Inter-Ethnic Relations among Asian Populations - Essay Example

? Any time that one group of people subjugates another as a means of deriving a degree of political or economic gain, the distinct and noticeable aspects of racism are evident. This can of course be seen during the age of colonialism that has characterized so much of the latter half of the 20th century and beyond. This essay will focus specifically on the whether or not the colonial approach was as a result of racialism, or whether race and racism were merely secondary aspects of colonial rule. I will attempt to analyze colonialism, what drove it, some of the colonial effects that such an approach implemented upon the populations with which it integrated, and seek to draw inference upon which has the stronger claim to defining colonialism as an overarching system. Firstly, one can consider the roles that economics and business played in the context of colonialism. At the root of this, there existed the profound desire to profit and benefit from the riches that could be extracted from around the globe. Within such an understanding, one can see that colonialism was fundamentally a means by which the colonial powers sought to better themselves, the nation, and their respect and prestige. One might argue that racism is therefore not the motive by which colonialism was able to spread its influence. However, must consider the fact of what specific mindset stimulated colonialism in the first place. Ultimately, there was the idea that other non—white populations were of little to no value and therefore could be exploited without any moral dilemmas. Thus, slavery, genocide, rape, and the deprivation of wealth and culture could be precipitated by the colonial power with little concern regarding how the actions might affect the indigenous populations. In such a way, the understanding that colonialism was ultimately and primarily an economic system that shows aspects of racism, begins to unravel (Chambers). Due to the fact that such a system cannot and would not have existed had there not been a profound level of racial superiority in the first place, it is the understanding of this author that the economic explanation and definition of colonialism is ultimately only part of the explanation. Secondly, for those that might be tempted to view Hirschman’s argument that colonialism was solely defined by race, it can and should be considered that the racial understanding, with regards to how Europeans integrated with the subjugated populations, differed widely based upon who the colonial ruler was and what geographic/ethnic communities they might be integrating with at the given time. Although it may be convenient to assume that colonial rule was undifferentiated, racist, xenophobic, and uniform throughout the entire world, the fact of the matter is that there was a varying degree of severity, cruelty, and respect- or disrespect, existed depending on the context. For instance, when one compares the means by which the British colonial powers integrated with and dealt with their Indian colonies, this cannot be compared with the way that they dealt with some of their African holdings. The same can of course be said with regards to the means by which the British managed and integrated with their Caribbean holdings as well as their Asian and Southeast Asian holdings. Within these areas, it was common for the British to enslave and impress the natives and various levels of servitude, such actions were not necessarily common within other colonial holdings. Evidence of this is of course seen across the board with relation to how the British interacted with every single one of their colonial possessions within Asia. Whereas colonial treatment was nominally better in sectors of mainland China and certain parts of India, the enslavement and use of the population as coolies in the majority of Asian colonies was uniform and a pervasive tactic of British and other European powers colonial method of operation (Bradley, 2004). Evidence of this can of course be seen with relation to how the British, upon entering Malaysia began to immediately impress the natives into servitude; or the means by which the French, upon acquiring Vietnam did exactly the same process in order to provide workers for construction/building projects and plantation help. Though it might be argued that this differential treatment is evidence that racism is not the sole identifier of colonialism, the alternative interpretation would argue that the differentials and treatments that have been noted are merely evidence of the differentials in racism that existed at that time between various groups of individuals. Ultimately, the less respect that the British or other colonial powers had for a given group directly translated to the means by which these powers understood the overall level of cultural development that was displayed within the given group. As will be seen in the final sections of this analysis, this level of differentiation necessarily calls in the question many other factors. This differential of treatment could easily be recognized with regards to the way in which the British colonial power interacted with and treated the native population of Burma (now Myanmar) compared to the way that it interacted with and treated the population of India. Although both forms of governance were necessarily repressive and worked to deprive the native populations of their right to self determination, freedom, and natural resources, the level of overall respect that was paid to the Burmese was great less than that which was paid to the Indian culture and population (Brown, 2011). Although the underlying reasons for this cannot fully be known, it can be assumed that one of the key determinants for this was the tacit understanding among British colonials that the Burmese civilization was somehow less impressive and/or important as compared to its Indian counterpart. Though it might be seen by the reader that seeking to differentiate between cultural superiority and/or racism is merely splitting hairs, the fact that matter is that the level and degree to which the British, or other colonial powers, were willing to integrate with, form alliances, and exhibit a degree of cross-cultural understanding was ultimately dependent upon the level and extent to which the colonial power believed that the given group displayed a degree of civilization. It is at this juncture that the differentiation between civilization, ethnicity, and race all come together. Prejudices from each of these three ultimately tie back into one another and create complex web of interrelation with regards to how the colonial power viewed the given group. Ultimately, cultural superiority and/or the level of civilization that existed were the primary determinants in seeking to define the way in which the colonial power related, associated, allied, and integrated with the stakeholders of their colonial empires. Finally, as a means of answering the primal question with which this research has been tasked, race was not the definitive category colonial rule. Ultimately, even though race and racial prejudice could greatly with regards to the way in which colonial powers integrated with their territorial holdings and populations, it was the desire to exploit the resources (both human and material) that drove the practice (HOKOWHITU, 2012). Rather than being a framework that was driven by racial prejudice, colonialism was merely an early form of capitalism that sought to gain a maximum level of resources within the shortest amount of time. Thus, racial prejudice could partly be attributed to the Industrial Revolution, improvements in colonial naval power and projection, and the means by which nationalism and sovereignty were understood at that time. Hirschman’s approach, although partly correct, ignores many of the determining factors of colonial rule. Rather than seeking to define colonialism based merely on understanding of race and racism; elements of culture, economics, and a host of other factors were incentives of colonialism. From such an understanding, the postcolonial situations of these places can partly be understood. Whereas many that were brutally repressed and high elements of racism existed experienced difficult often times dramatic transitions to the postcolonial era, those places that experienced a relatively light and non – racial approach were fundamentally affected by this and developed to a more favorable degree. References Bradley, M 2004, ‘Civilizational Discourse and Visions of the Self in Vietnam', Journal Of World History, 15, 1, pp. 65-83, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 April 2013. Brown, I 2011, 'Tracing Burma's Economic Failure to Its Colonial Inheritance', Business History Review, 85, 4, pp. 725-747, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 April 2013. Chambers, I 2011, 'Race, Modernity and the Challenge of Democracy', Third Text, 25, 3, pp. 251-256, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 April 2013. HOKOWHITU, B 2012, 'Racism, Colonialism, and Indigeneity in Canada: A Reader', Junctures: The Journal For Thematic Dialogue, 15, pp. 58-62, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 April 2013. Read More