How Has the Nature of Cultural Encounter Changed over Time - Coursework Example

world history Human interaction over the past few centuries has been characterized by violence, aggression and the physical subservience of one people under another. Nationalism has been the driving force of inter-cultural exchange for hundreds of years and remains an important force in international relations. Different nations (as well as civilizations) have fought long and bloody wars since the dawn of time and the following essay will ask the question, how has the nature of cultural encounter changed over time? In particular, how have cultural encounters in different regions of the world been shaped by wars, changing political systems, institutionalized ideologies, and new economic processes? We begin with an analysis of colonialism, itself an inherently nationalistic enterprise and then turn to an exploration of the “Age of Catastrophe”, a period in which nationalism culminated in two World Wars. Following this we conclude with a synopsis and an overview of the forces of nationalism in international relations. Colonialism was driven by nationalism and has had a lasting impact on many countries of the developing world. Few countries of the world were immune to colonial penetration and the enduring influence of the colonial legacy can be found in the underdeveloped regions of the world today. The British colonial enterprise was one of the largest and most successful making the British Empire one of the largest known empires in human history. Stretching from the Western North American shores, down to the Caribbean, through the Middle East and into Asia, British colonialism was unmatched at its height in sheer global supremacy. Progressively established over more than a hundred years, the British colonial experiment in Africa has left a lasting imprint on a continent which remains severely underdeveloped. Seeking to explore the impact of the colonial enterprise on the countries of the Africa, the following will discuss British colonialism in South Africa with an emphasis on the British role in the development of racially discriminatory legislation, more than one hundred years before the introduction of Apartheid in South Africa. This analysis will address the infamous Hottentot Code of 1809 and argue that this legal precedent set the stage for state sponsored racism in South Africa. Exploitation was a major feature of the British colonial experience in South Africa. British interest in the land which would later become known as South Africa began with a strategic foray into the Cape Colony and protect the sea route to their Indian empire. As a concerted strategy to limit the cost of this new territory to British state, imported slave labor became the primary means of production and revenue generation in the British Cape Colony. Instead of encouraging the immigration of Europeans to till and develop the land, slavery was the modus operandi during the early years of British control. In addition to the active promotion of slavery, the British were the first to introduce racially-charged legislation to force so-called “free” blacks to work for as little wages as possible. The infamous Hottentot Code of 1809 introduced racially discriminatory legislation which forced indigenous groups such as the Khoikhoi and other non-white natives to carry identity cards listing both their residence and their employment. Persons without identity cards could be forced, under compulsion, to work for a white master. This system mandated forced labor for non-whites without identity cards and firmly engrained a system of racial inequality early on in the modern history of South Africa (Crankshaw 33-44). Seeking to exploit both the people and the land black slavery and forced labor became integral to the development and growth of the Cape Colony during the early period of British imperial administration. Despite the fact that black slavery and forced labor were the backbone of the budding settler community in the southern tip of the continent, the international tide was turning against slavery and the practice became the subject of much debate in the West. Although by 1807 the British Parliament in London ordered a wholesale end to British participation in the sinister practice of slavery, this prohibition was ignored by many in the Colony since it threatened the very existence of the Cape’s labor supply. Due to both Boer (Dutch settler) and British resistance to the prohibition, the Hottentot Code of 1809 was not abolished until 1828. Although this infamous code was eventually done away with, the Hottentot Code and the identity cards which served to represent it, entrenched racial discrimination in South Africa almost a century and a half before the introduction of one of the most insidious state practices known to humankind, the Apartheid system. Colonialism was imperialistic in nature and was based upon the notion of violent subservience and domination of one culture over the other. Nationalistic to its core, colonialism represented inter-cultural encounters based on violence and aggression. We now turn to what Hobsbawm described as the “Age of Catastrophe”, a period of intense nationalist fervor and the outbreak of the Great Wars (Lapping 223-230; Crankshaw 33-44; Hobsbawm 55). Calling it the “Age of Catastrophe”, Hobsbawm (55) eloquently analyzes twentieth century history from the outset of World War One in 1914 to Japanese surrender in 1945, officially ending the Second World War. The era of the Great Wars had dramatic implications on the composition and capabilities of the modern institutional state. States centralized in preparation for the Great Wars of the twentieth century and state apparatuses grew to serve the war effort. States mobilized with the outbreak what Hobsbawm described as “mass wars”: the uniquely modern phenomenon of warfare developed in the twentieth century which required the wholesale diversion of economies, labour and national productivity towards the war effort (44). Accordingly, “from 1914 on, wars were unmistakably mass wars…such a level of mass mobilization cannot be maintained except by a modern high-productivity industrialized economy.” (Hobsbawm 44). State apparatuses grew and “mass wars” required governments to mobilize people, resources, and armaments to serve the war effort. Citizens were conscripted to fight, industry was instructed to produce arms, and the government became intimately involved in the establishment of monopolistic war economies (Hobsbawm 44). Control over the means of production also necessitated heightened levels of rational-bureaucratic administration, organization and management (Hobsbawm 45-46). The result of intense governmental intervention in the economy to serve the war effort was the establishment of what is now known as the “military-industrial complex” (Hobsbawm 44). Accordingly, the United States benefited disproportionately from the establishment of war economies, exhibiting incredible growth during both wars (Hobsbawm 45). The greater institutional capacity of governments following World War One did not, however, make them immune to the calamity caused by the Great Slump of 1929. The Great Wars paved the way for increased governmental intervention in the economic, social, and political realms. Hobsbawm’s “Age of Catastrophe” included both World War One and Two as well as the economic calamity known as the Great Slump. World War One increased the compositions of the modern state with dramatic advances in bureaucratic organization, mass mobilization and state economic intervention. The “Age of Catastrophe” represented intercultural conflict and violence on an unimaginable scale resulting in total destruction during the two World Wars. As with the colonial experiment, nationalism was at the heart of this period in international relations. The Treaty of Westphalia established the precedent for the creation ethnically-based states in Europe during the eighteenth century and set the stage for the emergence of nationalism. Nationalism remains an important, and oftentimes destructive, force in international relations. It can be described as one of the most powerful and important drives in political and social spheres, both historically as well as at present time. Accordingly, many scholars blame the outbreak of both World War One (WWI) and World War Two (WWII) on the destructive forces of nationalism and belligerency following the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand one infamous June morning in 1914. For many, the word nationalism is synonymous violence and destruction. Concluding Remarks Human interaction over the past few centuries has been remarkably violent. Nationalism remains an important, and oftentimes destructive, force in international relations and the forces of nationalism have caused much bloodshed. As a basic principle of the international order, nationalism in responsible for the global division of this planet into ethnically-based nation-states. The Treaty of Westphalia established the principle of state sovereignty, another fundamental principle of the international order which established the nation-state as an autonomous political entity. Similar to tribalism or a sense of social kinship, nationalism as a potent political force began in Europe in the late eightieth century and was connected with a decline in overall religiosity, the development of industrialization, Enlightenment thoughts and a concerted effort by political elites to “build states”. By inculcating a sense of nationalist fervor in the citizens of their respective countries, elites have been able to manipulate nationalism for political purposes. Mass mobilization towards a variety of specific causes through an appeal to nationalist sentiment has been used as a political tool for centuries. Although not exclusively a negative force, nationalism remains an important ordering principle of the international system and a force to be reckoned with. The eighteenth century witnessed the emergence of nationalism and its consequences. Is nationalism necessary a destructive force in the international system? Nationalism need not necessarily be destructive but nationalism, when manipulated by political elites and used for political gain, can in fact be a negative force. Nationalism set the stage for the colonial enterprise in Africa and throughout the developing world and this legacy continues to resonate with the developing countries of the world today. Nationalism also paved the way for two World Wars and incredible destruction, death and violence. The nature of cultural encounter has changed little over time. For many, the word nationalism is synonymous with war, bloodshed and violence and although it need not necessarily be violent, nationalism is an important ordering principle of the international system and a force to be reckoned with. Works Cited Central Intelligence Agency (2009). The United Kingdom. Retrieved August 11 2009, from The World Fact Book https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html. Crankshaw, Owen. Race, Class, and the Changing Division of Labour Under Apartheid. London: Routledge, 1997 Hobsbawm, Eric. Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991. London: Abacus, 1994. Lapping, Brian. Apartheid: A History. Detroit: University of Michigan, 1987. Read More