Comparative History Themes to Compare Across the

Comparative Pre-Colonial Structures Why Study? Because without this we REINFORCE an impression that Asia was unchanging.
Examining Pre-Colonial India, China, Japan allows us to understand that this stereotype is itself a PRODUCT of the history of colonialism, and not its CAUSE or certainly no JUSTIFICATION for it.
Without understanding pre colonial Asia, we reinforce the impression that Asian societies only REACTIVE, and had no DYNAMIC or force for change of own.<br>

Crises in Pre-Colonial Asia BEFORE Western Intervention BUT one of the things we CAN notice is that (albeit at diff times) there was an INDIGENOUS CRISIS in POLITICAL, SOCIAL, or ECONOMIC order in each of the three countries
Tokugawa Crisis: Just Studied
China (Nationalities question? Problems with the GENTRY; loss of mandate of heaven)
India (divisions, successor states compete, law and order break down, long distance commerce more difficult)
Though each system, each set of rulers, had their own specific problems, ultimately, the crisis for systems comes because internal system break down<br>

Internal Rivals Mughals: WHO were their challengers? Marathas, plus governors
Tokugawas: Satsuma, Choshu... DAIMYO generally
Manchus: Peasants, triads, rival dynastic possibilities, anti-Manchu feelings.
CRISES and RIVALRIES EXACERBATED (catalyzed?) by role of Western Powers in all three cases
Elaborate<br>

Nature of the Pre-Colonial systems clearly exploitative... Because they were indigenous that does not make them without flaws!
hierarchical
BUT Important to recognize, that until the Nineteenth Century, and that too the second half of the century, they do not see themselves as "backward" in comparison to West. They are relatively self sufficient, economically and culturally
This was to change with the western impact. Military conquest, or threat, ECONOMIC forcible integration, also ensured that "Asians" now judged by new standards, these STANDARDS are "modern“
AND THAT THEY ARE OUR STANDARDS TODAY!
Through this comparative exercise we are seeking to HISTORICIZE MODERNITY, rather than treat is as a standard, a yardstick, that was “always-already” there<br>

Comparing Western Interventions need to undertake comparison in a way which will account for BOTH similarity and differences
to understand that all three Asian societies came under influence of and domination by the West
the different nature of this influence and domination
To understand the reasons for this difference
Yet, to keep in mind that there are also similarities in their experiences despite the differences
Most critically, to understand these in a larger framework, that of IMPERIALISM<br>

Basic Definitions COLONIALISM: Implies DIRECT or INDIRECT control – the subordination of the SOVEREIGNITY (independence of action) of the colonized by the colonizers
“Colonialism is a relationship of domination between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and of their ordained mandate to rule. “ Jurgen Osterhammel, Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (1997)
IMPERIALISM: Refers more to a GLOBAL SYSTEM or IDEOLOGY of domination, often related to the workings of global capitalism
“Imperialism” is the concept that comprises all forces and activities contributing to the construction and the maintenance of transcolonial empires. Imperialism presupposes the will and the ability of an imperial center to define as imperial its own national interests and enforce them worldwide in the anarchy of the international system.” Osterhammel
19th-20 C Colonialism operates WITHIN the system of IMPERIALISM
Some IMPERIAL Powers, such as the United States, may not have obvious COLONIES<br>

IMPERIALISM As much as the EIC acquisition of political in India, the opening up of China and Japan too were dictated by economic and to a lesser extent political considerations. They were part of an international movement the rest of the world understands as IMPERIALISM.
IMPERIALISM, that is the subordination of other parts of the world to the interests of the colonizing or imperialist powers related to phases of development within capitalism:
1st phase, exemplified by the early EICs of Europe was the MERCANTALIST phase. Trade in commodities the main source of wealth. This was phase of capital accumulation, that later allowed for the Industrial Revolution. Mercantilist policies led to annexation of Indian territories.
2nd phase coincided with INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM when production in full swing. FREE TRADE rather than mercantilism the ideology because of the need for MARKETS. CHINA and JAPAN part of this
Asian (or for that matter African nations) had very little say (aka freedom) in the matter, because the self-serving ideology of free trade was buttressed by force. Ghosh’s novel illustrates this through the everyday lives of merchants in Canton<br>

Differences and Connections Most obvious difference is that British acquired territorial control over India. But none of the Western Powers do so in China or Japan. WHY?
CRITICAL DIFFERENCE: Timing. Influence over India at a time when MERCANTILISM rules. Maximum profits via trade. Acquisition of territory HELPS increase profits.
So, whenever possible, Mercantilist Capitalism drives Europeans to acquire territory. Britain over India, Dutch over what is today Indonesia, French over SE Asia. In the 18th C US still in formative phase, lots of internal colonialism possible, no need to expand. Manchus too strong in China so no question of territorial control.
By middle of 19thC context different. Industry (manufacture) allows for profits that are of much larger magnitude than trade. MARKETS (for manufactured goods) are of much greater significance than territory (taxes from conquered people helping trade)
This is the time when western intervention occurs in China and Japan.
Also Industrial Revolution in other parts of the world, all of whom are looking for markets. COMPETITION, so could not divide up the world quite as easily e.g. US also interested in China and Japan markets. So we have the IDEOLOGY of free trade, no barriers.
Do Note: This is also the time when, right after revolt of 1857, Queen Victoria makes a proclamation saying Britain not interested in acquiring any more territory in India!<br>

Imperialism and Culture Economic reasons often justified in cultural terms: of white man's mission etc.
This is the time we see the emergence of new representations of Asian societies as somehow timeless or unchanging.
That these are NEW, is most evident in the case of India and China. Recall Voltaire on China in contrast to Hegel. Orientalists in contrast to Anglicists
Why do these interpretations arise.
One, simply a result of power. Europeans and Westerners are ruling over dictating terms to Indians and Chinese
But also, because this was also time when EUROPEAN societies undergoing great change. Apart from technological and economic change with the Industrial Revolution, there was the French Revolution, Enlightenment, changes in politics, in legal codes, with new social classes coming to power, women entering public life, etc. Thus, Europeans contrast Asia with own rapidly changing context, and – reinforced by military victories -- come up with series of stereotypes about Asia.
EUROPEAN or Western experience now becomes the new NORM (the YARDSTICKS of modernity). Asian societies had to measure up to these standards, because politically and economically subordinate.<br>

Impacts Create new types of pressures economic and political for rulers in all three Asian countries
New hierarchies: international and nationally
i. subordinate position in world economy, FORCIBLE integration into a global capitalist economy dominated by Western powers.
ii. internally, more differentiation, for one (at least in India and China) between the westerners and natives.
But also WITHIN Asian societies. HOW?
India: land as commodity, traders, moneylenders, western-educated middle class, sharper distinctions between social groups based on “traditionalized” hierarchies of caste or religion
Japan: Joi/Kaikoku. Social and Economic differences, as we will see not all benefit from Meiji era changes , peasants, women suffer, as we'll see in second part of the course.
China: Confucianist vs Radical Thinkers. Manchu vs Han dichotomy exacerbated. Peasants suffer, lead to revolts, not just Taiping and others, but (as we will see) to other revolts more explicitly anti Western.<br>

ASIAN RESPONSES We will go into these in more detail in the SECOND part of the course, starting with India.
But in China and Japan we have seen leadership try to use "western technology with eastern morals" as traditional elites try to adapt and adopt, but not give up power. However, technology is always part of larger social process, and never simply transportable in isolation. Traditional elites’ power itself based on earlier technological economies. The use of new technologies demand new modes of social organization, and released forces that eventually make social and political changes too
One general point that CAN be made however, and that is the EXTREME AMBIVALENCE towards modernity that prevailed in reaction, e.g. in Japan and China, also India.
Use technology to overthrow western power. THAT was the approach of the self strengthening reformers of China after the unequal treaties, and even the Kaikoku Samurai of Japan.
So, importance, even greater reverence for “tradition” along with the adoption of (or adaptation to) Western modernity.
So, as will see, even proponents of the modern try to cast their arguments as promoting Tradition. And why “tradition” itself comes to be modernized over much of Asian history, even today.
MODERNITY is ASSOCIATED with CONQUEST, thus a more ambivalent response, less obviously a good, than in West. More of this in next section of the course<br>