Chapter 36: Nationalism and Political Identities in Asia, Africa, and Latin America

 

 

Vocabulary

  

Focus Question #1

            Compare and contrast the Indian and Chinese resistance to imperialism.

 

            Whereas both India and China showed resistance to imperialism through revolutions in political systems, a growing sense of nationalism, and via charismatic leaders, but they differed in that while China had no assistance from foreign nations, whilst India received a lot of help from the British.

            Nationalism played large roles in both India’s and China’s resistances to imperialism. In India, construction of a new railway network by the British allowed for easier transportation of goods for them, but it also allowed Indian nationalists to communicate easier and be with easy reach of one another. Chinese nationalism also increased, although it occurred after the Great War, when they hoped that the 1919 Peace Conference in Paris would decide to diminish foreign rule in China. The opposite occurred, however, and foreign intervention in China actually increased.

            One of the charismatic leaders in India was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He played a huge role in the resistance to imperialism. He stressed two moral philosophies, ahimsa, which stands for tolerance and nonviolence, and satyagraha, which is the technique of passive resistance and literally stood for truth and firmness. Gandhi also made his mark on Indian politics, transforming the Indian National Congress into an effective instrument of Indian nationalism. Sun Yatsen and his successor, Jiang Jiesh, were two of the most important Chinese leaders during their struggle for independence.

Sun Yatsen was the most influential person in this party, and his basic ideology was summarized in his Three Principles of the People. This called for elimination of special privileges for foreigners, national reunification, economic development, and a democratic republican government. Jiang Jiesh succeeded Sun Yatsen after his death in 1925, was a young general that had been trained in Japan and the Soviet Union, however he did not hold any communist visions for China.

            Both China and India’s rebellions got their ideals from Western Europe. Those ideas included democracy, individual freedoms, and equality for all peoples. One way that India began excecising these rights were through the formation of the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, the latter being only comprised of Muslims. The Guomindong served essentially the same purpose in China, this was the name for the Nationalist People’s Party in China. Sun Yatsen was the most influential person in this party. The opposition to this party came from foreign governments and from the opposition party known as the CCP or the Chinese Communist Party. However, by 1934, the newly established Chinese government had all but eliminated communism from China.

            While India received help from the British in the formation of the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, China was devoid of outside assistance. They established their organizations and institutions based solely on the ideals, and not so much the structure, of Western governments. In the form of the India Act, Great Britain basically gave India its independence. This was an act that gave India the institutions of a self-governing state. The legislation allowed for the establishment of autonomous legislative bodies in the provinces of British India, and the formation of an Indian two-chambered national legislature, and the formation of an executive branch that’s under the control of the British.

Focus Question #2

            How did the U.S.’s relationship with Latin America change from 1914 to 1939.

 

            Early on, the United States had much success exploiting the politically and economically unstable Latin America, however, after the Great War and the Great Depression, this subtle form of neo-imperialism was exposed, and new resistance arose in those Latin American states.

            The United States was subtly enforcing imperialism upon Latin America through exploitation of economic means and sometimes even political institutions. Needless to say, the United States had an unnecessary amount of control and influence in Latin America. This can be seen in the United Fruit Company, which used a famous Latin American as a marketing tool in Latin America, which was exploitation because the U.S. was the one making the profit.

            At the core of the newfound resistance to American imperialism were demonstrations by university students. They participated in protests and went on marches in their demand of reforms. They wanted more representation in the educational system, and this resulted in the long-term politicization of the student bodies at Latin American universities. Fidel Castro, one of the most influential nationalists in Latin America, used these universities as a sort-of “training ground” for future political leaders. Fidel was once one of those very students that protested and such.

            Peru is an excellent example of radicalism, through the formation of many new radical political parties which adopted rebellious agendas for change. Jose Carolos Mariategui (1895-1930) was connected to many of these newly formed parties, who was a self-educated young Marxist intellectual. He felt particular concern for the poor which made up about half of the Peruvian peoples, and criticized Peru’s leaders for not helping them in journals and newspapers. He became a dedicated Marxist and formed the Socialist Party of Peru.