AP World History

Textbook notes

Class

Resources

Explore

13. Changing Global Landscape (Milestones of Century)

Struggles for independence

Asia, Africa

struggle for independence; decolonization

focused on:

colonial rule

subordination

poverty

racism

nation-states triumphed over empires

mobilized millions of people

usually achieved by negotiated settlement; sometimes military confrontations

declining legitimacy of empire and race as credible basis for political and social life

promised national freedom and personal dignity, opportunity, prosperity

1900: European colonial empires appeared as enduring features of world’s political landscape

Africa

Asia

Caribbean

Pacific Oceania

late 1940s: Asia and Middle East

Philippines

Inida

Pakistan

Burma

Indonesia

Syria

Iraq

Jordan

Israel

mid-1950s to mid-1970s: Africa; over 50 colonies gained independence

1970s: Pacific Oceania

mostly peacefully; colonial powers willingly abandoned right to rule

Samoa

Fiji

Tonga

Soloman Islands

Kiribati

Hawaii: sought incorporation as state within United States

1960s and 1970s: Caribbean societies

Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

Jamaica

Trinidad

Tobago

Cuba: already formally independent

1959: revolutionary upheaval; dramatically declared rejection of American control

1983: Caribbean had 16 independent states

End of empire

Differences to before

end of empire never before so associated with mobilization of masses around nationalism

more comparable to

earlier decolonization of European colonies in Americas⁠

⁠

claimed international status equivalent to that of former rulers

Americas: many colonized people were themselves European; shared much of culture

freedom struggles in 20th were very different

asserted political independence

affirmed vitality of their cultures

Territorial empires

after World War I

Austrian and Ottoman empires; gave rise to new states in Europe and Middle East

Russian Empire; soon reassembled under Soviet Union

World War II: German and Japanese empires

African and Asian movements for independence shared ideal of national self-determination

humankind naturally divided into distinct peoples or nations

each deserved own independent state

gained global acceptance during 20th; rendered empire illegitimate in growing numbers of people

Empires without territory

e.g. United States power in Latin America

Mexican Revolution (1910)

partly stimulated by intrusive U.S.

one impact: nationalization of Mexico’s oil industry (1937); previously mostly owned by American and British investors

similar actions in Cuba’s revolution (1959-1960) and other places in Latin America and elsewhere

Eastern European revolutions in 1989 for national self-determination and freedom from Soviet control

1991: disintegration of Soviet Union; ended one of last major territorial empires of 20th and birth of 15 new national states

China’s Central Asian empire remained intact despite considerable resistance (e.g. in Tibet)

Asia, Africa

at beginning of 20th, few observers were predicting collapse of empires; idea of “the only legitimate government is national self-government” was not nearly as widespread as it would become

different ways for historians to explain:

rapid collapse of European colonial empires

emergence of transformed international landscape with dozens of new nation states

Contradictions in colonialism

Contradictions in colonialism

Ideals

Reality

rhetoric of Christianity, Enlightenment thought, material progress

colonial racism, exploitation, poverty

increasingly democratic values of European states

essential dictatorship of colonial rule

ideal of national self-determination

possession of colonies that were denied opportunity to express own national character

There are no rows in this table

⁠

Why after World War II?

why didn’t the “fatal flaw” of European colonial rule lead to independence earlier or later?

“conjecture”: coming together of several separate developments at particular time

Political

internationally

world wars weakened Europe; discredited sense of European moral superiority

both United States and Soviet Union generally opposed older European colonial empires, even while creating empire-like international relationships

United Nations was platform for anti-colonial agitation

within colonies

dependence of European rulers on cooperation of local elites, Western-educated men

empires vulnerable to withdrawal of support

Social, economic

generated human raw material for anti-colonial movements

by early 20th in Asia, mid-20th in Africa: second or third generation of Western-educated elites, largely male

thoroughly familiar with Euroepan culture

deeply aware of gap between values and practices

no longer viewed colonial rule as vehicle for people’s progress like fathers

increasingly insisted on immediate independence

growing numbers of ordinary people (women and men) were receptive; had reason to believe that independence held great promise

veterans of world wars

young people with some education but few jobs meeting their expectations

small class of urban workers increasingly aware of exploitation

small-scale female traders resentful of Euroepan privileges

rural dwellers who lost land or suffered from forced labor

impoverished and insecure newcomers to the cities

Defensive colonial rulers

colonial rulers began to plan (initially tentatively) for new political relationship with Asian and African subjects

had been integrated into global economic network

local elites largely committed to maintaining links

Europeans could imagine retaining profitable economic interests without expense and trouble of formal colonial governments

deliberate planning for decolonization

gradual political reforms

investments in railroads, ports, telegraph lines

holding of elections

writing of constitutions

sometimes seemed as if independence was granted by colonial rulers rather than gained or seized by anti-colonist initiatives

only occurred under considerable pressure from mounting nationalist movements

Nationalist movements

leaders were almost always educated males

creating movements was easy

organized political parties

recruited members

plotted strategy

developed an ideology

negotiated with one another and with colonial state

most prominent leaders became “fathers” of new countries

India: Gandhi, Nehru

Indonesia: Sukarno

Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh

Ghana: Nkrumah

South Africa: Mandela

in areas where colonial rule was inflexible, leaders also directed military operations and administered liberated areas

settler-dominated colonies

Algeria

Kenya

Rhodesia

Portuguese territories

nationalist leaders did not seek to restore vanished past

joining world of independent nation-states

membership in United Nations

wealth and power of modern technology

also needed to recruit mass following

millions of ordinary men and women joined Gandhi’s nonviolent campaigns in India

tens of thousands of freedom fighters waged guerrilla warfare in Algeria, Kenya, Mozambique, Zimbabwe

workers went on strike; market women, students, farmers, unemployed joined political parties in West Africa

Internal struggles

independence movements were rarely cohesive movements; mostly fragile alliances of different:

classes

ethnic groups

religions

regions

struggled over questions of:

leadership

power

strategy

ideology

distribution of material benefits

sometimes relationship between nationalist leaders and followers was filled with tension

Indonesia: “Why am I vexed by the things that fill their lives, and to which they are so attached? Why are the things that contain beauty for them ... only senseless and displeasing for me? We intellectuals here are much closer to Europe or America than we are to the primitive Islamic culture of Java and Sumatra” (leader)

Nigeria: independence movement had three major political party that each identified with a particular ethnic group

Igbo

Yoruba

Hausa

India

Indian National Congress

aka Congress Party; India’s independence movement

led by Mohandas Gandhi (also referred to as “Mahatma” or “Great Soul”)

rejected modern industrialization as goal for country

embraced science, technology, industry as essential to India’s future

not everyone accepted Gandhi’s nonviolent philosophy or inclusive definition of India (all religions, regions, castes)

believed his efforts to improve position of women or untouchables were distraction from gaining independence

division over whether to participate in British-sponsored legislative bodies

number of smaller parties advocated on behalf of particular regions or castes

Hindu-Muslim divide

most serious threat to unified movement

Muslims (minority) feared that their voice could be swamped by numerically dominant Hindus (despite Gandhi’s inclusivity)

some Hindu politicians confirmed this when they cast the nationalist struggle in Hindu religious terms

antagonized Muslims

Muslim League

Muhammad Ali Jinnah argued that parts of India with Muslim majority should have separate political status

Pakistan (land of the pure)

India not single nation like Gandhi argued

Jinnah: “The Muslims and Hindus belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine [eat] together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations”

Gandhi and Congress Party finally agreed to partition as British declared intention to leave India after WWII

Independence

1947: colonial India became independent as two countries

Muslim Pakistan (divided into two wings 1,000 miles apart)

mostly Hindu India governed by secular state

horrendously painful

1 million people or more died in the communal violence

12 million refugees moved from one country to the other to join religious compatriots

Gandhi refused to attend independence celebrations

desperately trying to stem mounting tide of violence

assassinated by Hindu extremist a year after independence

Differences

Nationalist movements

sometimes produced independence within a few years (e.g. Belgian Congo took 4), sometimes decades (e.g. Vietnam took about 70)

Vietnam: nationalism surfaced in early 1900s; independence in mid-1970s after fighting French colonial rulers, Japanese invaders (WWII), U.S. military forces, Chinese forces

South African struggle distinctive in many ways

not waged against distant colonial power, but white settler minority (20%) that already had been granted independence from Great Britain (1910)

took place in mature industrialized and urbanized nation

in face of most rigid and racially repressive regime (apartheid)

only gained “independence” from colonial oppression in 1994

Tactics

sometimes peaceful political pressure (e.g. West Africa)

demonstrations

strikes

mass mobilization

negotiations

sometimes armed struggle (e.g. Algerian independence from France)

Ideologies

sometimes religious, sometimes secular

often religious in India and Islamic World

Indonesia

early nationalist organization (Islamic Union) used religion

later groups used Marxism

Sukarno (primary nationalist leader) tried to reconcile the various outlooks: “What is Sukarno? A nationalist? An Islamist? A Marxist? ... Sukarno is a mixture of all these isms.”

nationalist movements led by communists (e.g. Vietnam, China) sought major social transformations as well as freedom from foreign rule

Africa: focused on ending racial discrimination, achieving political independence with little concern about emerging patterns of domestic class inequality

After freedom

third world, developing countries, Global South: both former colonies and those already independent

China

Thailand

Ethiopia

Iran

Turkey

Central America

South America

Conditions

had to contend with common conditions

exploding populations

high expectations for independence (often exceeded available resources)

culturally diverse; little loyalty to central state

public employment grew rapidly as state assumed greater responsibility for economic development

widespread conditions of poverty and weak private economies

groups and individuals sough to capture the state or parts of it

salaries and status that it offered

opportunities for private enrichment that public office provided

Internal efforts

developing countries had a wide range of efforts

one kind of political system often followed another in quick succession

Communist Party control

China

Vietnam

Cuba

multiparty democracy

India

South Africa

one-party democracy

Mexico

Tanzania

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.