World War I

War these days is not received with the same enthusiasm that World War I was. The colonial race for resources and burgeoning nationalism led to droves of men signing up to fight to further the cause of their homeland. World War II, just 20 years later, arrived to a much more sober welcome. I imagine the shocking death toll and horrific conditions of trench warfare had much to do with this change of attitude. Further on from both world wars, the realities that total war brought home to the public must have been quite the eye opener; war no longer consisted of tales of conquest from faraway lands, and the riches that were plundered from them. Instead, war became something that happened on your doorstep, changed the way you lived, ate and worked, put the lives of non-combatants on the line and threatened the very house you lived in. For many citizens of the major European powers, these were all completely new dangers. Advances in technology and media have surely strengthened this attitude. The rise in publication of photographs, colour photographs, and broadcast television have all helped to expose the true realities of war and its consequences - all the way up to present day where conflicts are reported on in real time by people inside of the combat zone itself. With no way to escape the sights and sounds of armed combat, it has become something that is met with almost unanimous public disapproval.

It seems appropriate to apply that quote from All Quiet on the Western Front, "It must all be lies and of no account when the culture of a thousand years could not prevent this stream of blood being poured out"; not just to the outbreak of war but also to the persecution of various groups in the holocaust, as well as the way the treaty of Versailles treated the defeated Germans. A thousand years of cultural development couldn't stop such large scale bloodshed, the scientific revolution and enlightenment couldn't prevent such severe persecution, and the appalling slavery and revolutions of the American colonial venture couldn't stop the spread of similar colonialism throughout Africa and Asia. Then came the end of the war, and the treaty of Versailles vilified the German people with overly harsh conditions and reparations, as well the redistribution of much of Germany's territory and colonies among other European powers. Though most of Europe was now in debt, the German people were stricken with poverty as a result of their destroyed economy; the currency being so worthless they needed a wheelbarrow to carry home their wages. The average German citizen wasn't responsible for the war, or even in favour of it, but they were made to pay dearly by the nations who perceived them all as being bad. This attitude was shared by American psychologist Stanley Milgram, who then conducted an experiment in which he was shocked to discover that the average American citizen would happily administer lethal doses of electricity to strangers when asked to by a perceived authority figure. If told to pick up a gun and start fighting, or be executed, how many people could honestly say they would take execution? It doesn't seem at all surprising that Germany was lead into another large conflict so soon after.

One of the triggers for WWI was the established alliances; the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria and Italy, against the Triple Entente of Britain, France and Russia. The power of both alliances was supposed to keep each of them checked and balanced, the result of war between the two being too devastating for any nation to risk. Instead, once the first trigger was set off, the Alliances simply ensured that everyone would get pulled into the destruction. It's difficult not to draw parallels with the current doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which states that when two countries have enough nuclear missiles to destroy each other, neither side will use them. The two alliances of pre-WWI were established along these same lines; neither side had any incentive to back down or to stop arming themselves more and more. Likewise, nobody has an incentive today to decommission their stocks of nuclear warheads. They are kept in the name of maintaining peace, though should that peace ever falter, it ensures everyone involved is pulled into the devastation.

Colonisation Round II

The colonial takeover of Africa differed in many respects from previous colonial efforts in the Americas. Most noticeable was the absence of the devastation that rocked native American populations; not developing in a previously isolated continent meant the Africans did not share the lack of resistance to European diseases that native Americans had been so plagued by. Second was the number of European settlers that took residence in their homeland's new colonies. Comparatively far fewer citizens took up permanent residence in the newly established colonies than made the journey across the Atlantic a few hundred years earlier. Perhaps this was due in part to the closer proximity to their homeland, perhaps it was also because of the reduction of the form of hard slave labour that had been so prevalent in south American gold mines and cotton farms; the improvements in gunpowder weapons and the move to periods of forced labour (as opposed to constant slave labour) likely cut down the number of enforcers required to maintain order and prevent rebellion. In addition, many of those that did move did not plan on staying for more than a few years. Quite a few of were likely nobles who, having seen their status reduced by the social changes brought about by the industrial or political revolutions, had taken jobs as administrators at these new frontiers, but were still nobles and did not wish to remain in much more primitive areas than they were used to. The diminished occupying force also allowed more opportunities for those being subjugated to develop an improved way of life. Many chiefs or local leaders, especially throughout Africa, were able to not only keep their position of power, but become more wealthy because of it. Sadly, the fact that this was possible due to worse conditions for their subjects did not seem to bother them too much. It seems to be a trait of the human race, to be able to ignore horrible conditions for your fellow man if it means a less comfortable life for yourself. Even today this is just as prevalent as it ever was, with issues of famine and disease being rampant in some parts of the world, while in others people eat to excess without a second thought.

It seems as though lessons were learned from the colonisation of the America, and this time around the European powers were determined to prevent any erosion of their imposed superiority over the native people. With reduced European numbers, but an increased proportion of women, they were especially cautious to prevent the mixed race pairings that had helped bridge the gap between those with power and those without. Despite large advances in education and industrialisation, the benefits of these staples of European society were not made readily available to the Africans and Asians that they now governed. Knowledge brings power, and maintain a level of intellectual superiority helped reinforce the position of the natives as inferior beings. Other methods, such as refusing to acknowledge the natives' growing fluency in their languages, also helped maintain segregation between the white 'masters' and their black slaves. What I find most disappointing about this, is the African country of Liberia. Formed by former slaves in the Americas that had gained their freedom, they then proceeded to take up the mantle of their previous masters for themselves; becoming a ruling colonial elite over many west African natives. I would have liked to think that anyone not already opposed to slavery would surely have a change of heart after being forced into slavery themselves for many years, and that such an experience would create ideals of equality that would be passed down the generations to prevent an recurrence. Unfortunately it seems that the oppressed are more than capable of being oppressors themselves, and will gladly jump at the chance should it present itself.

16th Century Trade

What strikes me about the Portuguese approach to trading in the Indian Ocean during the 16th century was how forward thinking their methods were, even if they came about only because of military and naval inferiority. The idea that the world could be controlled through commerce rather than military conquest is a relatively modern one; in an age where warfare for the sake of gaining power and territory is no longer considered acceptable, having a controlling stake in the global economy allows a country to exert huge influence over other nations without the fear of reprisal that military action brings. It is unfortunate for the Portuguese that they did not have claim to any superior technology or export of any real value, and instead sought to monopolise existing trade routes through bullying and piracy - something that they could never maintain for long with other nations holding superior naval power.

            Global commerce during this time really became the roots of capitalism; with European nations taking great measures to acquire material wealth. It seems strange to consider that a lot of the exploration and founding of settlements far overseas was simply to discover a way of bankrolling the purchase of commodities such as spices, porcelain and silk in the east.  In particular, the high demand for silver in China gave rise to the Spanish construction of a settlement in Bolivia so large it rivaled that of London or Amsterdam, despite the area being essentially barren aside from its silver deposits. And within resided the wealthy European elite, and the impoverished slaves that handled the physical labour - not too far from the wealthy business owners and the relatively poor grunt labourers of the present day.  With silver sources being relatively few, true global commerce erupted, as European nations bought, sold and traded across the globe to acquire the silver needed to do business with China and those prized exports. It almost seems like a missed opportunity to me, with the world turning on the silver coin it could have set the foundations for the formation of a single global currency.

            The destructive element of capitalism became evident by the 17th century, where demand for furs had a catastrophic effect on parts of North America and Siberia. With European goods being so easy to trade to the native people, it wasn't long before they began to abandon their traditional ways and focus on hunting in order to trade in greater and greater numbers with the European nations they were steadily becoming dependent on. Such was the greed for furs in the west that populations of beaver and deer were almost wiped out by zealous over hunting, along with native people and cultures being destroyed by the reliance and exposure of European goods such as firearms and alcohol, and increased conflicts among tribes competing for this valuable resource. It saddens me to think we haven't learned anything from this; that hundreds of years later natural resources are used up, rain-forests cut down and certain species being driven to near extinction, all to satisfy our greed. In the 16th century, we truly became people of consumption.

Road of Lost Innocence

These days we are all aware of the hardships that many people around the world have to endure on a daily basis; issues such as poverty, famine and an absence of medical care to name a few. And while we have knowledge that these issues exist, there is still more to it than simply the lack of simple necessities that most of us in the west now take for granted. In reading The Road to Lost Innocence I was surprised to discover how much deeper it goes than merely access to basic amenities. Somaly Mam describes to us how the culture in Cambodia was different in relation to the community. In particular that there is an expectation of silence among the people, you do not talk about your problems and must keep everything to yourself. In a society where children are beaten daily, sold into harsh physical labour, or rented out as prostitutes, this conformity to silence appears only to benefit those that commit these terrible acts.

More shocking though, is the apparent detachment present among family, friends and neighbours. Not only does nobody speak up about these kinds of activities, they are often perpetrated among families or neighbours. To live with poverty and disease is one thing, but to do so with parents who think of you only as a way to make some money, as a tool to be rented out or sold, is something that I could not begin to imagine. With much of the Cambodian population in debt, selling daughters into prostitution is commonplace. By the rules of their society, girls are forced to obey utterly their parents or masters, those who would gladly condemn them to a life of suffering for their own profit. As Somaly herself describes it; children are, to their parents, often nothing more than livestock.

As someone who grew up in Britain, the plight of less developed countries, such as Cambodia, is not unknown to me. But what has been revealing are the crimes against humanity that are acted out among the people who live there. 'Family values' and similar ideas do not cost any money nor require any material goods, so I would still expect to find these concepts alive and well - especially in such hard conditions where you would expect people to pull together to survive.