Decolonisation and Legacies of Empire Flashcards
What does Darwin say that historians increasing attraction to a looser and more flexible understanding of imperialism has done?
Encompassed a wider variety of “imperial” relationships than just “enforcement of rule”
What variation of things does decolonisation categorise according to Thompson and Thompson? (3)
Different styles of resistance, mass demonstration, and mass displacement of civilian populations
Why have Thomas and Thompson concluded most colonial withdrawals were rarely entirely peaceful?
Because both partitions and enforced territorial unifications left damaging legacies of unresolved arguments and trauma
What did the damaging legacies left by colonial powers of unresolved argument and trauma prefigure according to Thomas and Thompson?
Outpourings of retributive violence against those marginalised as a result of this
Why do Thomas and Thompson argue that state-centric explanations of decolonisation are limited?
Because they equate withdrawal of colonial authority with the “end of empire” and overlook deeper economic changes
Why do Thomas and Thompson conclude we need to think more broadly about the concept of decolonisation?
Because it was less a sequence of events, and more of a globally connected process, the result of decisive methodological shifts
Why do Thomas and Thompson argue we must take the question of interrelatedness more seriously with respect to decolonisation?
Because decolonisation was truly globalising in its effects making it difficult to treat the end of empire or demise of single colony in isolation
What do Thomas and Thompson argue the influence of the Cold War on decolonisation was?
The local impulses behind decolonisation conflicts were interwoven with the geopolitical contest between rival Cold War blocs according to Cold War considerations
What, according to Thomas and Thompson, did the end of 20th century empires mark?
The biggest and most concentrated process of state-making the world has seen
What did WW2 do according to Thomas and Thompson?
It refashioned global politics beyond Asian and European heartlands, just as the Cold War infected the politics of decolonisation
What was the Cold War according to Thomas and Thompson?
A catalyst to global change as much as it was an outcome of it
What does Gildea say there exists a myth surrounding?
The orderly “transfer of power” from imperial capital to national elites
What according to Piero Gleijeses was the “hot” Cold War?
Where blood was shed
Where does Piero Gleijeses argue the “hot” Cold War was fought and why?
In the periphery where it overlapped with the struggle for decolonisation
What does Piero Gleijeses say colonial powers were motivated by instead of the Cold War as they fought to retain control of their colonies?
Greed and pursuit of prestige
What does Piero Gleijeses argue of the US’s stance and perspective on decolonisation?
That they were in principle sympathetic to the end of colonial rule, but out of their perceived Cold War necessities, sided with colonisers instead when armed struggle broke out
What does Holland argue the decline of will to empire in Britain was closely related to?
Her changing economic and strategic position
What does Holland conclude decolonisation resulted from?
The fact that the “workable harmony” of the classical imperial period ceased to exist
What does Holland argue that the “workable harmony” of the classical imperial period ceasing to exist meant in practice?
The developed states found better returns from cooperating between themselves and relationships with the colonies became static
Why does Holland argue that it was to the mutual advantage of colonial powers and colonies to separate?
Because the developed states discovery of better returns cooperating between themselves coincided with the evolution of aggressive political elites in the colonies
What is the historical significance of Holland’s conclusions coming from a 1980s perspective?
It is outdated and did not have access to all of the resources necessary and buying into the narratives perpetuated by colonial powers and newly colonial states at the time
Why are Holland’s conclusions problematic?
They are a rationalisation with hindsight that ignores the time-lag between the reality and its perception by many embattled imperialists
What did dominant elements in Western countries atavistically cling to and for how long?
Belief in the positive economic and political value of empire a decade or more after the more perceptive realised it was a thing of the past
What does Marseille argue we can now see modern colonialism as having been?
A device for expediting the incorporation of parts of the Third World into the world economy at a when the Western states urgently needed colonial markets and raw materials
Why does Marseille argue colonialism was not a great device for incorporating parts of the Third World into the world economy?
Because it was dependent on too many variable for its viability
What variables in particular does Marseille say modern colonialism was dependent on?
The collaboration of more or less docile subject elites
Why according to Marseille did metropoles decided to decolonise?
Because the marginal utility of a colony at varying times became less than zero after 1919 and when they realised this they quit
What does Karabell argue that the contours of US intervention in the Third World were a function of, in contrast to Gleijeses?
A function of the pull that elites could exert on Washington
Why does Karabell argue that the contours of US intervention in the Third World were a function of the pull that elites could exert on Washington?
Because in Washington varied arrays of American policymakers were simultaneously pushing for actions abroad
When according to Karabell, were US interventions in the Third World successful?
When there was a convergence between the interests of local elites and the interventionary forces
In what way, does Karabell argue the Third World played a central role in determining the international system?
When there was convergence between the interests of local elites and the interventionary forces leading to successful interventions
What does Karabell argue about how local elites cultivated American connections?
There were some cases where manipulation of internal politics by America literally created the local elite’s interest in an American connection but also many cases where local elites appealed for US intervention and Washington did nothing
Why according to Ayoob are new sovereign states decision-making centres under severe internal strain?
Due to the lack of “unconditional legitimacy” for both Third world state-structures and the regimes that preside over them
What does Light argue the Cold War largely determined?
The objects of Soviet policy in the Third World
According to Light what affected the determination of the objects of Soviet policy in the Third World?
The new Soviet security thinking of perestroika (1980s movement might be bit late)
What according to Light was a result of the new Soviet security thinking of perestroika?
Soviet withdrawal from regional conflicts such as in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola, and Ethiopia
According to Beikov, what underpinned the new Soviet security thinking of perestroika at the end of the period?
Economic problems at home which meant the Soviet Union could no longer carry on its economic and military aid and favoured a settlement of conflict so it could cut back its obligations
What does Pandley refer to as the “balkanising” effects of decolonisation?
The contested nature and frequency of mass violence
Why does Pandley conclude that decolonisation is a disintegrative process?
Because of its “balkanising” effects
What were there tensions between in the post-war world?
Imperialism and the new global political climate
Why was imperialism incompatible with the new language of human rights in the postwar world?
Because of the gradients of privilege integral to imperial management and maintenance as there was now widespread revulsion at the idea of social relations governed by racial hierarchy
What is evidence that the postwar world recognised imperialism was no longer compatible with their new language of human rights?
The UN Charter of 1946
How was this new language of human rights and this new political climate a cause of imperial decline in the colonies themselves?
It caused increasing violence and civil dissent as colonial voices turned this rhetoric of reform against colonial administrations and demanded governments live up to their pledges they were reluctant to keep
What did administration, commerce, and security at a local level in the colonies rest upon?
The “bargains” made by the native intermediaries who made the imperial systems work
What made the continued upholding of empire more difficult for imperial powers?
Once local actors turned against empires
What two choices were imperial powers presented with in the face of changing dynamics and the world situation?
Fight or Flight
Was there a cohesive systematic pattern of choices across the globe?
No, the decisions made by metropolitan governments and colonial officials across the globe were conflicting
Why was the decision made by metropolitan governments and colonial officials across the globe conflicting?
They were a product of differing imperial traditions, specific political configurations in the metropole and in the territories concerned
