Patriotic Sentiment in the Interwar Essay Example for Free

Patriotic Sentiment in the Interwar Essay The creation of the British Empire and its â€Å"contributions† to the welfare of its colonies was used by many English historians as a source of justification for its existence and future. Needless to say, many English historians would naturally put the British Empire as the â€Å"empire† that aspired for assimilation and multiculturalism, which had been absent in previous empires (although this is debatable) (Aldrich 1988:24). Added to that, because of the perceived inferiority of the colonized peoples, many of these historians usually attached to the â€Å"white man† the significant role of guardian (Aldrich 1988:25). In recent years however, this notion of racial superiority was replaced by the principles of equality and self-determinations. This was in lieu of the increasing surge of patriotic sentiments of the colonized peoples and a general compromise of the colonial powers over the future of the former colonies, as mandated by the United Nations. Modern English historians, while continuing to justify the existence and foundation of the British Empire, admitted some of the mistakes and grave errors usually attributed to the British Empire. Nonetheless, they argued that these mistakes were committed out of necessity. Other colonial powers were greedily aspiring to replace Britain in its role as a superpower. Germany for instance, before the onset of the First World War, was building a powerful navy to replace Britain as a sea power. France was busy eyeing British colonies in Central Africa for its own exploitation. In short, the errors committed by Great Britain to its colonies were a result of self-defense. Added to that, in order for the colonies to benefit from British colonial rule, the colonized peoples would have to sacrifice some of their outdated or â€Å"primitive† institutions and adopt institutions that are characterized by efficiency and commitment to public service. These justifications made by English historians on the role and future of the British Empire were imbued in the study of history. History as a Tool for Application of Theoretical Knowledge The use of history to justify the existence and foundation of the British Empire was not born out of prejudice or unsubstantiated truths. In fact, early English historians noted that history should be as scientific as possible in order to represent the true nature of world events. Added to that, these English historians viewed history as an application tool for upgrading the political, social, and economic systems of the world today. Specifically, knowledge of the end of the British Empire would naturally pave to greater solidarity and understanding between former colonies and the mother country (the colonizer); that they have a common history, and to some extent similar social, economic, and political structures. Although for the common viewer this might seem a little idealistic and devoid of historical verification, this was the practical side of the scientific discipline of history, if we accord them to these English historians. Thus, the extensive use of history as a tool for the political understanding of countries with a â€Å"common† history was the result of theoretical justification of English historians on the existence and rule of the British Empire to about a large portion of the Earth’s population. This was though a problem for many local historians in the former colonies. They extensively used history as a tool for demonizing their colonial oppressors: the justification of independence movements and revolutions. This dialectic aspect of history, depending on the one who views it, disoriented historical data, making the discipline of history itself the vantage point of uncertainty (Aldrich, 2000). Herein, we shall examine the various practices that were incorporated in a large, common society. Nonetheless, we shall also examine power relations between the mother country and its colonies as well as the issue of tolerance and cultural differences. Cultural Toleration in the British Empire When England finally defeated France and Spain in a series of colonial wars, it was able to establish colonies in North America and Asia (Africa was not the target of colonization since it was viewed as an inhabitable and inhospitable continent – although commercial bases were established to streamline trade and commerce with other European powers) (Baldwin, 2007). England was able to acquire Malacca from the Portuguese in the latter half of the 16th century. India and Canada fell into the hands of the British after France’s defeat in the Seven Years War (called French and Indian Wars in North America). The eastern coast of the present United States was colonized by England (the Thirteen Colonies) to foster greater trade between North America and England (it was known as New England). Australia and New Zealand were colonized to provide the British Empire penal colonies for the rouge elements of British society. Rebels and political prisoners were deported to these penal colonies. In the latter half of the 19th century, Britain was able to take possession of several Chinese ports after a series of wars with China, then under the rule of the Manchus (known as Opium Wars). In South America and the Caribbean, some islands were colonized by the British to offset Spanish and French power in the area (although in the early part of the 19th century, Spain controlled at least 2/3 of the land area of North, Central, and South America). In the European partition of Africa, Britain controlled a large portion of North, Central, and Southern Africa. These colonized areas minus the 13 colonies were known as the British Empire. The British fostered a policy of cultural toleration to discourage the native population from revolting. Moslems, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, and other Oriental religions existed side by side with Christianity in matters like trade and commerce. Temples of different religions were treated with respect and dignity by British authorities. Nonetheless, British rulers especially Queen Victoria even traveled to the colonies to inspect and inspire the native populations to support Great Britain in its economic undertakings, for the benefit of the mother country and the colonies, and its colonial wars with other European powers (especially France and Germany). Religious festivals were declared as holidays, with some exceptions, to foster greater solidarity with the native population. English was not an enforced language. This was done to preserve and enrich the culture of the native populations. The â€Å"British† educational system was introduced to stimulate greater economic efficiency in the colonies. The British parliament, in its sessions, declared that education was the only plausible and least risky way of opening the colonies to true development. The British parliament and to some extent the British rulers knew that there were form of British economic exploitation in the colonies, thus the only way for them to recreate the image of the â€Å"British Empire† was to encourage education. English was taught in the universities (other European powers loathed this type of strategy) established outside Britain. Economic and maritime schools were also established to stimulate the natives to increase their productivity yield and to participate in naval undertakings. Nonetheless, the British army was remodeled in order to include natives in the soldier payroll. At a specified rank, a native could rise to a prominent rank in the military. Needless to say, to fit in the global economy, Britain also created institutions that would politically and socially integrate the mother country and the colonies. The old models of exploitation and oppression were replaced by systems of mutual cooperation and commitment to a common economic goal. Thus, these contributions of the Britain to its colonies became the framework of early English historians for justifying the existence of the British Empire. Patriotism and Nationalism: The Beginning of Decline Nationalistic sentiment in the colonies grew in the latter beginning of the 20th century. Because of the relative prosperity of the colonies, some of its natives were able to study in European universities and able to acquire the increasing surge of ultra-nationalism (nationalism in Europe differs from the nationalism of the colonies on one count: nationalism in European countries focused on the acquisition of colonies to bring glory to the country, whereas in the colonies on independence) in Europe. When they returned to their homeland, they established organizations which aimed of attaining independence or self-governance status of their homelands. The British authorities naturally would quell these â€Å"uprisings† since this put into question the status quo, and generally the legitimacy of the British Empire. Power Relations But because of the involvement of Great Britain in the two World Wars, it was forced to grant self-governance status to many of its colonies in exchange for economic and military support (in India, Gandhi urged the Indians to fight on the side of the British). However, because of the changing political atmosphere in Britain at that time, the British authorities once more crushed these independence movements. Many were forced to go underground. Some seek political asylum in America or The Netherlands. Added to that, political theory and political education were deleted in the course curriculum of many universities for fear that the British might close the institutions. The purpose of the British authorities was always to preserve the rule of the British Crown on the colonies. All means were therefore necessary in order to dissipate these independence movements. Thus, while the British were open to cultural toleration, they loathed political development in the colonies. Political development is the measure of citizen participation in the affairs of the government. Political development is largely a relationship between the citizenry and the country to which they owe their citizenship. The British authorities were enforcing a policy of â€Å"mother dependency†, that is, the political, social, and economic future of the colonies should depend on the mother country. Later Vladimir Lenin expanded this concept and renamed it as the â€Å"dependency relations. † The mother country, according to Lenin, when its reaches the height of economic development experiences shortfalls and recessions due to overproduction. The surplus produce of the mother country is â€Å"dumped† to the colonies since colonies are potential markets. In this way, economic recessions in the mother country are kept in check, and the laboring class enjoys relative prosperity, at the expense of the colonies. This is a uni-directional type of development unlike the so-called â€Å"mutual development† that Britain was preaching (as exemplified in Africa, in Ramsay, 2000/1784). Practices and Institutions that Became Part of the Colonies’ Society: The Tragedy British colonies can be classified into two categories: 1) those that fully accepted British practices and institutions, 2) those who only accepted British political and educational institutions. India, Pakistan, former British African colonies, and former British Asian colonies adopted the political and educational institutions of Great Britain because of its efficiency and relative good organization. The parliamentary system became the standard system of government of most of the former colonies of Great Britain. It was noted that this type of government adheres to the principles of public accountability and stability. Most of the former colonies of Great Britain using this type of government experience relative stability and effective governance (Toynbee, 1987:401). The tragedy lies on the second type of former colonies. These colonies fully adopted British practices and institutions at the expense of native practices and customs. In Australia and New Zealand for example, most of the population is classified as of British or European descent. When the British came to New Zealand, they dispossessed the Maori through fraudulent land contracts and generally through war (that severely reduced the Maori population by 1/8. The British authorities encouraged immigration to these places (Australia and New Zealand) to reinvigorate economic activities to these places. The result was that New Zealand and Australia became an extension of British society: mirror images of England. The Maori who were the true owners of the country was exploited and dispossessed by the British. In the case of Canada, because of strong French influence (former French colony), the British authorities had the difficulty of making Canada a cultural sphere of influence of Britain. In fact, cultural differences in Canada serve as the marking definition of power relations in Canada. Conclusion While many English historians talk endlessly of a Commonwealth under the banner of Great Britain, they were not able to pinpoint the opportunity costs of the colonization on the part of the colonies. There is no such thing as a common society, for the British Empire created two types of societies in its sphere of geopolitics. The only intersection of these societies is the institutions bequeathed to them by the British Empire. Socially, these societies differ significantly because the British Empire was not able to fully integrate its customs and practices to most of its colonies due to the onset of nationalism and patriotic sentiments of the native populations (in Australia and New Zealand, there was no such thing as a â€Å"political† native population since they were able to reduce their populations through wars and enforced immigration policies). References Aldrich, Richard. 1988. Imperialism in the study and teaching of history. In Benefits Bestowed? Education and British Imperialism. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, pp. 23-38.