Last year as Russia prepared to and eventually invaded Ukraine, we saw condemnation from large parts of the world. This got me thinking about historical wars and how the world would have reacted. Its easy to look back and shake our fists at the bahviours of colonial powers but I am looking for more contemporary thoughts about European wars in Africa, India, China and others. I wondered if anyone has any info or if you're able to recommend some reading on this topic?
Comments
pk10534 t1_j43i4jr wrote
Thanks for that answer! As a follow up, was the Monroe Doctrine a challenge to that narrative? Just curious if the US was solely concerned about European power being in Latin America or if the US also was incredulous about Europeans being better suited to run those countries too
big_sugi t1_j43z1dg wrote
The US was actively engaged in its own imperialism in North America during Monroe’s presidency, and “the Monroe Doctrine” didn’t even get that name until after the phrase “manifest destiny” had been coined.
The doctrine was intended to keep European powers from reestablishing themselves in the Americas, because that would be a threat to the US. It was not, in any way, an indication that the US believed the non-white inhabitants were better equipped to govern themselves.
HawkeyeTen t1_j49rk9r wrote
Interestingly though, there WERE concerns in President James K. Polk's administration about how Europeans and others might view the end result of the Mexican-American War in 1848. It's part of the reason the captured lands (California, Arizona, Nevada, etc.) were technically purchased from Mexico rather than simply snatched and annexed. I'm not sure why they feared the Europeans would be angry about it a ton, unless: 1. It would in their view upset the balance of power in the world or 2. It would make America look like a hypocrite for practicing methods similar to European empires against fellow "New World" countries. It unquestionably helped lower anger and tensions between the US and Mexico though after the war though (since the lands technically were not stolen).
ArkyBeagle t1_j4mp9jx wrote
The US government was of two minds about indigenous people. They'd establish treaties and then break them as the treaties became inconvenient.
Nobody could stand in the way of land speculators. This is what's behind Andrew Jackson's ( apocryphal ) "Mr Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it" concerning Worchester v. Georgia.
The Mexican government could declare El Norte theirs but they really couldn't hold it. By the time railroads could be built it was too late for Mexico to pursue claims. Even then; fly over the border now. You see settlements that seem logistically untenable.
The incredible thing about the Texicans is that they simply refused to admit defeat against the Commanche. S. C. Gwynne's "Empire of the Summer Moon" outlines the persistent pattern of this phenomenon of memory loss in detail. There's some credibility to the theory of Walker Colt also having a hand in subjugating the Comanche. The Rangers really were hired killers first and foremost. This continued through the 20th century, with Frank Hamer leading the team that assassinated Bonnie and Clyde.
-UnhappyInstance- t1_j43jm8q wrote
Another good one is “Uncommon Wealth: Britain and the Aftermath of Empire” by Kojo Koram
Afraid_Concert549 t1_j44g5cd wrote
> During the colonial period, European powers invading and occupying countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas was a common occurrence, and these actions were often met with little or no condemnation from other countries or international organizations. This was due in large part to the prevailing belief at the time that European nations were culturally and technologically superior to the peoples they colonized, and that it was therefore justifiable to bring these "uncivilized" peoples under European control.
Just to add to that, Chinese and Japanese colonialism followed the exact same dynamic, right down to justification based on the idea of their own superiority.
Muslim colonialism was a massively long-term enterprise, but obviously relied on the belief in the absolute truth of Islaam for its justification. That said, I'm not aware of any questioning from within of the Muslim expansion. None. Because thwt would likely be seen as blasphemy.
It's hard to determine how Inca colonialism was justified. It started in southern Peru and eventually conquered lands from southern Colombia to south-central Chile. It often made use of Stalinesque mass population transfers to prevent rebellions and insurgencies. But as to justifications, there wasn't necessarily one at all. Expansion and conquest seem to be the default human group behavior, and thus require no more justification than eating, except for civilizations with an extraordinarily highly developed sense of ethics, as these are the only ones que question such obviously beneficial actions as conquering more lands and peoples.
pheisenberg t1_j4ccbia wrote
Every society, certainly every powerful society, seems to be confident in its moral superiority. Military conquest, enslavement, and mass murder were apparently considered normal actions for most of history, so the real question is, why did ideological opposition to colonialism develop? It probably partly comes out of political opposition due to the unequal distribution of costs and benefits in the colonizing society, but I would guess it’s mostly from people applying the ethics they’ve learned in highly pacified cores to the world in general.
FriendoftheDork t1_j43tezl wrote
It would also depend on how the colonization was made, the scale of atrocities and who the victims were. And obviously who the aggressor was and their current reputation.
As an example, Leopold's "Kongo Free State" was condemned internationally in the 1890s when conditions of forced labor, torture and executions become known in Europe in open letters such as this:
George Washington Williams, an African-American journalist, pastor, historian, lawyer, and Civil War veteran, after visiting the Congo in the spring of 1890. Hoping to witness firsthand Leopold’s alleged philanthropic works, Williams instead left Africa outraged and disillusioned. He wrote Leopold shortly after, “in plain and respectful language,” protesting how Congolese were swindled of their lands and brutalized by agents of the Congo Free State, including Henry Morton Stanley. He lashed out at Leopold for allowing kidnappings, coerced labour, torture, and wanton murder.
More well known critics came in the form of Joseph Conrad, writer of The Heart of Darkness, and later Mark Twain. Both these authors contributed in telling the (white) world how bad things really were in the Congo. The Casement report later verified the atrocities and were taken quite seriously, resulting in the dissolving Leopold's property and creating the Belgian Colony.
Note that many of the detractors and condemners did not disagree with colonialism, but reacted because Leopold's reign went too far and caused too much suffering that even your staunchest "white man's burden" racist imperialist could stomach it.
Still, even after this debacle most Europeans believed in Imperialism as a way to spread culture, decency, trade, and prosperity to regions and peoples they believed to not have it.
HawkeyeTen t1_j49q58x wrote
The Congo Free State is a definite example of a case where even European empires were disgusted by abuse of conquered peoples. Beyond George Washington Williams, Joseph Conrad and Mark Twain, legendary British author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote an account of the atrocities in his work The Crime of The Congo, calling them some of the worst abuses he had ever heard being committed on human beings up to that time. The only reason the Congo evils were forgotten by many is due to World War I. Until 1914, Belgium was MASSIVELY tarnished in image (since it was THEIR king after all who had overseen this), and from reports I've read some abuses continued for a year or more after the Belgian government took over in 1908. It is sad though that discussion on the treatment of ruled peoples under imperialism (and how other nations should respond) didn't start a whole lot until this debacle, with the Ottoman atrocities of Greeks among others in the 19th Century possibly being one exception.
Irichcrusader t1_j4d3zz9 wrote
The Ottoman massacres of the Bulgarians in the lead up to the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 were also widely reported on and caused outrage across Europe. Disraeli, an ardent believer in real politik, tried to calm some of these tempers and even tried to support the Ottomans diplomatically because he feared that a Russian attack would leave the Tsar's in control of the Bosporus Straits. For this Gladstone, tore into him and made Disraeli's position untenable.
Similarly, the first Opium War was widely condemned by the liberal press in Britain, as well as the opposition. Not that that did much good for China in the long run...
[deleted] t1_j42yb2w wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j43f8ee wrote
[deleted]
Yehwrite t1_j4d2ma2 wrote
- Colonialism and imperialism were significant historical events that had a profound impact on many parts of the world. There were a variety of contemporary reactions to European colonialism in Africa, India, China, and other regions during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
One of the most notable reactions to colonialism was the rise of anti-colonial and nationalist movements. These movements sought to resist and overthrow colonial rule and establish self-government. In Africa, figures such as Mahatma Gandhi in India and Nelson Mandela in South Africa became leaders of anti-colonial movements and fought for independence.
Additionally, many intellectuals, scholars and activists around the world heavily criticized and spoke out against colonialism, they argued that colonialism was unjust and detrimental to the colonized peoples and cultures. They also stated that it was a violation of human rights and they called for the end of colonial rule.
There were also a variety of religious and spiritual leaders who spoke out against colonialism and imperialism, including figures such as Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore.
Books that can provide more in-depth information on contemporary reactions to colonialism include:
"The Anti-Colonial Moment in Africa: Metropolitan Anti-Colonialism and the Struggle for the Post-Colonial State" by Crawford Young
"Imperialism: A Study" by J.A. Hobson
"The Scramble for Africa" by Thomas Pakenham
"Indian Nationalism: A History" by John H. Kautsky
These books provide an in-depth look at the various reactions to colonialism, including the rise of anti-colonial and nationalist movements, the views of intellectuals and activists, and the role of religion and spirituality in resistance to colonialism.
AnaphoricReference t1_j4fwk0s wrote
Our historical narratives reflect how we think about the reasons for colonial annexations. Colonial empires did in fact often use some concrete pretext (a raid with European victims, piracy, a treaty violation, a trade conflict, picking one of the sides in a civil or succession war, etc) to decide to annex countries. Certainly if the area annexed was one that other colonial powers had economic interests in as well, or just generally to justify the cost of going to war to taxpayers. But we typically take those pretexts about as seriously as Hitler's story that Poland started it in 1939, and ignore them when summarizing colonial history.
The inability of nations of "uncivilized natives" to honour treaties, protect traveling Europeans within their borders, or keep their citizens from raiding over the agreed borders, immediately disqualified their existence in the eyes of Europeans.
[deleted] t1_j4swf7x wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j42pmn4 wrote
[removed]
Vivid_ger_3717 t1_j42mou2 wrote
During the colonial period, European powers invading and occupying countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas was a common occurrence, and these actions were often met with little or no condemnation from other countries or international organizations. This was due in large part to the prevailing belief at the time that European nations were culturally and technologically superior to the peoples they colonized, and that it was therefore justifiable to bring these "uncivilized" peoples under European control.
As for the reactions to specific wars, it would depend on the time, the context, and the country involved. For example, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many European powers had significant economic and political interests in Africa, and the Scramble for Africa was met with little resistance from other countries, as the European nations were seen as the dominant powers of the time.
However, as the 20th century progressed, there were increasing calls for decolonization and self-determination from the colonized peoples, and the actions of European powers in Africa and Asia began to be met with more widespread condemnation. The United Nations, which was established in 1945, was one of the key organizations that helped to coordinate the decolonization process and promote the rights of colonized peoples.
There are many books and articles that have been written about the history of colonialism and its impact on the colonized peoples. Some books that might be of interest include:
"The Scramble for Africa" by Thomas Pakenham
"The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures" by Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin
"Decolonizing the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature" by Ngugi wa Thiong'o
"The Wretched of the Earth" by Frantz Fanon
"A History of Africa" by J.D Fage and William Tordoff
These are just a few examples, and there are many more books and resources available on this topic. It's important to remember that this period of history is complex and multifaceted, and it's important to consult multiple sources to get a comprehensive understanding of the events and the context.