Category Archives: History

Genocide? ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Instead

The term “ethnic cleansing” was used as a euphemism for ‘genocide’ during the Bosnian conflict.banja-luka-ethnic-cleansing-of-bosniaks-bosnian-muslims-and-bosnian-croats

The CIA study found that the Serbs were responsible for most of the “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia. While Croatian and Muslims had committed crimes, they “lacked the sustained intensity, orchestration, and scale of the Bosnian Serb’s efforts.”

It is estimated that the Serbs were responsible for 90% of the atrocities there.  Bill Clinton, as part of the effort to avoid US involvement, was convincing in claiming that atrocities were committed equally on both sides.

Bolshevism: False Promises & Mutinies

The Bolsheviks made a lot of promises to the army and the peasants, about better distribution of food and land.  The Bolshevik position won out over the Mensheviks because the Bolsheviks “merged a peculiarly Russian tradition of revolutionary zeal” and basically convinced the people that they could get things together quickly. Nearly sixty thousand troops mutinied in Petrograd and joined the revolution, causing Nicholas II to abdicate.

WW1: “Over the Top” Determination

British soldiers going over the top, Western Front 1918.

British soldiers going over the top, Western Front 1918.

Most of the Allied force in that battle consisted of eager British volunteers. In one of the bloodiest battles in history, the fact that men kept “going over the top” to a coin toss chance of death against entrenched German forces.

To re-take French land, no less.

This a testament to determination and commitment to what they were fighting for. The Allied troops had poor equipment, little experience, dismal leadership, and clearly lacked the strength and resources had by their enemy…yet they kept going in the face of death, persevered, and changed the tide of WW1.

Political Inquisitions & Dubious Charges

Some of the Inquisitions charges were laughable.

ex: Joan d’Arc’s official charge of heresy was a for a ‘relapse’…in wearing pants.

tndHG5e_Jan_Hus_executionThe inquisitions were just as much a political issue as they were religious issues. I noticed as much in my study of Jan Hus, a priest and philosopher who was executed by burning in 1415. During the time of the Great Schism, when there was more than one claim to the papacy, Hus was jailed for speaking out against indulgences and claiming that Jesus Christ, instead of the pope, was the “supreme judge.” This was at a time when the Papacy was extremely corrupt. Antipope John XXIII (a claimant to the position) ordered an investigation, and eventually a trial occurred, considered unfair for its time. He was sentenced and burned for heresy, even though he made a compelling and rational case for himself. His death wasn’t so much about the supremacy of Christianity: If he hadn’t questioned the indulgence system, or the legitimacy of the pope, the trial may not have ever occurred.

Elite Guided Revolution of Third Estate

Pillar10-History-French-Revolution-Delacroix

Liberty Leading the People

Even thought the third estate was comprised of shopkeepers, lawyers, etc. their political responsibilities encompassed that of the French peasants. I found it an unfortunate failure of the Revolution that they “represented the outlook of the elite” at the Estates General in 1789.

Had power not been claimed by the bourgeoisie (in the interests of the nobility), but for the whole of the People, many of the tensions that continued might have been quelled instead of the free-for-all that took place.

Instead, we are left another historical example of revolution stopped cold by the self focused usurpations of the middle class (ex: more land, more money, more power)…revolution presents opportunity. The question is, can you get that many people to behave rationally?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Leading_the_People

WW1: The Somme Offensive

"The most gigantic, tenacious, grim, futile and bloody fight ever waged in the history of war"

“The most gigantic, tenacious, grim, futile and bloody fight ever waged in the history of war.”

The Somme Offensive was a battle that took place in 1916 during World War One between the German Army and a combined British and French Force.  It occurred on the Somme River in northern France. “Somme” being Celtic for “tranquility,” the battle was anything but that. It is one of the bloodiest engagements on record, resulting in more than 1.5 million casualties.  It was planned by Joseph Joffre, a French General whose retreat and counterattack won the Battle of the Marne for the Allies in 1914 as well as Sir Douglas Haig, a British General.  Part of larger scheme to attack the Central Powers from multiple fronts, the Allies objective in the Somme region was to break through the German line and deliver a decisive blow. The hope was to recapture occupied French towns. The British fought the bulk of Somme Offensive because French troops were mostly committed to protecting Verdun, a French city to the west.[1]

Haig, the commander of the offensive, felt that an artillery bombardment of a million shells, over the course of a week, would demoralize the entrenched German Amy.  Afterwards, Haig believed that Allied forces could overrun the German line, basically walking right through.[2] This false hope was passed on by subordinated commanders to the troops.  However, Haig severely underestimated the level of German preparation for the attack.  The German Army had constructed thirty foot wide trenches, fronted by wire, which would make passage to and beyond the trenches difficult and deadly.  The attack began ten minutes at 7:20 a.m. on 1 July 1916; with the explosion of an allied mine the Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt[3]. Ten minutes after the explosion, the allies advanced.  The Allies fought their way six miles into German occupied France, but failed in achieving their military goals against a well positioned German Army.[4]  On first day of battle, nearly sixty thousand casualties were suffered by the British.  This was the largest number of troops killed or wounded in British history.  Such a loss severely damaged national morale. It was also a tragedy for Newfoundlanders who lost over 700 men, only.[5]

The Somme became one of the largest battles of the war.  It would last until December, and ultimately see the introduction of that tank on the side of the Allies. What happened at the Somme can be seen many ways: as a senseless waste of life; a courageous victory by inexperienced, yet determined volunteers; and, sadly inept leadership by overzealousness and gross underestimation.  Even though the Allies saw great losses, the Somme Offensive can be seen as the beginning of the end for the Central Powers.  The outcome of the battle in the Allies favor would be a precursor to the defeat of the Germany and the end of World War Two.[6]

GuardianUK coverage:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/09/first-world-war-somme

Bibliography

“Battle of the Somme.” Google Video.   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6108229046742084686&ei=0klFS43-O5m-qQLDkb3eAQ&q=somme&hl=en&client=firefox-a# (accessed January 6, 2010)

“Battles-the Battle of the Somme, 1916.”  Firstworldwar.com: a multimedia history of world war one. http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm (accessed January 6, 2010).

“Newfoundland and the Great War: The Somme, 1916.” Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage. June 2008. http://www.heritage.nf.ca/greatwar/articles/somme.html (accessed January 6, 2010).

Simkins, Peter. Essential Somme: The bloody first day. http://www.essentialsomme.com/articles/first_day_somme_02.htm (accessed January 6, 2010).

[1] “Battle of the Somme.” Google Video.   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6108229046742084686&ei=0klFS43-O5m-qQLDkb3eAQ&q=somme&hl=en&client=firefox-a# (accessed January 6, 2010)

[2] “Battles-the Battle of the Somme, 1916.”  Firstworldwar.com: a multimedia history of world war one. http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm (accessed January 6, 2010).

[3]  “Battle of the Somme.” Google Video.   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6108229046742084686&ei=0klFS43-O5m-qQLDkb3eAQ&q=somme&hl=en&client=firefox-a# (accessed January 6, 2010)

[4] Simkins, Peter. Essential Somme: The bloody first day. http://www.essentialsomme.com/articles/first_day_somme_02.htm (accessed January 6, 2010).

[5] Newfoundland and the Great War: The Somme, 1916.  Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage. June 2008. http://www.heritage.nf.ca/greatwar/articles/somme.html (accessed January 6, 2010)

[6] Ibid.

Topic Report 2  01/06/10

 

Occupation: Claim Your African Cake

Berlin Conference

Berlin Conference

In their scramble for Africa, the dominant European powers of the late 1800’s took claim to the continent for a number of reasons, foremost, out of necessity to compete with their neighbors who were doing the same. This was for resources and trade to existing and new markets borne “from the demand for raw materials unavailable in Europe, especially copper, cotton, rubber, tea, and tin, to which European consumers had grown accustomed and upon which European industry had grown dependent.”[1] Sub-Saharan Africa, in turn, was a new market for surplus European goods, and not participating in the Berlin Conference would have put them at a loss to their competitors. As well, instability in the Suez and the Barbary region necessitated an alternative thru-route into Africa and points east. Part of their effort to solve the Suez and Barbary pirate matters encouraged the plan for powers to protect their trade ability by occupation and control of Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia (for example).

Although slavery had been essentially outlawed by all the European powers, much of the proposal was billed “The diplomats put on a humanitarian façade by condemning the slave trade, prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages and firearms in certain regions, and by expressing concern for missionary activities.” In the worst case, the King Leopold’s land acquisitions—‘trinket’ treaties negotiated by Henry Morton Stanley wherein the signee would have no concept of what they were participating in—were organized into a front-agency “International Congo Society” and proclaimed the “Congo Free State” at the conference under the personal control of Leopold. Very soon, the exploitation and harsh treatment of labor for rubber would soon have the ‘Free’ ‘State’ ignoring its advertised precepts, and original ‘scientific’ beginnings “as an entirely disinterested humanitarian body” which sought to “administer the Congo for the good of all, handing over power to the locals as soon as they were ready for that grave responsibility.”[1]

The terms for keeping the European claims under the conference mandated “effective occupation”—European powers could acquire rights over colonial lands only if they actually possessed them: “if they had treaties with local leaders, if they flew their flag there, and if they established an administration in the territory to govern it with a police force to keep order.” As well, the dispossessed white Voortrekkers (slaveholding), were moving into the interior of southern Africa, establishing independent Boer states, contrary to the aims of the United Kingdom, and were not included as parties to the partitioning. In fact, the Boers were to become detainees in modern history’s first concentration camps for in their attempt to assert their independence.

[1] http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2007/africa_scramble.html

Direct/Indirect Colonial Management

Foncha Ahidjo, West Cameroon (1960)

Foncha Ahidjo, West Cameroon (1960)

The European powers each managed their holdings differently, but the most utilized strategies were Indirect Rule and Assimilation, by the British and French colonies. Employed by the British, Indirect rule sought to dictate from London, and rule through local (loyal) “chiefs.” The French sought to assimilate Africa into their empire, and disseminate the French culture to Africans. The Portuguese, in contrast, made no effort at a teaching Africans to read, and literacy rates generations later reflect that—in 1945, less than 1 person in 100 in the Portuguese colonies could read.[1] The continent would be subject to European rule, save for countries of Liberia and Ethiopia which maintained their independence and self-governance.

The method of ‘Indirect rule’ was favored by the British, whereby the native group is left to administer locally. Chiefs were appointed, usually men loyal to the Empire, as Africa’s indigenous leaders were prone to capture and imprisonment. These chiefs were subjects to the Empire, installed by British Administrators to collect taxes and conscript labor for road and rail building projects, in addition to maintaining local order. In their role as agents of the empire, the chiefs would bear the brunt of local criticism for policies and mandates crafted in the colonial capital or elsewhere and acted as a buffer against anti-colonial sentiment; the chiefs were seen as transgressors, locally, for British crimes mandated upon them.[2] Africans were seen as a lesser species, and though Britain had ended its role in the Atlantic Slave Trade, their managers ruled with racism in mind. The British though that the ‘inferior’ African people, could never attain the level of culture and sophistication of a European nation, and preferred their arrangement with Africans to be one of master and servant.

The French chose to adopt the attitude of ‘assimilation’ in their colonial holdings. They incorporated their African colonies into their Empire, and sought to share the French culture, which they viewed as enlightened. [3] They allowed for any African to become a French citizen, by virtue of adopting French ways and customs. The French established schools to aid in literacy, and allowed for travel to France and education in universities. Exhibiting none of the racism of the United Kingdom’s colonial endeavors, the French also allowed representation in their national assembly. In Senegal, communes were established in Gorée, Dakar, Rufisque, and Saint-Louis[4] which exemplified their attempt at integrating the French culture into Africa, although most Africans living outside the communes had no access to schools. Davidson notes that by 1926, fewer than 50,000 out a regional population of 13 million acquired the status of French citizen.[5]  Many Africans, retained their native customs, and carried on their traditional way of life. However the culture was pervasive enough that the Franc survives as the currency and French as a predominant language, more than fifty years after Senegalese nationhood.[6]

The most devastating method of management from this time period employed by all European powers was the development of the cash-crop, or monoculture. These crops, exclusively for export, were grown to the exclusion of the regions basic food needs, and are responsible for famine to this day. In his book, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa,” Walter Rodney illustrates how “in Gambia rice farming was popular before the colonial era, but so much of the best land was transferred to groundnuts that rice had to be imported on a large scale to try and counter the fact that famine was becoming endemic.”[7] This was a practice repeated all throughout Africa, and left Africans vulnerable not only to famine, but the ravages of crop failure and international price fluctuations.[8] According to Rodney, these land use practices are responsible for rendering the continent “helpless in the face of capitalist manoeuvres.”[9]

[1] Basil Davidson, “Modern Africa, 3rd Edition” 1994.

[2] Amii Omara-Otunu, Lecture, University of Connecticut, September 24th, 2013.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Maelenn-Kégni Touré “Black Past – Four Communes of Senegal (1887-1960)” accessed October 7, 2013: http://www.blackpast.org/gah/four-communes-senegal-1887-1960

[5] Basil Davidson, “Modern Africa, 3rd Edition” 1994, page 38.

[6] The CIA World Factbook, Entry “Senegal” accessed October 7, 2013:  https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sg.html

[7] Rodney, Walter, and Abdul Rahman Mohamed Babu. 1974. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Washington: Howard University Press.

[8] Amii Omara-Otunu, Lecture, University of Connecticut, September 24th, 2013.

[9] Rodney, Walter, and Abdul Rahman Mohamed Babu. 1974. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Washington: Howard University Press.

REVIEW: Trinity’s “Dreams of Antigone”

Trinity Repertory Company, Providence Rhode Island (2008)

antigone4STORYTELLING UTILITY

At first glance upon stepping into the theatre, one could possibly believe that they were about to witness an off day performance.  The set appeared cluttered with building materials, such as scaffolding and buckets.  My first impression was one of curiosity:  was the show going to start late, so that stage hands could tidy up?  But alas, the story began.  The actors filtered out on to the stage and within moments, those building materials were magically transformed into props, a catalyst for a common theme of utility throughout the presentation; one that would capitalize on the economical use of stage, theatre, and props expected of quality repertory performance.

The scaffolding, at one time doubling as the ceiling of a kitchen and later effectively (and artistically) used as a vehicle to convey battle, was likely used at some point to dress the set.  This minimalist use, while cutting the cost of production, took away the glitter of “the prop” to further assist the viewer in focusing on the weight of the presentation.  The costumes, not set to period, and not exactly “our own,” were simple enough for the audience to show that a “dress is a dress” and a “uniform is a uniform,” so that this performance was not necessarily “our time,” but “anytime.”  The use of colors helped to differentiate flashback/dream scenes from “the reality”.  The striking uses of black and white in the officers uniforms, made it simple enough to know you were witnessing something that had passed, and that those in white were conspicuously absent from that reality.  You could almost immediately surmise that these men are the dead that which this story revolves around.

The characters were people we could empathize with:  Antigone’s distress over the loss of loved ones and her commitment to do what she sees as morally right; and Creon’s dilemma as a person in a position of power that has to live with the consequence of a hasty executive decision.  All of this is presented in language, mannerisms, and attitudes familiar to the audience.  These were no longer the ancient Greeks, but friends and neighbors; real people.  The “chorus” has been turned into the voice of the “crowd”.  Really, as it has always been, but now adapted and modernized in an artful way that carries the tradition to a fresh set of eyes and ears; representing the “crowd” in our current dictionary definition understanding of it.

Though it would be beneficial, isn’t necessary to have read the original story of Antigone or Oedipus.  This performance deviates from a direct telling, providing the exposition of the Theban plays that catches the viewer up, condensing the saga for thorough understanding in a two hour or so time period.  It looks at the story in a new way, but still keeps the substance and message of the original; the creative force behind the performance has tailored dialogue to the modern audience, providing fresh language and perspective to a timeless story of individual tragedy and political tyranny.  A Greek classic told again, cognizant of the strength of the original’s power to resonate through strong performance and quality oration to tell a struggle that still has relevance in modern times.

IMAGE: http://tristan-jeffers.squarespace.com/dreams-of-antigone/

Tito: A Unified Yugoslavia

Tito2Josip Broz Tito was a Croatian Communist leader of Yugoslavia.   Following World War II Tito helped to create a “second Yugoslavia,” a socialist federation that that would last from 1946 to 1991.  Following the war, Marshal Tito brought together very different ethnic groups to unite the country of Yugoslavia.

Even though he was a Croat, he decided to rule from Serbian Belgrade. Through clever politics and large cult of personality, “Tito kept the peace peacefully.”[1]  Even though Tito had helped to found Cominform, he would eventually split with Soviet communism.  A socialist state unlike the USSR, he believed in what is generally referred to as “Titoism.”

Titoism called for a “national communism”; an independent brand of communism specific to the needs of the state that chooses it. This new brand of communism, because of its separation from the path of the USSR, allowed Yugoslavia to attain US aid via the Marshall Plan.  Eventually the gap between Soviet communism and Titoism would widen as he supported a policy of non-alignment between the two hostile blocs in the Cold War.[2]   In 1961, Tito co-founded the Non-Aligned Movement, which increased his diplomatic standing throughout the world.  Not only did he have the backbone to stand against Stalin and the USSR, he was able to keep the West at a distance comfortable to him and the interests of his country. “The event was significant not only for Yugoslavia and Tito, but also for the global development of socialism, since it was the first major split between Communist states.”[3]

Tito is seen as “creating a middle ground” between the United States and Russia during the Cold War. His policies were seen as helping contribute to peace.[4] Tito’s great strength had been in suppressing nationalist movements within the country, even imprisoning future war criminals like Radovan Karadzic.  This helped maintained unity throughout Yugoslavia while creating a multi-ethnic union of socialism.  To many, he was “considered a benevolent Father about whom rousing songs were composed and whose portrait still occupies a prominent place some homes and public buildings…Children honored him en masse every year on his birthday, May 25.”[5]  This semblance of unity was maintained by sending dissidents to work camps or demoting them from power. Though sometimes his methods of suppression could be called into question, it is his stance against internal nationalist movements which kept the Yugoslav republics together.[6]

Bibliography

“Fathers and Regimes: Tito and Yugoslavia.” http://cidc.library.cornell.edu/Dof/yugoslavia/yugo.htm (9 January 2010).

“Serbia destroyed Tito’s Yugoslavia.” New Kosova Report, 15 May 2009. http://www.newkosovareport.com/200905151766/Views-and-Analysis/Serbia-destroyed-Tito-s-Yugoslavia.html (9 January 2010).

“The World: Yugoslavia: Tito’s Daring Experiment.” Time.  9 August 1971 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903055,00.html (9 January 2010).

[1] Time. “The World: Yugoslavia: Tito’s Daring Experiment.”  9 August 1971 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903055,00.html (9 January 2010).

[2] Time.

[3] “Fathers and Regimes: Tito and Yugoslavia.” http://cidc.library.cornell.edu/Dof/yugoslavia/yugo.htm (9 January 2010).

[4] New Kosova Report, 15 May 2009. “Serbia destroyed Tito’s Yugoslavia.” http://www.newkosovareport.com/200905151766/Views-and-Analysis/Serbia-destroyed-Tito-s-Yugoslavia.html (9 January 2010).

[5] Fathers and Regimes:Tito and Yugoslavia.

[6] Ibid.