Summaryish

In response to this summary, and in general the Boer War.

I believe that the abandonment of civilized war practices during the Boer War is a completely natural consequence of territorial war.  When the British began fighting the Boers for Boer territory, it was obvious that the only way to win was to destroy the native population.  This is evident in that fact that every single imperial action initiated by Europe resulted in a death toll for the native population, mostly in inhumane ways because the tie to one’s land is one of the hardest bonds to break.  Holding a nation to war standards when that nation is trying to conquer territory inhabited by rebellious natives is hard because people defending their land will stop at nothing to hold their land.  I believe it’s a natural consequence of war to have a inclination towards brutality when dealing with the enemy.  

The Scramble for Africa

The scramble for Africa put me in a position where I felt a strong contradiction inside myself.  On the one hand, I was impressed by the power of European powers.  In less than half a century, ninety percent of Africa, a huge continent, was put under European control.  European might was at its most prominent point, allowing them to do what they wanted when they wanted.  Granted, this might was mostly evident in the fact that Europeans had far superior technology that allowed them to slaughter native populations out of existence, but this aside, I still think it’s a testament to the vigor of European ideals of imperialism.  On the other hand, I am absolutely sickened by the way in which the Europeans went about tearing apart Africa.  They basically enslaved all the Africans without any moral regard for anything except their own profit.  Europeans proved to the rest of the world that their racial prejudices and ideals were founded in arrogance and brute force.  The effects of the scramble for Africa are still being played out today, and it’s truly disheartening to see the ways in which Europe has hurt all the nations in Africa.  This conflict is something that most Europeans felt at the time, seeing as they were going into foreign lands and conquering the people for the sake of humanity’s progress.  Some people fought for the rights of those being subjected to Europe’s rule, and some blindly supported Europe’s power and right to control the world.  Both sides had evidence, and both sides felt they were right, creating a division that only deepened debate over Imperialism.   

Chinese Imperialism

The British sphere of influence in China is an example of the harmful affects of imperialism on the territories being turned into subservient populations.  The British went into China when China was politically unstable, causing a growth in tension that the Chinese government was unable to accommodate.  The British, being free trade zealots, argued with China over the Chinese limiting rules of British influence in Chinese trade, a self-centered move that reflects the arrogance of British imperialism.  The fact that Britain had a net lose in China should be a credit to China, who managed to keep the most powerful nation in the world from controlling them with bully tactics and an egotistic sense of right.  But, Opium kept Britain from being held to only Hong Kong, allowing them turn their net lose into a net gain in China.  They set up the triangle trade between India, China, and Britain, using the Chinese addiction to Opium to the Brit’s advantage.  Had the Chinese been successful in cracking down on Opium and British expansion, they could have survived the harmful effects of British influence, but unfortunately the Chinese were forced to go to war with the most powerful nation in the world and subsequently forced to give even more undeserved rights to British traders.  This move, helped by unhealthy competition in Europe, sparked other European nations to get part of the Chinese trade as well, causing the decline of China as a prominent power, and cementing Europe’s control over trade across the world.  

Week Consensus

I would have to say that at the end of the week, the most common thread throughout class would have to have been the different ways in which revolution affected Europe.  Granted, this is a very large heading, but I think that its vagueness is an indicator to it’s vastness and complicatedness.  On one hand you had successful revolutions, like Germany, Italy, or Greece.  On the other hand you have failed ones, like Poland or the different sects in the Austria Empire.  This combined with the varying factors of economic dissatisfaction and nationalistic sentiment, along with the context of the current ruler and his ability to deal with these revolutions, made for setting the revolutions in certain categories difficult, if not impossible.  To further the complexity, all this had to be combined with growing industrialization and dates, which seemed to create a haze around everything occurring in Europe, making it hard to see what exactly happened when in comparison with other events, which would have required a unearthly amount of note taking.  In the end, I think the lesson I learned the most about both chapters was that Europe is very fond of revolutions, and that these revolutions always have involve some sort of combination of economic, political, and cultural aspects.  I don’t it’s unfair to just see this period of history as a tumultuous period involving nation building, industrialization, and reform, and nothing more in depth than that.  This might not sit well with some of the history fanatics, but I think the entire period is way too confusing to be deemed anything else.  

Russia’s Problem is a Pattern

The fact that the abolition of serfdom in Russia didn’t really change the landscape of the country is evidence of a greater theme in Modern European History I have noticed.  Socioeconomic class is something that has changed very little over time, although the names for the classes have.  The transformation of English people working on a subplots under the control of a large landowner to the factory worker who was under an equally oppressive boss is simple a change in location and title.  In Russia, serfdom was abolished, but the serfs were simply transformed into impoverished land tenants that might have even gotten it worse off than their early life.  On one hand, I think that the pattern of socioeconomic stagnation could be countered with the fact that there were people who moved up in the world, but I think this argument doesn’t really apply to what I am talking about.  Sure some people moved up, but the relationship between the ruling class and the working class has never changed, even though both the ruling and the working class have changed locations or have gone through periods of supposed reform.  I think this pattern is evidence of an even larger pattern, which is the fact that human beings are naturally inclined to breaking into two groups, those who lead and wield power, and those that follow.  

Germany's Unification

What I find the most interesting about Bismarck’s unification of Germany is that he managed to do all of it while keeping the rest of Europe at bay and while synthesizing top down reform with nationalistic sentiment.  I feel as though if you had asked each European power whether or not they wanted to see a large nation just as powerful, if not more, than their own nation, most of them, if not all of them, would have said no.  Yet, despite this, Bismarck’s diplomatic skills and timing made the unification of Germany possible.  England and Russia were busy with the after math of the Crimean War, Italy had yet to come into complete formation, and France and Austria had to fight wars with Bismarck that made both of those countries look foolish.  This incredible circumstance, along with the growing feeling of nationalism among German people, helped create what would become one of the greatest powers in Europe.  Bismarck had to utilize this nationalism in very specific ways, using both wars with France and Austria as perfect opportunities to strengthen national feelings.  As if over night, the German nation arose from the Rhineland and would forever have a place in history.  But, all this incredible circumstance has to be understood within the context that early Germany, which consisted of separated states, was already an economic force.  Bismarck should be handed a medal for his skills, but he was also provided the perfect broken nation to unite.