to suppress democratic forces and ensure the supremacy of reactionary dictatorships that would do as they were bid. The effective result was the same as in other parts of the world that suffered from colonialism. Domestic industrialization was largely prevented while their domestic markets remained wide open to international competition.

The system developed by the USA vis a vis Latin America had a beautiful aspect. Because the USA ruled through proxies and did not (mostly) impose direct rule, it could claim a moral high ground while still benefiting from the Imperial system. The real sufferers were the mass of the people living in these nations whose living standards declined pretty much constantly throughout the 19th and the 20th centuries while a tiny elite prospered from the status-quo. Here the answer to the question of whether Imperialism benefited the mass of the ruled is even clearer than in other regions. It has to be an unequivocal no.

Related articles

• Black in Latin America (fr33domhall.wordpress.com)

On Imperialism - China and the Far East

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.

Related articles

• 19th-century China: Clashing with the foreign devils (economist.com)
• Jan 20, 1841: Hong Kong Ceded to the British (censorshipinamerica.wordpress.com)

On Imperialism - The Scramble For Africa

Africa has had an unfortunate relationship with Europe. For centuries it was used as a source of slaves. Africa's greatest export till the 19th century was involuntary manpower export. To an extent that large areas near the slave trading regions were effectively depopulated. This trade suffered a shock when the British banned slavery and then used their naval power to try and suppress it. For a time it was sustained by US demand until the US civil war outlawed slavery over there and effectively ended this trade.

Africa's troubles were however just beginning. The last great frontier for Imperialism after 1850 was Africa. The continent was viewed as a blank canvas on which any picture could be drawn. That there were millions of people living there was not even a factor. Country after country grabbed whatever slice of the continent they could. The apogee of this process came when King Leopold of the tiny state of Belgium managed to grab Congo as his personal fief. In the carve up that occurred, arbitrary lines were drawn that split up tribes and lumped traditional enemies together. European rule in Africa was also not particularly enlightened either. Africa was viewed as a source of extracting raw material - a position that it still occupies.

The occupation and division of Africa has several consequences. It stored trouble for the future by lumping traditional enemies together and dividing tribes without regard for kinship and traditional ties. This was then compounded by the racism that administrators of that era exhibited. This was the time when scientific discoveries and theories were constantly popping up. The question of race was also being theorized about. Perhaps not surprisingly given that Imperialism was at its height, whites were deemed to be at the peak of humanity while black people were right at the bottom and only a little above the level of beasts. When this was the general attitude, local administrators, again not surprisingly, saw no value in local customs and lifestyles. The way was now clear for unbridled, full scale exploitation of African resources without regard for the local populace. Local institutions and customs were deliberately destroyed as they were impediments for the ongoing exploitation. But, and this is key, they were not replaced by anything else. A vacuum was left that was exploited by local strong men when the colonial administrators finally left. At the time of independence, most African states lacked the necessary trained manpower required to run their economies. There were also no effective checks left in place that could have prevented autocrats from seizing brutally exploiting power.

The devastating and toxic legacy of Imperialism came to fruition after the colonials left. For example, in Uganda, local power structures were dismantled just before it gained independence in an attempt to impose parliamentary democracy. Instead a vacuum was created into which a psychopath like Idi Amin could step in. In the Congo, no attempt was ever made to create an educated class that could run the country after independence. Indeed independence was not even on the cards as far as Belgium was concerned until its hand was forced. Then it scrambled out in unseemly haste leaving a power vacuum behind that was eventually filled by a kleptomaniac like Mobutu Sese Seko. The story is very similar in country after country. The arbitrary borders drawn by the Europeans also resulted in brutal civil wars many of which lingered on for decades. The roots of one of the greatest genocides in recent history can also be traced to colonialism's legacy. The colonial administrators in Rwanda lumped two peoples together arbitrarily and then favored one over the other. This generated tensions that lasted for decades and culminated in the massacre of the Tutsis by the Hutus in that country.

What about after independence? Imperialism did not disappear after formal rule was abandoned. Instead it transmuted into new and in many cases even more virulent forms. The effects of this new form is still being felt across the continent. The new imperialism however depends on the co-operation of local elites. Colonialism can be blamed to the extent that it failed to foster a vibrant local civil society. In some cases, most particularly Zimbabwe, local dictators can also be blamed. Robert Mugabe built up a middle class and is now in the process of destroying it in an attempt to hold power at all costs.

Was Imperialism beneficial? In Africa, most certainly not. It destroyed traditional structures without putting anything else in place. It started a large scale exploitation of the continent without regard for the local populace that is still continuing. It also encouraged and nurtured local dictators for this purpose. The locals were not able to put up effective resistance because civil structure had been strongly discouraged during the colonial period and brutally suppressed after independence.

Related articles

• The Causes of Poverty (17): Slavery (filipspagnoli.wordpress.com)
• The History and Facts About David Livingstone (socyberty.com)
• Slave Trade in Africa... (debunkingthemyths.wordpress.com)
• The new scramble for Africa | Omoyele Sowore (guardian.co.uk)
• Kenya must not submit to the scramble for Africa's land resources (agricultureafrica.wordpress.com)

On Imperialism - A Look at India

European colonialism resulted in a new form of empire. For the first time, a distinction was formed between the conquerors and the conquered. Unlike earlier kingdoms and empires, the rulers would come for a short period of time and were themselves answerable to superiors in the home country. Western empires were also a period of great triumphalism in that culture. This was reflected in the "civilizing" mission that these empires imagined for themselves.

Take India as an example. This was the crown jewel of the British Empire. The resources and manpower of India were crucial to the maintenance and reach of British might. Indian troops were  used in the various wars with Chinese and in both World Wars. India was critical as a supplier of raw materials and as a market for British manufactures. Originally coming as traders, the British had established themselves first as a major power and then as a dominant power before finally formally absorbing India into the British Empire.

What was the impact of British rule on India? Uniting India into a political unit had always imposed the problem of distance and the twin problem of communication. The territory to be governed is so large that pre-industrial empires could not maintain effective control over regions remote from the political and administrative center for very long. Industrialization, more specifically the development of trains and telegraph resolved this problem. Over the course of the 19th century, the British extended and cemented their hold over the country. There were many positive developments as a result. The spread of trains and telegraph and later roads and telephone helped to weave the country into a single market. Political control gave stability after a long period of unrest as the once mighty Mughal Empire slowly decayed. This gave a fillip to economic activity. There was a slow gradual spread of education. There was a slow but steady process of industrialization. Practices like thuggee and sati were eliminated. Law and order was imposed and overseen by a bureaucracy that was generally viewed as impartial and non-corrupt. Perhaps the best legacy viewed was the transplantation of parliamentary democracy. Viewed like this, British rule over India does not sound bad at all. But this presents only part of the picture.

To see an alternate view, look at what happened to Bengal under British rule. Prior to British rule, Bengal was the wealthiest and most prosperous region in India. The British started ruling this area after defeating its rule in the Battle of Plassey. The immediate aftermath was a massive plunder of the province. This was compounded by misguided efforts to introduce a market based land system. The net result was the impoverishment of Bengal to such an extent that it has not recovered its former prosperity till this point.

India's industrial output fell from approximately 25 percent of the world's output in 1750 (the effective start of British rule in India) to 2% in 1900. By any measure, this was a massive decline. The worst affected was the Indian textile industry which was essentially wiped out during this period. This was a result of deliberate British policy which imposed tariffs on Indian exports to Britain but did not do so for British exports to India. India was deindustrialized first and then a process of slow, reluctant industrialization was allowed. The industrialization process mentioned above was despite the British not because of it. Strong efforts were made to impose a market based land system in India without regard for local conditions and history. In the process, traditional structures were dismantled without anything similar being put in place. Laissez faire policies were pursued to an extent that on occasion famines would occur.

Another point to keep in mind is that apart from these negative aspects of British rule, there was also a change in British attitudes as their hold consolidated and solidified. Arrivals in the 18th century had not viewed themselves as being inherently superior. 100 years later, there was a strong conviction of inherent superiority. By the early 20th century, a hierarchy in which the British were at the top was firmly established. This attitude reflected in their attitudes towards the local culture and local institutions. The spread of Western education was encouraged with a two fold purpose. One was to introduce a class of people who looked to the British for inspiration. The second was to use this class for clerical administrative requirements. The end result was a class of people who were alienated from their local culture and history but who were also not accepted by the ruling class. On top of everything, the British also imposed "home charges" over India which effectively meant that Indians were paying the British for the privilege of being ruled by them. These home charges were carefully calibrated to ensure a profitable British rule.

What about the political front? Surely the British imposed stable political structures over India. Again, the record here is spotty. The British were directly responsible for creating what is today the single biggest flash point between India and Pakistan: Kashmir. After annexing Punjab, the British handed over Kashmir to one Gulab Singh for the then princely sum of Rs. 7.5 million. This imposed a non-Muslim ruler over a Muslim population. Fast forward 100 years. At the time of the partition of India, the so-called Princely States were given the option of joining India or Pakistan or becoming independent. The last option was basically not practical so essentially there were only two choices. India annexed the princely state of Junagadh and Manavadar (which had a Muslim ruler) on the basis that the population was not Muslim. Yet this principle was not followed over Kashmir and that set the stage for one of the most dangerous rivalries in the world.

Was Imperialism beneficial for India? It was responsible for short circuiting India's local political, economic and social development. It did provide some benefits but these came at a cost. British actions were influenced by their desire to preserve their rule in India. These actions resulted in some benefits but also set the stage for future conflict. Having said this, I will also say that nothing has prevented India and Pakistan from negotiating towards a decrease of hostilities. But we have to recognize that the seeds of conflict were set during Imperial rule.

Related articles

• The 'Un' British rule in India (guptasudhir.wordpress.com)
• What the British empire did to Kolkata (vmohanty.com)
• India's De industrialization Under British Rule

On Imperialism - I

The other day, I read an article on the benefits of European imperialism. This article was talking about the colonial period when West European powers (primarily) carved up the world amongst themselves. The most successful of these by far was Britain which at one point ruled an empire about whom it could be said literally that the sun never set on it. I have also earlier read a book by Mr. Niall Ferguson about how the world we live in today was shaped in a major way by the British empire.

Empires have obviously existed since the dawn of history and in fact successive empires have ruled over larger areas than their predecessors. The apogee of this process was reached in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. European imperialism was in many ways unique. All earlier empires ruled over contiguous territories. They did not have the capability to effectively control overseas possessions. Europeans powers did have that capability. Earlier empires also did not make a distinction between a "mother" country and colonial possessions. The colonial powers did. Most earlier empires lacked long term stability. A primary reason for this was that they failed to convince their peoples that they belonged to a community. The two great exceptions to this were Rome and China both of whom endured for very long periods in some form. The European powers developed nationalism which proved to be a very strong force for binding their people together in the "mother" country. At the same time, they were able to resolve the succession problem. This gave the Europeans long term unity and political stability. Almost constant warfare in Europe over 1000 years honed European military industry and military techniques to a much higher degree than other regions of the world. All of this was coupled with the advantages accruing from industrialization and it is no surprise that the rest of the world was unable to mount an effective response to the European challenge.

It is a truism that history is written by the victors. The triumphs of the Western powers in the 19th and early 20th centuries engendered a strong sense of superiority. A feeling that European rule was predestined. Much has been written about the benefits of European rule. However, what about the point of view of the conquered peoples? What was their story like? I come from a former British possession - specifically Pakistan which came into existence as a result of the partition of India. The British story in India can be viewed through multiple angles. The British have a particular view of their history in India. The same events when viewed from the other side can be interpreted in a different fashion. This is true of other parts of the world and of other European possessions. Mr. Ferguson is correct in stating that the British Empire played a major role in forming the world we live in today. However, this did not exist in a vacuum. It affected and was affected by other European and later non-European empires. While Mr. Ferguson talks about the positive impact in his book, there were also negative impacts. The roots of much of the problems of the world today can be traced to the decisions and actions taken by colonial rulers. Also, it should not be imagined that imperialism ended with de-colonization. In important ways, it morphed into new forms and continues to affect the world today. These are areas that are often neglected in histories. In order to truly understand the world we are living in today, we need to take a longer perspective and try and work out what impact decisions taken in the past had on subsequent events and what has been the fallout of those events. These are important and interesting points that I will be exploring in a series of articles on Imperialism and its impact - both positive and negative and how these truly helped to shape the world we are living in today.

Propaganda

A remarkable feat has been achieved by governments over the last 100 years or so. The tools of propaganda have been constantly refined and at the same time, a large mass of the population in country after country has been convinced that they are not being subject to the same.

What is propaganda? It is the dissemination of a particular doctrine or point of view. Alternately it is also the spread of information (which can be misleading or even false) that is harmful to a group of people or another nation. The use of propaganda has increased with the spread of literacy and the development of mass communication media. Propaganda as a tool was first used extensively during World War 1. By today's standards, that propaganda is laughably crude but it served its purpose then. The Nazi's  and the Allies refined it further and used the new medium of cinema to great effect during World War 2. The Cold War gave a further impetus to the development of new methods of spreading propaganda. This coincided with the rise of TV and the concomitant spread of television news. At the same time, extensive research was conducted into the science of the mind. The ultimate purpose was to refine the way propaganda was carried out. Propaganda today is not overtly carried out by the government. It is done via movies, songs, TV and now even the Internet.

What is the point of doing all this? The one word answer is control. Propaganda has always had a dual purpose. One purpose is to convince the population that their current circumstances are the best possible ones because they are living in the best country. Americans in particular are a victim of this. The other purpose is to make the population be afraid of and hate "the other". The other can be defined in many different ways. During World War 1, the other was the Kaiser. During World War 2, it was the Nazis. During the Cold War, it was the Russians. After 9/11, it became the Muslims. A nation that is convinced that it is living the best possible life and that is also afraid of some "other" who are out to harm or destroy that way of life will be willing to make great compromises and suffer great pain. All in the name of God and country.

Related articles

• Learn how to call out propaganda techniques by name, learn about bullies, and read biographies of bully pundits (iflizwerequeen.com)

Controlling The Historical Narrative II

Continuing on an earlier post on this topic, consider the foundational myths of countries. Take Serbia as an example. Under the rabidly nationalist rule of Slobodan Milosevic, the country precipitated the breakup of Yugoslavia and later fought a bitter and genocidal war in Bosnia. Throughout this period, the Serbs were the aggressors and generally had the upper hand. Foreign intervention eventually ended the war. Yet the Serbs consistently viewed themselves as victims throughout. Why? The answer goes back to their history and the way they interpreted it. Much of Serbian history over the last last 600 years or so was spent in battling the Ottoman Empire. These were battles they generally lost. The defining event of their historical narrative was the Battle of Kosovo which technically ended in a draw but practically left the Serbs with too few men to resist Ottoman aggression. Out of this history of loss arose a narrative of the Serb as a hapless victim of outside aggression. During the breakup of Yugoslavia, when the Serbs themselves were the aggressors, this history was used as a justification.

The US provides another example. The Founding Fathers are viewed as wise, farsighted men who rejected the monarchical, class bound ways of Europe and instead embarked on a bold, continuing experiment of democracy under which all peoples would be treated as equals. The basis for this was the constitution they developed which is viewed as a remarkably farsighted, almost sacrosanct document. This is the foundational myth. The truth is a little more complicated. The men who wrote the US constitution disagreed on major issues which at many points threatened to derail the whole project. Many of these men owned slaves. When they talked about the rights of men, they generally had white men (not even white women) in mind. Far from embracing democracy, they were suspicious of it. To limit the effects of a popular vote, they instituted the electoral college system. The result is that the President of the United States is actually chosen by the electoral college which theoretically can (and in the past sometimes did) choose against the popular vote.

As another example, consider the 1947 partition of India into two independent domains. How is this event to be viewed? The history taught in Pakistan actively seeks to link Middle Eastern Islamic history with Pakistan. The colonial period is depicted as one of repression and strong Muslim subjugation. The creation of Pakistan is viewed as the end result of a historical process that started almost 100 years earlier. Yet the man who effectively led the Muslim movement, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a strong proponent of Hindu - Muslim unity in his early career. As late as 1946, just one year before partition, he was willing to agree to a compromise that would have prevented partition. Since then, the historical narrative in Pakistan has been that India is constantly seeking to reverse partition.

If we are all products of our personal and national history, then anyone who can control our historical narrative has great power over us. Before blindly accepting conventional narrative, that perhaps is an important point to ponder on.

Controlling The Historical Narrative

As I have mentioned previously, history is a very important subject that is vastly underrated by the majority of people. Our sense of who we are and why our present situation is the way it is derives from our understanding and reading of history. This is why the historical narrative is so carefully controlled. History is a vast area composed of many different overlapping layers. To understand ourselves, we need to understand or know of these different layers. Most of history that we read is the history of states. We are taught about the interactions of different states with each other. However, most of history is composed of what happens inside the state. How did the various groups and classes of people interact with each other? How did the particular economic system of a nation evolve? How did these interactions affect the political development of a nation? What were the causes of major events like industrialization? These are just some of the questions that need to be understood for a proper understanding of ourselves.

And this is precisely why persistent attempts are made to carefully control the historical narrative in every nation and at a global level. Various tools are used in this regard. The most effective of these is the classroom. Early indoctrination (and much of the history taught in schools is basically indoctrination) is extremely hard to overcome. This is supplemented by cultural tools. In the past, these were primarily books but now they also include movies, television and songs. An active attempt is made to convince the mass of people that the current state of affairs in all respects is inevitable and immutable. All other historical narratives are false or misleading or shallow. Convince people about this and they will willingly endure great inequality convinced that there is no alternate.

Related articles

• Friday March 4, 2011: The Value of Global History for Modern Political Economy (delong.typepad.com)
• A History That Doesn't Aid Us (gatheringinlight.com)
• Editorial: Leave history to historians (commercialappeal.com)

Do Ideas Matter?

Ideas are generally speaking vastly underrated. Yet they have been of extreme importance throughout history and their importance has increased dramatically with the rise of the digital economy. As children, we are usually not taught the history of ideas. Instead we are taught the history of physical things. We study in depth all about emperors and kings, empires and kingdoms, their political interactions, their rise and fall. Rarely if ever, do we get the opportunity or have the inclination to study the ideas that motivated these historical people and events. Events are exciting to read and visualize. Ideas? Not so much. But it is ideas that outlast political structures and people that in the long run are essentially ephemeral. Our history is often unintelligible without an understanding of the underlying ideas that motivated the exciting events and people that we read about.

As an example, take the Crusades. For Western Europe and the consequent development of Western culture and civilization and thus that of the West, this was a watershed event. The question is why? simply reading about the battles as the tide of war ebbed back and forth over time tells us very little. There have been many battles between similar adversaries in the past and there would be many more in the future. What was so different about the Crusades? The difference was in the ideas that the Crusaders encountered when they first arrived in the region. After all the dust had settled down in the aftermath of the First Crusade, the newcomers found themselves embedded in a highly developed, cosmopolitan environment. They were exposed to new concepts and ways of doing things; ideas that were radical for them and that had a major impact back home. Eventually these ideas (among other influences) resulted in the culture that today is called the West.

Another excellent example of the importance of ideas is the American Revolution. There have been many times in history when a people have detached themselves from a parent country. In this regard, the American Revolution is no different from countless other revolts. What was the difference? The ideas that helped to generate the US constitution and the institutions that it spawned that Americans today revere so much. It can be argued that the impact of the ideas of the American Revolution were not confined to the new state. These ideas spread back to Europe where they germinated and commingled with other trends and eventually resulted in imposing limits on monarch and helped to expand the spread of various forms of democratic governance.

Similarly, the importance of the Russian Revolution lies not so much in the fact of the revolt itself but rather in the idea that powered the revolt.  The idea of Communism and the reordering of society that it imagined was what distinguished the Russian Revolution just as the idea of democratic governance was what had distinguished the American revolution from other such revolts. Also similar to the American Revolution, the impact of the Russian Revolution was not confined to Russia. The basic ideas that underlay Communism (or rather fear of those basic ideas) prompted Western capitalist nations to start introducing middle class and to a smaller extent lower class inducements and entitlements.

The impact of colonialism was not so much in the fact of foreign rule. Nearly every empire has involved forcible occupation of a land and the subjugation of the people living on it. colonialism's impact is that it imposed and spread Western ideas of governance and social conduct amongst the subject peoples. Colonialism's greatest triumph did not lie in successfully occupying foreign territories. It lay in inducing native peoples to not only adopt and adapt Western notions of political and social conduct and customs but to turn their backs on traditional notions of the same.

The impact of ideas is not confined to the political realm alone. Ideas on the economy for example have had major impact on our daily lives. These ideas have caused major upheavals but also caused strong economic growth. The Great Depression of the 1930s was caused mainly by the particular economic ideas that were then in vogue. It was countered most effectively by radical ideas espoused by John Maynard Keynes. Those ideas in turn were countered by still other notions advanced most prominently by Milton Friedman. The implementation of all these ideas over time has had important consequences for people all over the world.

Scientific ideas have enormously enriched our lives and endangered them as well. These ideas have resulted in technologies that have made our lives easier and more productive in our various tasks. At the same time, many of those same ideas have made it easier for us to be killed in new, novel and spectacularly gruesome fashion. Scientific ideas are also important because these eventually filter down to the primary school level where they are absorbed by us and in the end affect our world view.

A major part of the reason behind the continued dominance of the Western paradigm even after decolonization has been the cultural ideas that have emanated from the West and been transmitted around the world by its enormously successful cultural industries.

Ideas on religion have not only played a major role in history, they continue to do so. The Crusades mentioned above were themselves motivated by religious ideas regarding heathens and how to deal with them and also by ideas regarding the proper role of the Church in European lives. Questions regarding the proper Islamic response to colonization and later the decolonization process spurred Islamic religious thought which in turn has helped large numbers of ordinary Muslims understand their religion better. Ideas on religion have also been behind violent acts in many different parts of the world - both Muslim and non-Muslim.

So ideas are of crucial importance. They have been the moving force behind much of history. Each part of the world is distinctively what it is because of ideas. And different kinds of ideas continue to exert a strong influence on us both as individuals and as the collective that is called a nation. Failing to understand the basic ideas behind what we observe today means that we are failing to understand not only our past but also our present which in turn means that we will fail to understand our future.

Related articles

• Revolutions (socyberty.com)
• Niall Ferguson: why the West is now in decline (telegraph.co.uk)