Cheers for Ho Chi Minh






You were bullied by Britain? Let’s be friends

Nkrumah’s call for unity reflects the tensions between decolonization and the food war because unifying Africa creates a sense of nationalism, and with nationalism, decolonization becomes a real possibility And one of the factors to want freedom from colonizers as well. African unity reflects the tensions of the decolonization because Africa was carved and shoved into boundaries made by essentially clueless Europeans. As they decolonize, the countries are left with an authority void and like Nkrumah mentioned, some states are in worse conditions than others. By calling for unity Africa has the chance to improve together and become one big happy African family rather than constant warfare between different states. It also reflects the old war because the Cold War had an imminent war feelings. A united Africa would dare much better in an upcoming war than a separated one. The United States and the USSR used others to fight so they could indirectly fight. With a unified Africa it would be much more difficult to grab Africans to fight rather than have separate states where it would be easy to just grab people and go.

To World War II or to not World War II

The conclusion of the war partially addressed the causes I had identified. My causes were that the allied powers and axis powers had formed and as a result there were strained relations, Japan decided to take Manchuria, Italy took Ethiopia, and Germany had Hitler which is pretty self explanatory, nazi party and disregard of the treaty of Versailles and all. At the conclusion of the war, the allies were still allied and remained on good terms. However the axis powers didn’t have the reproduces to cause any strained relations or tensions in the area. The allied powers remained dominant after the war. This cause of addressed, on to the next one. Japan took Manchuria. United States decided it would take all of Japan’s pacific island holdings and after much fighting and two atomic bombs later Japan surrendered, but the issue of Manchuria was not specifically addressed and the Chinese people didn’t receive any outstanding aid after Japan’s raid and destruction. It’s was never really resolved then or later. Italy took Ethiopia. While the issue of Ethiopia was never really resolved either at that point, but was later, the allied powers forced Italy to withdraw from the axis powers and join them. Which also addresses the previous cause of tensions between the two alliances. Italy was no longer part of the “bad group” it was forced to withdraw from allied pressure. And now we arrive at Germany. Well the Hitler issue was resolved, he commit suicide. The army issue and resistance issue was resolved. After a lot of bombing and street by street battle German resistance faded after being attacked on all sides and they surrendered. And nothing was really done to Germany despite the fact pretty much everyone hated them.

Analysis of the changes and continuities

There was change in the world after the Great War in that countries all over the world formed alliances with their colonies and other world powers and made enemies with countries that were seeking more control in the world; there was continuity in that countries still wanted control.

Alliance between Triple Entente(Russia, France, and Britain) and colonial possessions( Morocco(Fr.). Algeria(Fr.), Tunisia(Fr.), Egypt(Br.), Finland(Rus.), Poland(Rus.)
Alliance between allies of Triple Entente(Portugal, Italy, Greece, Serbia, Rumania) and the colonial possessions(Libya(It.)
Enemy of Triple Entente and their allies is the Central Powers(Germany, Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary)

The Great War showed that the Central Powers wanted to gain control of the world
The Treaty of Versailles displayed that the Triple Entente and their allies wanted to gain control over the Central Powers by exploiting them in the treaty.

A reason for the change could be the competition between the countries of Europe. Different countries competed against each other resulting in tensions and agreements between countries in case violence should occur. The tensions got to such a stressed state that real alliances formed.

A reason for the continuity is that countries still wanted power. Every country wants resources and be in control of resources to ensure their survival in trade and economics. By having alliances in power in shows that countries still desired power and control over other. Whether it was for resource or safety, countries were still superior to others.

See? We’re all kinda similar

A similarity between the Islamic empires, Ming/ Qing China and Tokugawa Japan is their idea of staying isolated from the rest of the world. None of them wanted any foreign influence or anything that could destabilize them. I think the reasons for this is because before they closed off they all had outside connections, and when they saw what happened with the Caribbean and the pacific islands with the European influence and takeover, they wanted to protect themselves from that. One different thing between the Islamic empires, Ming/ Qing China and Tokugawa Japan is their progression with religion. The Ottomans were intolerant, but became more tolerant, the Safavids were intolerant and increasingly so, the Mughals were tolerant but became intolerant. In Ming/ Qing China Christianity died out and it remained prominently Neo- Confucianism and in Tokugawa Japan there was at first an interesting mix and some syncretism, but then the more traditional religion Shintoism was encouraged. I think the differences are because of survival. By accepting religion the Ottomans were able to survive, the repression of religion allowed for more absolute control in the Safavid empire and the transition to repression was probably a power display for absolute control. China had to rely on itself and that meant sticking to tradition and Tokugawa Japan was reinventing itself and trying to be more Japan like rather than foreign influenced Japan.

Sooo why are we all together

I think Bentley and Foltz grouped all the empire together because they are all similar. They all were Islamic they were all founded by semi-nomadic groups from the Asian steppes, they all follow the essentially the same government system and they all reside in the same geographic region. Tis is different from what we’ve seen before because usually each empire has it’s own dedicated chapter detailing the founders, the origins, the lifespan and the fall. This just intermixes all of the empires in all of the different aspects of the empires whereas before it was just focused on one empire at a time and sometimes little comparisons for context. This indicates the probably for future empires sharing similarities will probably be discussed the same way this has. As we work our way into modern times societies become more similar so it’s a definite possibility many other kingdoms, empires, and societies will be discussed as a collective group.

Fabian Fucan’s fabulous rejection of Christianity

Fabian attacks Christianity through religious aspects by saying that Japan is the land of gods. That rulers have received “Imperial dignity” from the gods to rule. He says Christianity will undermine that tradition and if Christianity is let it then all other European aspects will to and that would be the end of Japan. He also talks about how culturally if Christianity is let in, Europeans will come and take away all of the Japanese traditions and they will destroy all the cultural and religious aspects and “import their own customs”. Fabian also draws from the historical aspect. He knows that in the countries taken over by the Europeans, the first encounter was trying to get propose to convert to Christianity. Fabian says that Christianity will cause the downfall of Japan. They would be taken over like the Philippines and Mexico.