Mao Zedong

December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976
Mao Zedong, alike his contemporary powerful and polarizing figures of the 20th century, rose to prominence in a time where rapid industrialization and modernization of the western world was shaking the fabric of many nations across the globe. At the time of Zedong’s birth, China was in a period of humiliation caused by their defeat in various battles. Furthermore, China also felt immense imperial pressures by recently modernized nations such as Japan under the final years of the crumbling Qing dynast y (Spence, 1999). Late 19th/Early 20th century China’s leaders were struggling to modernize on pace with other powerful nations, causing many to surpass them in industry and military technology, leaving them vulnerable to invasion from foreign powers. The civil unrest that followed this poor leadership by the Qin dynasty led to a coup in the early 20th century, creating an opportune power vacuum for Zedong, who would rise to power soonafter. Zedong was one of the founders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1921, which engaged in civil war with the Kuomintang nationalist party in 1927. Zedong became leader of the party in 1935, making him the voice of Chinese communism. Japan’s successful invasion of China in 1937 gave Zedong the opportunity to capitalize on the civil unrest overflowing within Chinese masses. Zedong used the invasion to highlight the failures of the anti-communist government, who were unable to defend China from Japanese invaders. (Karl, 2010). Ze dong began his strategic campaign to become the top seat of power (chairman) by

ap pealing to the peasants of China, which made up approximately 85% of its population (Lynch, 2004). Zedong gained the trust of the masses by stating that the CCP would grant power to the peasants to organize an uprising in which landowners would be overthrown and their land equally distributed, placing the peasants on large farmlands (Lynch, 2004). Zedong obtained absolute power in China in 1949 when he was elected as Chairman of the Central People’s Government. The most infamous period of Zedong’s leadership was his enactment of rapid societal reform in an attempt to move China from a heavily agrarian society to an industrial one, resembling their Soviet neighbours. China’s goal, through a series of 5 year plans, was to posses higher productive capabilities than Great Britain, leader of the Industrial Revolution (Clements, 2006). To achieve this goal, Zedong believed that all goods must be collectivised. Millions of peasants were moved to communes with land to farm, along with government officials to oversee production. The extremely high quotas set by Zedong were often much higher than the communes were capable of producing, prompting the officials to lie about the amount of produce. Due to the false numbers reported by commune officials, most of the grain produced was taken for collectivisation, leaving millions of peasants to starve to death (Gay, Kathlyn). Although China under rule of Zedong did not become a highly industrialized socialist state as the Soviets did, they managed to maintain their socialist principles, swiftly crushing any resistance late into the 20th century. Aside from being the coordinator behind one of the biggest genocides of the 20th century, Zedong’s significance as a figure in international history also comes from his solidification of China as a communist power. This solidification was accomplished through his cultural revolution, taking place in 1966, which removed all remnants of traditional or capitalistic elements of society. The reverberations of Zedong’s Socialist state are still felt today as China remains a Socialist Republic. China has been molded into the unique state we observe today through bloody reforms that could only be accomplished by a dictator unequivocally focused on a goal such as Mao Zedong.

 

John Rivera

 

Works Cited

Clements, Jonathan, Mao Zedong , Haus Publishing, 2006

Gay, Kathlyn, Mao Zedong’s China , Twenty-First Century Books, Aug 1, 2012
Karl, Rebecca, Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth-Century World: A Concise History ,

Duke University Press, 2010
Lynch, Michael, Mao , London ; New York : Routledge, 2004.
Spence, Jonathan, Mao Zedong: A Life , New York : Lipper/Viking, 1999.

Narendra Modi

Well-known for his Hindu nationalist approaches, Narendra Modi was appointed as India’s Prime Minister in India’s general election of 2014 (Hindu Nationalism in India’s Heartland, 2017). He was born on September 17, 1950, a few years after the Partition, in a small town in Gujarat, India. Even with tension between Hindus and Muslims at the time, Modi was raised in a community mixed with Muslims, and grew up with many Muslim friends throughout his childhood (Marino, 48). At the age of eight, Modi joined the RSS youth wing, where he began to realise his interest in debating about issues concerning the world. The RSS is an organization that was formed in 1925, with the purpose of promoting Hinduism, and after many years with the RSS, he was offered the position of the sambhag pracharak, which was the regional organizer. He was later promoted in 1990, becoming one of the seventeen members of BJP’s National Election Committee (Marino, 51). With each promotion leading up to his election as Prime Minister of India, Modi was determined to work towards his goals of remaking India and making Hindu nationalism a priority (Marino, 53).

In recent years, the Indian state has attempted to spread the religion of Hinduism across the country through reform and favouritism. Otherwise referred to as Hinduisation, this has been a particular goal for Narendra Modi and the BJP Party (Khalidi, 2008). Modi has been referred to as anti-Muslim because of his efforts in implementing Hindu culture across the country. His resentment for Muslims is associated with the Partition in 1947, which created tension that continues to remain amongst Muslims and Hindus even today. On February 27 of 2002, the Ram temple in Godhra was presumed to be attacked by Muslims, killing over 59 people. That same evening, Modi had televised the ceremony to the public, which unleashed violence towards Muslims as he blamed them for the attack (Jaffrelot, 2015). In many instances, Modi has been given credit for his use of both body language and different intonations, as they are said to demonstrate his strength as an orator for the public (Marino, 47). After the attack on Ram temple, one of Modi’s key tactics involved the manipulation of television with the means to provide reassurance and protection to the public. During the election period, one of his BJP television commercials consisted of a train pulling into the Godhra station, followed by terrified screams and the sounds of rifles being fired. Afterward, his image would be shown in order to demonstrate the protection he could offer against Muslim violence (Jaffrelot, 2015). This has remained to be one of his key tactics for gaining attention and popularity amongst Indian citizens.

In Hinduism, cows are seen as sacred animals as they are thought to represent different deities, motherhood and wealth (Lodrick, 71). To further prioritize Hindu nationalism in India, Modi had stigmatized the consumption of beef and slaughtering of cows in general. He created a ban on the consumption of beef, which was supported by many Hindus as the slaughter of cows is considered taboo (Hindu Nationalism in India’s Heartland, 2017). In one incident, a Muslim labourer was beat to death with bricks by Hindu nationalists for slaughtering a cow. These Hindu nationalists claimed that Muslims’ consumption of beef demonstrated disrespect to Hindus (What Hindu Nationalism Means for India’s Future, 2016). This incident along with others emphasizes the anti-Muslim sentiment many Hindus hold today as a result of Narendra Modi’s beliefs.

In September 2006, Modi’s BJP legislature passed a law against conversion to Islam, but enabled conversion to Hinduism, as Hindu assimilationists argued that conversion to Islam was viewed as a form of denaturalisation (Khalidi, 2008). This anti-Muslim sentiment held by many in India is also commonly held amongst others in different countries, and is also referred to as Islamophobia. The heightening of Islamophobia over recent years has become an important issue, as many Muslims are targeted for their culture. Although Donald Trump may be more of a well-known political figure that holds Islamophobic beliefs, Narendra Modi has proven more than once the resentment he holds for Muslims as well. He has played a significant role in India by trying to prioritize Hinduism over other religions, while also spreading anti-Muslim sentiments across the country. As he remains the Prime Minister of India, he is viewed as an influential leader, and therefore the beliefs he holds will continue to have a great impact on Indians as well as Muslims (Jaffrelot, 2008). In India’s current state, discrimination is most apparent through certain institutions restricting religious freedoms other than Hinduism, and Modi’s goal to remake India as a prominently Hindu nation continues to exist (Khalidi, 2008).

Mira Kashyap

Works Cited

“Hindu Nationalism in India’s Heartland.” Stratfor Analysis, Apr. 2017, p. 33. EBSCOhost, libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=123510972&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Jaffrelot, Christophe. “Narendra Modi and the Power of Television in Gujarat.” Television & New Media, vol. 16, no. 4, May 2015, pp. 346-353. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/1527476415575499.

Khalidi, Omar. “Hinduising India: Secularism in Practice.” Third World Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 8, 2008, pp. 1545–1562. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20455129.

Lodrick, Deryck O. “Symbol and Sustenance: Cattle in South Asian Culture.” Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 29, no. 1, 2005, pp. 61–84. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/29790728.

Marino, Andy. Narendra Modi: A political biography. HarperCollins Publishers India, 2014.

“What Hindu Nationalism Means for India’s Future.” Stratfor Analysis, June 2016, p. 1. EBSCOhost,libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=116776789&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is a term invented by the American sociologist and social Darwinist William Graham Sumner (Duckitt, Bizumic 2012), while working with the European Sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz.  The term was coined in and around the beginning of the 20^th century, but uses of the term without the word date back to a century before. During the 19^th century people like biologist Charles Darwin and anthropologist/sociologist Herbert Spencer argued that “competition with other [social] groups makes people more cooperative with members of their [social] group” (Duckitt, Bizumic, 2, 2012) and “societies in general are characterized by two opposing moral codes, internal amity (towards members of one’s group) and external enmity (towards everyone else)” (Duckitt, Bizumic, 2, 2012). From these arguments and insights comes the basis that there is a strong connection between oneself and one’s “group.” This connection is so strong that “positive in-group attitudes and behaviors are often associated with various preferential attitudes and behaviors for the in-group over outgroups” (Duckitt, Bizumic, 3, 2012). The belief that one’s own group is superior or better than the “outgroup” can lead to hostility towards that “outgroup” (Duckitt, Bizumic 2012). In summary ethnocentrism is defined as “the tendency to judge the beliefs and behaviours of other [groups] or cultures from the perspective of one’s own [group] or culture” (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry, 27, 2016). Therefore believing one’s own group is superior, better, or more proper compared to the “outgroup.”

Ethnocentrism has key historical significance in explaining why the world is the way it is today and what impacts did ethnocentrism have on past events that have shaped the modern world. A direct derivative from ethnocentrism is the ethnocentric fallacy. The ethnocentric fallacy is the “mistaken notion that the beliefs and behaviours of other cultures and [groups] can be judged from the perspective of one’s own culture or [group]” (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry, 27, 2016). As stated before, people of one group will believe that their beliefs are more superior or more correct than another group’s. Furthermore they will try to judge the other group based on their own group’s views. But just because another group’s views, beliefs, and behaviours may seem odd or bizarre it does not mean that they aren’t logical or right in the context of the other group (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). For example cannibalism in most western countries is seen as something that is exotic, barbaric, evil, and overall something no one should ever participate in. However cannibalism among the Wari in Brazil is seen as something people must do as a burial ritual (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). The Wari consume the deceased roasted body in order to show compassion to the deceased person’s family and to help the family with their suffering. The Wari do this to obliterate the memory of the deceased person so that way the body or their belongings will not bring back painful memories that they are dead (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). They also believe they should never bury their dead because the ground is polluted (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). These rituals and customs are very different compared to a western funeral. Usually at a western funereal the body is laid to rest in the ground and the family and friends of the deceased keep their belongings to remember them. Overall both customs and rituals have its practical uses and logic for their respective groups. Judging either group based on one’s own group is then intellectually and methodologically intolerable (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017) because each group has its own practices and logic to those practices. This is just a small example of how ethnocentrism is significant. On a larger scale this can be applied to countries and its leaders stirring a sense of nationalism, pride, and community within its borders (Rosenblatt 1964). The upbringing and socialization of people within the country leads them to believe that their way of life or their people (citizens) are superior or better than anyone else in the world. People will share a strong sense of community and comradery believing that they are more progressed or evolved and the only way to enforce this is through comparing themselves (and their country) with others around the world. In order for all of this to work there must be a strong leader outlining and instilling a sense of “us versus them” mentality among the people. The leader will either promote “fear or hate of some outgroup” (Rosenblatt, 133, 1964) or promote a sense of superiority degrading the outgroup. Such promotion of fear or hate has led to the Nazi’s taking power in Germany during the 1930’s. It has also lead to the spread of fascism throughout Europe and Asia during that time period. More specifically, in Germany Jews were the outgroup that was targeted for fear and hatred. The Aryan Germans believed themselves to be superior to the group and the thing bringing Germany down economically, socially, and politically was the Jew. In order for Germany to rise out of the ashes of World War One and return to its former glory the Aryan Germans must rid of the Jew. This strong sense of nationalism was enforced by ethnocentrism from Adolf Hitler, the Nazi party, and the Third Reich. This led to some of the most horrible atrocities ever to be committed by human beings in history. Another example of Ethnocentrism on a large scale would be the cold war. America and the Soviet Union were comprised of very different ideals, beliefs, and views. Each superpower insisted that their country was superior or had better beliefs and structure. This caused small wars throughout the world as each side fought to prevent the opponent’s ideology being spread into other countries. What both sides didn’t realize was that the ideologies of their opponents might seem illogical to themselves, but be totally logical to the opponent (democracy vs communism, freedom vs equality, and capitalism vs controlled market). Overall ethnocentrism, through ethnocentric fallacy, can lead to dangers in nationalism. This is because through ethnocentrism one can compare their group or country to other groups or countries around the world and claim to be better or superior through hate and fear. This also creates a non-inclusive “us versus them” mentality which is further heated by a charismatic leader. In conclusion ethnocentrism is significant to history because it has shaped world relations and sparked dangerous nationalism amongst groups and countries. All of which are still relevant today.

Traditionally ethnocentrism is used within the social sciences, specifically Anthropology. Many anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Margret Mead have expanded on the term ethnocentrism by participating in field work around the world with many different people. By doing field work for anthropology research one must always consider their ethnocentrism (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). A person must do this because they want to get the most accurate and correct answers they can instead of having answers that are biased. In order to keep ethnocentrism in check while doing field work and interacting with many groups is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the “effort to understand the beliefs and behaviours of other cultures in terms of the culture in which they are found” (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). Through cultural relativism one will finally be able to truly understand the certain beliefs, traditions, and behaviours of other cultures or groups around the world. On a more historical and bigger scope cultural relativism can be used to gain more insight on events that have shaped the modern world. By looking at all sides and scopes of wars, political uprisings, economic changes, and social shifts one can gain a better understanding about the purposes and justifications of certain actions or beliefs. Also by looking into the history of the modern world this way it will open up the possibility for solutions to century old problems. Therefore understanding how ethnocentrism played an influential role in the events that shaped the modern world will provide deeper knowledge into solutions for the future. Furthermore understanding the past through the scope of cultural relativism will provide deeper insight into the reasons and justifications of the beliefs and actions of all sides.

Marco Minadeo

 

Bibliography

Duckitt, J. B. (2012). What Is and Is Not Ethnocentrism? A Conceptual Analysis and Political Implications. Political Psychology, 887-909.

Richard H. Robbins, M. C. (2016). Anthropology 1AB3: Religion, Race and conflict . Toronto: Nelson.

Rosenblatt, P. C. (1964). Origins and effects of group ethnocentrism and nationalism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 131-146.

Romanticism

Identification 

Romanticism is a movement that began in the late 18th century. It was an artistic movement which focused on the person’s imagination, as well as their spiritual and emotional expression.

It developed from the dissatisfaction felt by the “latecomers to modernity”; it was a reaction of those who felt scorned by the ultra-rational values of the Enlightenment. Meant to fulfill the spirit and create a strong identity, it manifested in the creation of music, poetry, paintings, and literature designed to fiercely impact the individual; it focused on the unity and harmony of the person with others and with nature.

Centered in Europe, namely England, Italy, Germany, and France, it was in clear opposition to the materialistic and individualistic culture taking hold of the continent at that time. Composers such as Goethe, writers such as Hegel, and painters such as Goya were all contributors to the movement.

Historical Significance 

Rousseau – argued to be the originator of this movement – severely opposed individualism and materialism. He argued a strong national identity to be the antidote to this. Thus, Romanticism was marked by identifying the self by defining what it had better or different from the other. It was a tool in which people alienated by modernity’s increasingly individualistic and materialistic structure could find identity and belonging.

Consequently, the countries most affected by this scorn of modernity, used Romanticism as a way to heal that wound. Accordingly, this extreme identification with national culture is one of the roots of, and, gives context to the rise of totalitarianism in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. These other “ism” movements that came partly from Romanticism – Nationalism, Nazism, Fascism – stem from a combination of alienating and being alienated by others, and finding comfort solely in national identity. They were completely contingent on an “us versus them” mentality, in which the “them” was to blame for the problems of the “us”.

Additionally, this period of history produced some of the most widely recognizable and influential artworks still relevant in modern day. Many of which are still studied, revered, and mimicked to this day in academic institutions and in popular culture. The artist became an emblem of culture; the artist’s expression of emotion as well as the artistic tendency to experiment and push the boundary, can be traced back to Romanticism’s desire to break free from the rigidity of the Enlightenment.

Key Historical Proponents

Romanticism soon became a means to work towards the unification of divided states like the territories of modern Germany and Italy in the late 1800s. German Romantics, such as Fichte, called for a unification largely based on ethno-linguistic commonalities which were glorified and exalted by this movement. Specifically, one of the ways the German people consolidated their culture was by recapturing national folklore; namely, the tales by the Brothers Grimm circa 1812, helped foster and develop a German identity.

In addition, as Romantic expression pushed for greater harmony and union, the dissemination and prominence of Enlightenment and Industrial ideas of rationality, empiricism, and utility continued to oppose it. Unsurprisingly, however, it was the main contributor to Romanticism’s extensive popularity and strength. The new system sweeping the continent was one of organized social hierarchy, founded upon the utility, skill, and success of a person in the new industrialized world. However, many German Romantics, such as Novalis and Schlegel circa 1795, argued that people were already placed in a hierarchy of sorts within nature. People had a role that was a part of a greater whole; not less or more important than any other part, and all working in harmony subdued under the solidarity and codependence of one with the other. This way, there was no need for the man-made social hierarchies, as man’s place was already established.

Salomé Rodríguez Solarte

 

Bibliography

Mishra, Pankaj. Age of Anger. New York. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2017. Print.

Needham, Lawrence. “Romanticism, Race, and Imperial Culture, 1780-1834.” Research in 

African Literatures, vol. 31, no. 3, 2000, p. 208. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=oakv28633&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA64719149&it=r&asid=2cd4f7a9c4108e22fee909d4fd117d39. Accessed 10 Oct. 2017.

Stone, Alison. “Alienation from nature and early German romanticism.” Ethical Theory and 

Moral Practice, vol. 17, no. 1, 2014, p. 41+. Academic OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=oakv28633&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA369914907&it=r&asid=df85362e0d453e655dce1c600f8098dc. Accessed 10 Oct. 2017.