Decolonization, or the dismantlement of the colonial empires, allegedly represented an effort at ending European/Western global hegemony with the subsequent transfer of power to the former colonial peoples. In the fact of autonomy or independence many a leader of anti-colonial movements recognized the restoration of historical justice, a kind of mental return to the path traversed before the colonial times with an aim of resuming this interrupted movement.
Yet, in more than one respect, the newly founded states remained profoundly bound to their former masters; economically dependent, they relied on foreign industries and exports. Politically weak, they were often indefensible in the face of intrusions or interventions carried out by the Europeans and Americans putatively to bring stability into the region. Most importantly, however, was a type of mental dependence which doomed the recent members of the international community to to the stock ideas concocted by the West; suffice it to say that the very idea of national self-determination (to say nothing of the nation-state) appeared and was first applied in the West, seeping then out through the narrow European confines when the Old World was no longer capable of keeping this "privileged right" to itself.
So then, what was decolonization - the restoration of historical 'truth', of history itself to the dispoiled colonial peoples, or the extension of the European principles to the rest of the world - principles, which ultimately underlie the system of dominance of which Imperialism was but one expression?
Yet, in more than one respect, the newly founded states remained profoundly bound to their former masters; economically dependent, they relied on foreign industries and exports. Politically weak, they were often indefensible in the face of intrusions or interventions carried out by the Europeans and Americans putatively to bring stability into the region. Most importantly, however, was a type of mental dependence which doomed the recent members of the international community to to the stock ideas concocted by the West; suffice it to say that the very idea of national self-determination (to say nothing of the nation-state) appeared and was first applied in the West, seeping then out through the narrow European confines when the Old World was no longer capable of keeping this "privileged right" to itself.
So then, what was decolonization - the restoration of historical 'truth', of history itself to the dispoiled colonial peoples, or the extension of the European principles to the rest of the world - principles, which ultimately underlie the system of dominance of which Imperialism was but one expression?
In my opinion,the decolonization,which started after WWII, was not the establishment of historical "truth". Of course,colonized country started fight for liberty after war. But European countries was not so much against to decolonization. Because exhausted politics and debts after war shaked the power of these countries.Unable to control their colonies,European countries actively started decolonization. With decolonization changed the internal and external European politics.Western countries stopped the fight for colonial possessions between each others.Moreover they united to "rob" Third World countries.So at this point started absolutely new period.However, Europe still used Third World countries for their own puposes.
ReplyDeleteFrom my point of view, decolonization was the extansiom of the European priciples to the rest of the world. It must be mentioned, that the main and major causes of decolonization was a weakening of mothercountries after WWII, and the USSR’s and USA’s negative attitude towards colonization. Likewise, the mother countries’s negative attitude towards colonisation. But the influence of USSR and USA urged on the decolonization. It is a well-known fact, that there are actually 4 stages of decolonization. Desite the fact, that the colonized countries, which became the independent, did not become economically self-sufficient. The major problem of Third World countries’s was the backwardness with which most of the young states can not cope.
ReplyDeleteextension*
ReplyDeleteThe relaxation of colonial system started in Europe after the World War II. The growth of people’s national identity was expressed in spurt of national liberation movement. In 1940-50 most of dependent countries in Asia, such as Korea, India, Pakistan, the Arabia Gulf, received their independent. 1960 became a decolonization year for Africa. Because 17 independent states appeared on political map of the world - former colonies of England, France, Italy. Although these countries looked independent, American policy used decolonization as a weapon to achieve the certain aim. Americans considered that these countries must be “appendage of Europeans countries”. Moreover, the former colonial countries must be able to provide with row materials, investment opportunities and low-cost labor. Decolonizated countries had ethnic conflicts, poverty, underdevelopment, political in-fighting. So, leaders of most African countries were forced to ask help for USSR, England, and USA. And each of these countries has own geopolitical interest. In addition, end of the World War II led to the new stage of imperialism, called neo-colonialism.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to keep under on country many colonies,is give them illusion of freedom and illusion of Economic help. Major aim of europeans and US was natural resources and human resources of colonies like African and Asian countries.Some big countries of Africa become "freedom" in 1963 year,after that Asian countries show their discontent and starts to organize similarity of revolution.The biggest trick of dominant countries was deficiency in colonies and mess in some of them."Ambulance"continues very long,and dominants take a chance to station troops in other countries.As we know,country depends on country,which army is in territory of them.So my conclusion is,it was the extension of the European principles to the rest of the world
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteActually, when the 2world war draw to the close, most of the colonized countries started to press for their freedom. In other words, colonial empires began to attack their rulers or dictators to get their independence. For example, unsuccessful attempt for freedom made by Indians was a result of internal turmoil. However, the British had their own problem-debt after the War, that became a problem to have colonies. The fact that most of the "dictators" started to dismiss their colonies, was an argument for Europeans to "let them go" or get their independence. It proves that decolonization was such a historical truth to the dispoiled colonial people, not the extention of European countries.
ReplyDeleteI think that you may share my opinion that decolonization was the extension of the European principles to the other countries.
ReplyDeleteThey had to deal with everything from creating a new government to establishing a postcolonial economy. While national borders separated people with similar cultures, they also enclosed traditional enemies who began fighting each other soon after the Europeans left. For many nations, all of this led to instability, violence, and an overall struggle to deal with their newly gained independence.
Most of the big colonial powers – especially France, Britain, and Japan had been significantly weakened by WWII. Post-war decolonization happened all over the place: The British colony that had once been ‘India’ became three independent nations. In Southeast Asia, French Indochina became Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. And the Dutch East Indies became Indonesia. Britain lost its 13 colonies, but later controlled half of Africa and all of India.
After the WWII European metro poly countries were weak and they thought about their own economical growth. Of course it was a good time for colonies to become free and independent. Colonies started to fight with colonial countries, but I agree with Nauryz, that the best way to control colonies is to give them illusion of liberty and freedom. All the same, colonies depended on their Colonial countries, especially in economics. It is likely to be, that it was an extension of European principles with dominance of Imperialism. It was an ostentatious democracy to another world with double standards.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the decolonization is started after World War II. The first decolonization detail was happened in 1947, when India got independence. Then in 1960, that year called in history " Year of Africa", during that year many African coutries got their independence. After getting their independence this countries called The Third World. But, neither they get their independence many Western countries rule the economies of The Third World. Western countries have a good economy, and they want to make more money from manufacture. The raw products cost cheaper in The Third World countries, so they rule their economy and get primary products cheaper. In my point of view, if they in XX century rules their contry and land, now they rule their economy. In that countries they have poor carrency busket and it helps western countries to get more profit. I understand decolonization as to be some colonial countries to be free. After World War II many African and Indian coutries had their independence. One of the biggest colonial power was Great Britain, in the end of the war it was a greatiful power. And I think that decolonization was not the establishment of historical "truth".
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the decolonization, which was started after WWII, was the extension of European principles to the rest of the world. European countries were not in the best situation after the war, and there were some problems in these countries (with economy etc.). It was hard for dominant countries to control their colonies. And during this time, colonized countries started to do revolutions, defend the rights in order to become independent. However, I think that if European countries had wanted to keep their colonies, they would have done it. But, they were interested in getting colonized countries independence, maybe, in order to stabilize their own countries conditions. Also, despite the fact that colonized countries became independent, they were dependent on European countries.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Europe did not want to let go of its colonies, and were not going to. But after the Second World War, Europe was in a difficult position, and the U.S. flourished. And so I think that U.S. affected to decolonization , because U.S.A. had no such colonies as in Europe. So they wanted to weaken the European countries. (Perhaps the pretext was "for not to form a third world war") In my point of view, decolonization was inevitable.
ReplyDeleteDecolonization started not because of goal to establish the historical truth. It started to maintain power and to control an effort between Europeans and Americans. It is known that mental dependence of former colonial countries will not disappear. The dependence of former colonials will be always, because the decolonized countries didn’t have power institutions, manufacture, and education. Colonials were used only as raw material and to have manufacture for them was impossible. And now there is a question. How it is possible for country to become independent if it is not able to have own manufacture. However, this was not only reason why former colonials dependent, they also had political instability. Europeans knew about this situation that is why for them decolonization was not а big deal. Owing to the fact, we can totally be sure that decolonization was not the restoration of historical truth. I suppose that decolonization happened in connection with changes in political world.
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view, the decolonization was not the principle of European countries to the rest of the world, contrariwise, that countries wanted to save and to continue their colonial power on “Third world countries”. European countries, starting from the end of WWI, was against for anticolonial ideology, but USA come against for colonial power. After the end of WWII USA kept anticolonial regime, and wanted independence for those “third world countries” , that were under the colony of European countries. I guess that USA did it principaly, so that European countries would not become more stronger than their were at that time, in other words, USA did not wanted other countries become a superpower countries. Also, I think that this decolonization was the historical “truth”, because after the WWII, when too many countries had a big loss, people understand and such ideology as “humanism” appeared, more countries started to think, to care about humanity, and person indiviually, mojority of countries signed “Universal Declararaition of human rights”, by this we can claim that keeping countries under the colony is in some ways “antihumanous”. So, I guess that, if decolonization didn’t happened after the WWII, it would happened later.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, decolonization it determines like a to provide political independence to all the colonial countries, to eliminate the colonial regime and his administration in all forms, to eliminate all strongholds of colonialism in the form of possessions and leased areas in foreign territories, including military bases. Shortly, it means decolonization is exemption of colonized country.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, it was the extension of the European principles to the rest of the world.
I think, decolonization was the extension of the European principles to the rest of the world. After the First World War Germany former colonies was under the protection of "winner" countries. And Britain, France etc. was sort of the guardians of ex colonial territories till they reached adulthood. Even the boarders of new countries was determined by imperial countries. As we concluded in our seminar the decolonization was the consequence of feeling of nationality. Before the WWII there wasn't feeling that they (people, lived in Africa and other colonies, mandates) refer to any nation. They belonged to certain tribe or clan, I don't know. But after Second World War they started to think about nationality, state, independence. Because nationalism was one of the points why WWII started. So can we say that the Hitler's "spirit of nationality" affected to the process of decolonization?
ReplyDeleteI think that for determination of decolonization is more suitable the second option. To point it, there are several facts. Let's take for example India, which was a colony of Britain. Britain had enormous war debts, at the same time India demanded independence. So Britain saw that there was no reason to continue to keep the colony. But situation in Asia was a little bit different. Actually, the Philippines became the first of the world’s colonies to achieve independence following World War II. The most interesting, is that Filipinos started to require independence only after Japanese had helped them to see that the Europeans were far from invincible. They understood that they no longer wanted to live udnder European rules. So, I want to say that according to the facts, we can’t say that the decolonization is the restoration of historical 'truth'.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion decolonization happened after WWII and also the officially came into existence of organization which called United nation affected the decolonization of Third World countries. First of all because after the the Second world war powerful countries like USA,Uk France...exc. they become weakened. Secondly, colonized peoples started demand independence. So gained political independence, they was "independent" but actually they depend economically to big countries . Dependence was now not due to political pressure , but the result of mustiness and weakness of this countries(Third World countries). It means decolonization was only formality.
ReplyDeleteAfter the WWII, colonized countries fought for their freedom, and more specifically for independence. And demanded that they bring it from the government. But they were an example of other countries, where there has been internal peaks. And I think after the Second World War, Europe has not shown any change. And I think that after the WWII, Europe has not executed any change, because that would not like to give their colonies. A U.S. vice versa, began to quickly blossom within, but it was inevitable from decolonization, as it had not had their colonies. It is likely that decolonization in fact existed.
ReplyDeleteI think, Decolonizaion of Africa has economical character than political. When European imperial contries diveded teritories into colonials, they had not been looked to historiacal,geographical facts such as nation, population,etc. Africa has a diffirent types of tribes and clans, which are not divided intto nations, territories. So Decolonization of Africa is not restoration of "historical truth". Africa has a various types of raw materials, precious metals,oil and gas. If African colonials become independent, these countries, whatever, will depend on economically and politically by their imperial colonizators, because of their volatility. So African countries will forced at cheap prices precious metals, oil and gas, provides loans or credits etc. Truly this is a present of more African countries. Maybe it is some conspracy of European countries and USA. Also we have some facts that preceded Decolonization: weakening of parent state due to WW2, Cold War, was negative relationship to colonial countries by USSR and USA, grow of influence of english colonials, deployment of mass national movement.
ReplyDeleteDecolonization was some inevitable. After the World War II colonial countries could not control their colonies and actively started the decolonization. It lead to changes in foreign and domestic policies. Western countries stopped the division of colonial possessions. Furthermore, they merged together for the devastation of the Third World. It was the start of the new period in history. By the way, Europe still use the Third World's resources for own aims.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned earlier decolonization began after WWII, Philippines was the first country, which got its independence. Approximately during the 20-30 years 100 new countries appeared on the world map. Most intensive decolonization was in Africa. I think that this process was the result of the extension of European principles to the rest of the world. “After the world struggle against dictatorship many leaders argued that no country should control another nation.” (The Indian subcontinent achieves freedom). In my opinion it was the one of the main reasons of starting decolonization. I think advanced members of Colonies society, such as Mahatma Gandhi in India, knew about democratic movement in the world. Colonies tried to achieve independence, but after reaching the goal they did not became completely free. Dependence from metropolises in some countries still maintained.
ReplyDeleteDecolonization started in Europe. I don`t agree with my group mates, that it started after Second World War. In my opinion, it took it`s starting point after the First World War. Europe set a precedent of decolonization. Such countries as Poland, Baltics, Czechoslovakia were first to fetch away from colonization. I World War played a big role in anticolonial movement. Japan occupied Indonesia, Philippines ect.in order to show that Europeans were not invincible. By destroying colonial system, Japanese showed possibilities for new life. The main aim was to release Asia from Europeans.
ReplyDeleteIt is still unknown, weather imperial countries gained from colonies or vice versa. They had to help colonies economically, had to rule, it took too much time and money, on the other hand, raw products and resources were taken from colonies.
As we know, the Second World War was against all that was evil. So, it was inappropriate to keep colonial system in the Second World War In anticolonial movement British- India was the most advanced. Primarily, Englishmen and French new generation, who graduated famous universities as Oxford, were main forces of anticolonial movement. I want to mention, that Churchill did not support the idea of giving independence to people.
In India were anticolonial parties. There were main three Hindoos in them:
1. Gandi – he was something like a symbol to all people, he was above all things and immaculate.
2. Muhammad Ali Jinnah –“A common British slavery is the only thing that connects us with Hindoos”
3. Neru
As my friends mentioned above, in 1960th many African countries met their independence.
Britain and France named countries in Africa relying on their location or resources they were full of. In 1955 Ghana, Golden shore, retrieved independence by insubordination and strikes. Also, Kenya found its independence very hardly. Algeria came to independence through civil war. People, especially French, who were against the independence, were called penuars. Rhodesia was full of white farmers. British left Rhodesia without any problems, but then, civil war appeared between white and black citizens. In 1979 white ones had to leave the governance.
Decolonization was a very difficult process. Not all countries became democratic after it, except India. For example, even nowadays Western Africa is still economically hanged on France.
It seems to me that decolonization was the extension of the European principles to the rest of the world mostly because countries such as Britain, France and US did not give a lot of concern about revival of justice in other countries. And even if colonial empires set free their colonies they still managed to get resources which they needed a lot because after the Second World War they faced a lot difficulties. For me one questions are still remained. If Africa,India and philippines were still colonies would they live better life or vise versa?
ReplyDelete