Social Conceptualization in Schamas Treatment of Decolonization - Essay Example

?Question 2: Provide a critical 800-word evaluation of the two primary source materials provided by The source materials are also available on Study Space. Please comment on each source separately (using about 400 words for each source). For each source, note: - its context; - its usefulness; - its limitations; - what other sources might be required to support or verify it. Historians Craft Assignment Question 2 Source 1of 2: A Newspaper Cartoon Source Details Leslie Illingworth, cartoon from the Daily Mail, London, 29 October, 1962 The cartoon has no caption, or title The first cartoon shows Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy arm wrestling with their “fingers on the button,” ready to launch a nuclear war. The cartoon is striking in that it reduces the geopolitical tension of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the United States and Soviet Union reached the brink of nuclear war over the stationing of Russian missiles in Cuba, to a bar game or crude, male ego-driven sport. From the Soviet perspective, the Americans had previously stationed nuclear missiles positioned at Russia from similar strategic locations in Europe and Asia. The two countries, in less than 20 years, had built nuclear arsenals hundreds of thousands of times greater than the weapons used to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By many scientific estimates, the two countries possessed sufficient nuclear weapon power to destroy the entire earth many times over. Few were completely certain of the effects of nuclear war on a mass scale, but both sides had built the largest, most powerful war machines the world had ever seen, and Khrushchev and Kennedy pursued a policy of brinksmanship to bring the entire global civilization to the threat of destruction through their two nuclear arsenals. That the two political leaders are reduced to the caricature of a bar-room arm wrestling match represents the anxiety felt by the general populace who were restrained from truly participating in the decision making of the match, but were rather forced into the role of spectators to watch how events unfolded in mass-media and television. The public could only wonder if two human beings, with human emotions and weaknesses, could be trusted to manage the behavior of nations and armies with such a great destructive firepower. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was based in the brinksmanship of the political rulers in the cartoon, highlighting the tension of the day in a manner that also illuminates the risk of the human emotions in a centralized leadership command structure. This activity was also depicted in Stanley Kubrick’s classic movie Dr. Strangelove. The brinksmanship ended with the Soviets withdrawing the nuclear missiles from Cuba in the end to a standoff that had captivated the world as the first and possibly most serious escalation of conflict between superpowers in the Cold War. This cartoon is useful to understand the public opinion of the times, but could be further verified through relations to other news media such as editorials and journalism of the events. Historians Craft Assignment Question 2 Source 2 of 2: An Excerpt from a Political Diary Sunday, November 26, 1967 So this is the end of the second devaluation week and we’re still completely without any central control or decision-taking in this Labour Government. And the chances of getting this as a result of the devaluation are very small indeed. .... the lower the Government plummets the stronger my position grows in my own little corner. Suppose the impossible happened and as a result of the crisis Jim [Callaghan] replaced Harold [Wilson]. That’s not inconceivable when you remember Macmillan replacing Eden after Suez. But it’s something I wouldn’t tolerate because I know the qualities of Mr Callaghan. He’s not an adventurous bold forward-looking Macmillan who could rejuvenate the Party. Right inside he’s a coward with a wonderful outside image and a very likeable personality. ... however, I don’t see the remotest chance of Harold going. It’s much more likely that he will drag us further down until, in two or three years’ time, there is a landslide of 1931 dimensions. Source Details Richard Crossman, The Crossman Diaries, edited by Anthony Howard (London, 1979), pp. 371-72 Richard Crossman (1907-74) was a Labour politician and government minister, and famous for his political diaries. In November 1967 Crossman was leader of the House of Commons. Harold Wilson, the Prime Minister, had recently decided that the pound should be devalued, by 14 per cent. James Callaghan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had disagreed with this decision. In the second source, Richard Crossman relates his personal opinion from within the political decision making process in 1967 when the Labour government devalued the Pound Sterling by 14% in a controversial move designed to stabilize the economy. As the BBC reported at the time, “The Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, has defended his decision to devalue the pound saying it will tackle the ‘root cause’ of Britain's economic problems. The government announced last night it was lowering the exchange rate so the pound is now worth $2.40, down from $2.80, a cut of just over 14%.” (BBC, 1967) What is interesting in this account is that Crossman believes at the time that Labour is weak and that he is seeing no real leadership from his party leader, Harold Wilson. That he speaks so casually negative about the Prime Minister’s standing and future possibilities in leadership is surprising. He predicts that by 1969 or 1970, the Wilson government will be out in a landslide. Crossman’s diary is useful for the direct observations of the political process it provides, but it can also be tested by looking to see if his prediction comes true. Where Crossman predicted a “landslide” of historical proportions by 1970, in fact the Tories won what the BBC described as a “surprise victory” in the 1970 election by Edward Heath. “Edward Heath has become the new British prime minister after a surprise victory for the Conservatives in the general election.... In an interview with the BBC, the defeated Harold Wilson said he had always admired Edward Heath although he had not agreed with many of his election tactics, including the Conservatives' attempt to ‘drag sterling into the campaign.’” (BBC, 1970) In evaluating Crossman’s political insight, he predicted that it would be a greater rout of the Labour Party in the elections than it actually turned out to be, but he was correct about the outcome. Furthermore, he was exact in pinpointing the issue that led to the loss – the devaluation of the pound. Looking back, on the day that Crossman wrote his journal entry, Edward Heath, who was then the opposition leader, opposed Wilson on his credibility over the devaluation of the pound in a manner that Crossman insightfully recognized as crucial. “Conservative leader Edward Heath has also appeared on television to reply to Mr Wilson's broadcast. He accused the Labour Government of failing in one of its foremost duties - to safeguard the value of the country's money. He said: ‘Having denied 20 times in 37 months that they would ever devalue the pound, they have devalued against all their own arguments.’” (BBC, 1967) That Crossman was so vocally critical of the moral character of the Labour leadership of the time is also symbolic of the Wilson Administration in the late 1960’s in London. Whether his characterization of the individuals involved is correct in the same manner as his electoral prediction is more difficult to say, due to the broad nature of character. However, his writing does point to the divided nature of the Labour Party leadership at the time, something which may have contributed to their defeat as much as his accusations of personal weakness. Question 4: With reference to a historical topic of the 1960s (British decolonization), write a 1,200 word essay considering how at least two historians approach their study of the past. Your answer should refer to such things as: - the clarity and strength of the historians’ arguments; - the influence on their work of other historians; - any biases or limitations in their approach; - their use of sources; Contemporary England recognizes two historians, Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson, as leaders in the field of history, especially in the way that it combines with the analysis of current events. The two historians provide a convenient way of framing the issues for news media, as both are prominent and respected in their fields of research, yet tied to a political party ideology that is trans-Atlantic. In this instance, Schama is broadly aligned with Labour politics and the Democratic Party in America, politically supporting the policies of Blair-Brown and Clinton-Obama. Ferguson, on the other hand, is a Conservative leaning historian with ideological roots in the Tory Party and Republican Party in America, with vocal support for the Bush-Blair alliance as it manifested particularly in Iraq. (Shepley, 20101) Whether or not it is to be completely expected or in modern England is debatable, however both historians show the degree to which history is still politicized and the bias inherent in the production of facts that society regards as history. In that both historians are also closely aligned with television as well as historical writing, they illustrate the way the post-modern historian must navigate professionally both the literary and the television world of mass-media in their work of constructing history. In A History of Britain, Simon Schama approaches the decolonization era of the 1960’s with a focus on the social transformations of the times, and the mutual identities shared by the indigenous social movements in Britain, in music, art, politics, and culture with the anti-colonial leadership. (Schama, 2003) The Liberal view of Empire views the decolonization period largely along Marxist lines, and positive in the way that it enabled a more rational and ideologically just social system. If this is the most radical time for Britain politically in the 20th Century, and the farthest that Socialism had extended as a public experiment in government with the Labour Party, Schama proclaims this as in accordance with the social experimentation and movements in civil rights in the Americas, Africa, and Asia in the anti-colonial struggle. (Schama, 2003) Critically, this is multi-cultural and Socialist leaning history with an emphasis on the events of 1968 being indicative of the overall character of the nation when in fact there was quite a diversity of views, and significant number of adherents favoring the Conservative views of nostalgia for Empire. Niall Ferguson has published two influential works from the Conservative perspective, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World (2003) and Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (2004). As indicated by the titles, Ferguson writes a very pro-England view of the decolonization period of the 1960’s, seeking to highlight the great gifts Great Britain gave to the world through the spread of English culture, customs, and law in the Commonwealth. Ferguson downplays the repressive aspects of Empire while highlighting the “white-man’s gift” to the natives, inherently building and supporting the racist aspects of the Commonwealth. Critically, Ferguson sees a passing of power from Britain to America and the latter playing the role of global Empire building based on natural geo-political advantages such as the size of the American country vs. England, and the economic dominance of the country. Yet, more importantly for Fergusson, he sees the spirit of British Empire passing into America and expressing itself through its foreign policy, continuing the same favorable traditions of English culture and values. Early in his career as a historian, Schama wrote: “If, by venturing so rashly into social, political, and intellectual history, I have trespassed against the increasingly rigorous demarcations which separate historians from one another, it is a sin to which I willingly own. We are too overcrowded a profession to entrench ourselves in pedantic specializations, the cliometricians despising the inummerate, the intellectual historians disdaining the artificers of political history. It is time, perhaps, to poke our heads above several molehills and to take in a view, however nervous and blinking, of the broader historical landscape.” (Schama, 1977) Thus Schama is more concerned with the story in A History of Britain, and not with being overly technical or analytical in historical analysis. Even from his early career, he defends the “Pop” stance as relevant in building the larger narrative of social, political, and intellectual fusion. Yet, critically, as his work deals with the construction of social facts through narrative, there are aspects to a good story that are easy to digest that may not be compatible with a more accurate history truly depicting the story of the times with reference to events that take place and are interpreted outside of one’s personal ideology. Thus, Schama’s treatment of the decolonization is good in drawing connections between social movements around the world and highlight shared trends in English culture, but less strong in building the actual evidence of oppression and logic of Empire politically. Ferguson is quoted in Harvard Magazine as calling for the New American Empire: “Unlike most European critics of the United States…I believe the world needs an effective liberal empire and that the United States is the best candidate for the job.…The United States has good reasons to play the role of liberal empire, both from the point of view of its own security and out of straightforward altruism. In many ways too it is uniquely well equipped to play it. Yet for all its colossal economic, military and cultural power, the United States still looks unlikely to be an effective liberal empire without some profound changes in its economic structure, its social makeup and its political culture.” (Tassel, 2007) In his historical works, the oppressive aspects of Empire and Colonialism are glossed over in favor of the progressive and economic benefits claimed. While often critical of America, Ferguson still believes that it can carry the banner of the British Empire where it was lost previously. He sees British exceptionalism as the root cause of American exceptionalism, and critically displays little awareness or sensitivity to multi-cultural issues in contemporary or colonial history. While his writing does highlight the positive aspects of empire in technology, education, economics, law, and so forth, Ferguson does not give significant time or space to alternative views of history that compete with his own tone politically. As such, his work on decolonization is insensitive to the subjects that may have viewed it differently from the other end of the gun. Nevertheless, it does explain his popularity as a political pundit giving support to the Bush administration from an academic pulpit at Harvard. Unfortunately, the message is one that supported the war in Iraq as the next selling point of Empire. Because of the more progressive social conceptualization in Schama’s treatment of decolonization, which retreats from British exceptionalism as promoted by Ferguson, the former’s works are preferred for teaching, research, or a general conceptualization of British history in the late 20th century. Where both writers are creating narratives of history from political bases, they call into question the validity of the facts as presented, i.e. as objective history or political diatribe and support for the ruling class structures of the status quo. Neither historian critically challenges the reader to go deeper into the issues of decolonization, but rather to accept the narrative as given by the author with its politics. In this manner, the work of both historians opens doors for further scholarship in the field. Bibliography: BBC News (1967), 1967: Wilson defends 'pound in your pocket', ON THIS DAY, 1967, Web, viewed 9 January 2011, . BBC News (1970), 1970: Shock election win for Heath, ON THIS DAY, 1970, Web, viewed 9 January 2011, . Crossman, Richard (1976), The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister, London: Henry Holt & Company, Inc., 1976. Ferguson, Niall (2003), Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, London: Allen Lane; First Edition / First Impression edition, 2003. Ferguson, Niall (2004), Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power, London: Basic Books, 2004. Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald (1953), "The Imperialism of Free Trade," The Economic History Review, Second series, Vol. VI, no. 1 (1953), Web, viewed 9 January 2011, . Schama, Simon (2003), A History of Britain, London: BBC Books, 2003. Schama, Simon (1977), Patriots and Liberators: Revolution in the Netherlands, 1780-1813, New York: Knopf, 1977. Shepley, Nick (2010), Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson at The Hay Festival, Historytimes.com, Monday, 07 June 2010, Web, viewed 9 January 2011, . Tassel, Janet (2007), The Global Empire of Niall Ferguson: Doing history on a sweeping scale, Harvard Magazine, May-June 2007, Web, viewed 9 January 2011, . Read More

 

Read More