"World War in World History" Document Analysis

Prompt: To what extent was WWI a global war? Why did most Asians fight for the allies if they were pro-German?

Answer: World War I was a global war with respect to the nationality of the members fighting the war, even though it seemed to fit the qualifications of an "European civil war" from the perspective of Asians.  The "internal character" of World War I can be attributed to the fact that the only countries engaged in war were those of Europe.  Though Asia and the United States both had prominent roles in the war, they in aspect played mere supporting positions of the larger European powers around which the crux of the war was centered.  However, it can be seen from a different angle that World War I was a global war in that it involved countries from around the four corners of the globe.  Of the global powers other than the Europeans involved in the War, the Asians played prominent roles, eventually joining the efforts of the Allies against the Entente Powers.  Though the Asian powers are noted as supporting the Allied Powers, a majority of the Asian population did not have a preference over who won the great European "civil war".  However, the general Asian population resented many of the Allied Powers because they attacked and imperialized many areas of Asia with little regard to Asian sentiment; in contrast, the Germans had "no tradition of Asian conquest," and thus would have been expected to appeal more than the Allied Powers.  However, in the name of democracy, a majority of Asian states came to the defense of the Allied powers.  Allied powers promised to defend democracies, which would result in political stability in Asia, a factor that would play a great role in settling Asian society and political policy.  Thus, even though Asians were pro-German due as a result of their resent for territorial expansion of Allied powers, they sided with the Allies to defend democracy.

Pg. 913 Document Based Question

Prompt: Compare and contrast the sort of adjectives Kipling uses to describe native people as opposed to Europeans; how does his very language usage convey his sense of white superiority?

Response: To convey his sense of white supremacy and superiority over other indigenous people and foreigners, Kipling uses different adjectives to describe different individuals of different skin color, emphasizing his view that imperial rule is mandatory in colonies such as the British one in India.  Kipling first refers to the subject people of the British as a "breed," implying that the native Indians are animal like.   Since animals must be tamed in order to be controlled and behave properly, Kipling is upholding his view that the British must "tame" the Indians metaphorically to keep stability in the region.   Despite the fact that Kipling is attempting to justify British control in India, he is not stating that any type of rule is sufficient.  He believes that the ruling should be orderly, not morally low or "tawdry". 

To describe the Indians, on the other hand, Kipling uses diminutive and servile forms of adjectives.  Kipling describes the Indians as "silent" and "sullen," indicating that the subjects of British hegemony are expected to obey,  command, and respect those in control, the British.   The word "sullen" indicates, however, that the Indian subjects were not fond of the British rule in India, despite the generous way in which they ruled.   

The "burden" that the Imperial British are faced with as a result of their hegemony is described by many adjectives, leading the reader to believe that it was a great struggle for the British to provide India with order and imperial rule.  The burden is metaphorically described as a "heavy harness," indicating that it took a lot of effort for the British to maintain order.  Though India provided many trade opportunities for England, it also must have a heavy burden regarding other British affairs. 

Map of Global Hegemony

When  creating this map, several aspects of the locations of imperialism areas were outstanding.  Here is a list of those aspects I found somewhat interesting:

1. Russia by far has the largest land mass; however, Russia has no other states within it.  In fact, most of the other colored in countries and territories could probably fit within the single state of Russia.

2. England seemed to consist of the most widespread areas of land it controlled as colonies.  Every one of its controlled territories was specific in the goods it exported and produced, so Britain must have profited from its colonies.  It is hard to believe that England acquired so much power after only winning the 7 Years' War.

3. I noticed that the Spanish tereitories, especially in Africa, we're very limited despite the greatness of the Spanish state.  Why were they able to colonize and get such a head start in the Americas while obtain almost no land in Africa? (Especially because they are located so close to Africa).

4/4/14 Homework: The Young Turks

Prompt: How do the plans of the Young Turks privilege their own age cohort within the Ottoman Empire, particularly in terms of voting rights and education?

The Young Turks gave specific rights to their own age cohorts within the Ottoman Empire in terms of voting rights and education, primarily to increase their say in Ottoman policy and governance.  In the Proclamation of the Young Turks, the third point of the constitution states that all citizens of the Ottoman Empire (not including slaves and those without citizenship) are given the right to vote.  This does not mean that they are forced to vote, however.  In giving younger Ottomans a chance to vote, they were given a greater power in determining foreign and internal policy, thus privileging the Young Turks.  In order to eventually occupy high government positions, the Young Turks must have placed great importance on education, which is necessary to all individuals within a smoothly functioning government.  It is due to this reason that the Young Turks provided free education to all individuals regardless of age.  Motivated children and boys would be able to be educated from an early point on in their lives, which would increase the change that they become a highly government official.  They placed the power of schooling and age restrictions in the hands of the government to ensure that all children legally had the same rights, benefits, and opportunities to become educated.  In a broader perspective, the Young Turks privileged their own age cohort within the Ottoman Empire in terms of voting rights and education to increase the likelihood that they are educated and are able to elect each other into high government positions in the future, possibly providing the Young Turks Party to gain power in the Ottoman Empire.