User:ClareParlett/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 11/Imperialism

This is for UCL BASc Approaches to Knowledge (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/basc/current/core/atk) Seminar Group 11. These content pages will be populated by student content October - December 2018. '''Welcome to imperialism. Insert your ideas, thoughts, views and interesting references here:'''

Imperialism versus Colonialism
I found interesting how the terms “Colonialism” and “Imperialism” are often used interchangeably in our everyday lives. Whereas the former refers to ‘the movement of people to settle permanently in the new territory’, the latter defines ‘the exercise of power and control over the conquered region’. It is crucial t be aware of the differences in meaning in order to avoid use language incorrectly, which, inevitably, leads to miscommunications and misunderstandings. (please insert name)

Both Colonialism and Imperialism are about expanding a country’s land in new regions. While I mostly associate Colonialism with bringing innovation in the cultural and economical fields of colonies, Imperialism is instead more focused on the power and control the “mother” country exercices over the newly-acquired region.(Rebecca)

Brief History of Imperialism
During the Berlin Conference in 1884, France lead the division of Africa between European countries. The split was done in a very mechanical and mathematical way, drawing straight lines between Africa and dividing it according to European needs. The African population was not taken into account. (Rebecca)

On the Academic Curriculum and the Division of Knowledge
First of all, my preconception regarding the role of universities was challenged. These are not just a platform that gives students access to knowledge and qualifications, but also have a social function in the production of knowledge (aiding society as a whole to improve and benefit from the knowledge, discoveries and the connections created). The following is a quote by J.G. Von Herder that resonated distinctly with me. “The barbarian rules by force; the cultivated conqueror teaches”. It seems to define what civilised people are, by mentioning the way they approach imperialism. If their aim is to help and improve the welfare of others than they can truly be considered ‘cultured’. This expression from the age of empire hints the connections between education and conquest, which are usually concealed. John Willinsky, a famous educator highlights these correlations in his book ‘In Learning to Divide the World’. His book is a written account of the ways that imperialism’s educational legacy continues to separate us into black and white, east and west, primitive and civilised. Most of all, I was fascinated by the realisation that I made during the lecture, when Mr. Chetty asked us whether our school curriculum had not been divided into the following disciplines - “maths, physics, human science, history, religion, literature, fine arts, philosophy”. No one in the room raised their hands. In his book, Willinsky considers how schools continue to educate the young within the “colonial imaginary”. He does so by drawing on contemporary classrooms and materials. Furthermore, he argues that education was and is ‘the research and development arm of imperialism’. The impact that imperialism still has on our daily existences is elucidated through Willinsky’s work. Knowledge, despite being broad, universal and explored in different forms has been classified into distinct, sub-divisive disciplines in the colonial period. The formation of academic subjects was instrumental in the expansion of empire. (please insert name)

During the age of Imperialism, education shifted from being a family affair to being a state affair. Disciplines were defined by Hirst as “Forms of Knowledge” but I feel like disciplines are more like ways to acquire Knowledge. Willinsky stated that the new Imperialist schooling system lead to a: → division of the world into primitive and civilised (e.g. East and West) → biased conception of the world (e.g. North is good/better, South is bad/worse) (Rebecca)

The lecture encouraged me to consider how the education system I have been taught within has been constructed and its boundaries, and the resultant limitations of this system. It has provoked me to consider how we might best reform the system such that the disciplines are not segregated, in particular at a young age, when the merging of knowledge from various disciplines could be most imperative. I think it is very important to address the priorities of modern society, to reshape the way people are educated. It is very significant that we consider approaching learning in an inter-disciplinary manner within primary and secondary education. I found it interesting that people’s responses to the question: ‘do different curriculum subjects reflect distinct forms of knowledge?’, as this had very polarised reactions. I think we must diminish the boundaries between the disciplines so to address concerns that were not present when the system was created. (Georgie)

I believe the ‘take-away’ information is that education is a historically-constructed concept, that the division of knowledge into subjects and the way of apprehending knowledge itself can be (and most of the time is) the result of an imperialistic phenomena. Darren Chetty mentioned how the domination manners of the sovereign state had changed over time: instead of simply ruling by force, education had become a tool to justify and impose their power. « The barbarian rules by force, the cultivated conqueror teaches » - Johann Gottfried von Herder 1909 Is the ‘cultivated conqueror’ much better than the barbarian? (Amber)

The lecture discussed how during the 'age of imperialism', perceiving 'things' in terms of their differences became a key way of thinking. Darren Chetty stated how during this era, the centre of knowledge was 'tables' and the ability to group things. I found this incredibly interesting, as this could have been the foundation of how we categorise distinct disciplines in the education system. Philosopher Hirst famously said that, "disciplines are created from forms of knowledge" then "broken down into discrete subjects". This stimulated many questions. One being if this way of thinking is so deeply rooted in our ideology, will the modern education system ever be able to link specialisms in interdisciplinary ways? (Megan)

The notion of a divided world is a result of the imperial project and is often reinforced by the western educational system that contains traces of imperialistic teachings and that promotes a kind of knowledge biased towards a Eurocentric point of view. As a consequence, we have been learning “who we are” by differentiating ourselves from “who we are not”. The discipline of geography plays an important role in the way we have been taught to shape our identity and our understanding of the “other”. Inaccurate maps of the world are widely spread and they erroneously portray Europe and the West as being larger landmasses than most of the southern continents, highlighting their privileged position. (please insert name)

Before the lecture I didn’t know that the educational system is not as objective as one would think. It has been designed to help maintain the edification of the West. Hence, the subjects taught in the educational system are products of imperialism. The example of africa really shock me, how it is portrayed smaller in maps than what it actually looks like. In fact, Africa is almost as big as most of Europe as seen on Peter’s world map. Also Europe is portrayed bigger than what it actually is to underline it’s importance. To summarise, even the tool which is supposed to help us navigate the world, a map, reflects imperialism and does not corresponded to reality. This underlines how the way we portray our world affects how we read it. For example how the North is associated with wealth, good and the South with poverty. In fact, as Darren Chetty said, there is no true geography of the world. (Evelyn)

On Cartography
The aspect of the Imperialism lecture that caught my attention the most was that both Colonialism and Imperialism shaped the way we, as a society, see the world, not only from a cultural point of view but also from a geographical one. Indeed, there is no objective reason why the world map should be centred on Europe, however this common misconception derives from the Mercator projection: created in 1569. The Mercator projection: helped western navigators with their journeys by guiding them,but in doing so, the projection incites navigators to colonise unknown lands. The world map has not change its centre since the 16th century, which triggers an undertone that Europe is seen as the heart of the world, and of more importance than the rest. In 1885, the Gall-Peters projection: was published on paper; the projection showed, with more accuracy, the physical place the continents take at a worldwide scale. This projection allowed a reconsideration of the authority Europe had over other continent since its size is noticeably smaller than the size of its then-colony, Africa. The way the world is represented through a map influence our perception of power. The cultural impact of Imperialism and Colonialism is seen nowadays through the connotation that the North Pole is "good" and the South Pole is "bad", says Darren Chetty. Are the European-centred maps still of substance today or are they just an unfunded legacy left by the colonialist period? (Malina)

According to Darren Chetty’s claims, research suggests that north-south positions on maps have psychological consequences. What would happen if we suddenly turned the world map upside down? McArthur’s “Universal corrective map of the world” challenged the common mental representation of the world by putting the south at the top. In my opinion, this map is revolutionary as it shifts the focus to the south, an area that has always been neglected or minimized, encouraging to broaden our “mental borders”. Viewing McArthur’s map has offered me a new and fascinating perspective to reflect upon and showed how something as simple as reversing the world’s map can mark the start of a different kind of inquiry.(please insert name)

Imperialism and climate change
This idea is based on a podcast that I recently listened to from Dr Sealey-Huggins, a professor at Warwick University. '1.5 oC to stay alive'?: climate change, imperialism and 'colonialism' in the Caribbean  Article available from: 

Dr Sealey-Huggins portrays an incredibly progressive view of the threat of climate change in the Caribbean, to further examine the social and political relations of climate change. It discusses how global development paths have been framed by imperialism and colonialism. Thus, the article makes specific reference to the Caribbean, who's cultural existence is significantly threatened by climate change.

Developing further, it is important to recognise that climate change is often disputed as a technical scientific issue, one that specifically neglects the recognition of the "social political relations underpinning it". For instance, when we think of climate change, it is commonly related to the geophysical effects of global warming, extreme weather and rising sea levels. Thus, it is distinctly distinguished as a problem for scientists to resolve. Sealey-Huggins claims that from this stems great "vulnerability" of the Caribbean, given that "these impacts within the region is not reducible to location". He proceeds to highlight the fact that the Caribbean, alike many nations, was subject to the expropriation of wealth by the colonisers, notably European powers. It is arguable that the phenomenon of the Industrial Revolution based itself on such resources, which is highlighted as a great contributor to the release of emissions into the atmosphere and thus, a significant contributor to climate change, which now poses such a great threat to nations like the Caribbean. Furthermore, this highlights that such imperialism has dictated which nations are culpable for the global crisis.

It is clear that in todays climate, developing nations, like developed nations, are being summoned to act against climate change, which has been highlighted by events such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Summit. Developing further, the term "carbon imperialism" refers to the idea that committing to such agreements would limit the potential economic growth of developing countries, given the limit on emissions produced. India, is referred to as an important example, given that "India’s emissions lag some way behind the historical emissions of most global North countries", which further promotes the idea that such targets for global emissions are predominantly in the interest of imperial powers. Furthermore, it could be argued that developing countries should not share the same burden of climate change.

Therefore, Sealey-Huggins implies that the threat of climate change should not be addressed without reference to the social and political relations that are analysed as "significantly patterned by contemporary forms of imperialism". Furthermore, future action should consist of an ethical approach, which considers the historical and social causes of the global phenomenon. Megan

Hierarchy of races
Linnaeus, a Swedish scientist, divided humans in four major races→dehumanisation of native populations (e.g. raced-based medicine)→ I feel like it is a very human characteristic to treat something new as something monstrous. (Rebecca)

The identification of difference was always read against the extreme polarities of primitive and civilized, East and West, just as certainly as it had already been set out between woman and man. That these differences stood was never in question; there was no danger of blurring boundaries, weakening the hierarchies. This knowledge of difference served, as Edward Said states, to “help the mind intensify its own sense of itself by dramatizing the distance and difference between what is close to it and what is far away. (1978,p.55) in Willinsky 1998:28 (please insert name)

The lecture very much presented the 'West' as the champions of imperialism and provoked thoughts on how so many of our modern day views of society are shaped by this history - our education, our maps, our charities, our very view of our position in the world. The lecture mentioned the construction of racial stereotypes as a tool to build a hierarchy, very much putting 'Homo Europaeus' as the Western world on 'top'. This hierarchy is of course symptomatic of the West's 'success' in colonising the world, but it did make me wonder about the fundamental tribal nature of mankind and whether this group can be 'blamed' for its history. I am in no way defending the acts of colonialism and many of the atrocities that went hand in hand, but it leads me to consider whether the human brain is in a sense hardwired to be 'tribal' and therefore can the 'west' be blamed for being the most 'successful' in their assertion of power over other races, or people they see to be different. I don't really know the answer to this but the lecture has made me consider where our views of race come from and whether they are instinctive in nature, in an almost animalistic way. I think perhaps the instinct to protect your own (family, friends, country, 'race') is symptomatic of the HUMAN race, and not of a racial construct. (Rosalind)

Imperialism drew borders not only in a physical way via the relentless territorial expansion of the european colonial powers, but also in a psychological way, providing our minds with unfounded and specific ideas on how we should perceive the world we live in. These ideas are not based on actual facts but on the subjective division of the globe into the civilised and the primitive, goodness and badness, wealth and savageness, associating the former with the global north and the latter with the south. The north is viewed as “The Promised Land”, a rich place to aim at and its being at the top fits our concepts of superiority, charts and hierarchies. (Nora)

There were a couple of things that sparked my interest during our lecture on Imperialism, the main thing being the science of race, where the role of the natural sciences was to make race a fixed point of human difference. It was inferred during the lecture that there is an underlying legacy to the use of “race” as the main way of differentiation and distinction, where a swedish scientist from the 18th century, Carl Linnaeus, divided humans into four major subgroups and ranked them based on their inferiority to Caucasians. This prompts the question of whether the science of race was another product of imperialism, where the extreme polarities between what was deemed as the barbaric and the civilised had to remain distinct in order for the West to ensure their dominance over others. While this is a broad claim to make, I do see how we portray and label our differences and use those labels to instigate superiority over others. This is especially prevalent in today’s world, where race easily becomes a point of attack, or as an excuse for certain actions. It’s incredibly interesting yet startling to consider how the past remains present in the ways that we see ourselves as well as the world. After the lecture, I began thinking about the wider implications of imperialism on education. Being from Hong Kong, I was always familiar with the brutal history of the Second-sino Japanese War that occured in Hong Kong and China. Japanese troops would conduct mass-killings and mass-rapes throughout cities in China, most notably Nanjing, and many Chinese citizens were murdered during that time. While this is a prominent event in both Japanese and Chinese history, the Japanese education system actually erases the Second-sino Japanese War from the History that is being taught to Japanese schoolchildren. As a result, most Japanese people have little to no knowledge about the Second-sino Japanese War. As discussed in the lecture, education was formed under the influences of imperialism, with the goal of dividing and defining identities. This made me wonder: What happens when the education of two cultures don’t coincide? Are both narratives equally valid? (Jae)

Story of Sarah Baartman
An element that particularly caught my attention is the specific story of Sarah Baartman, a South African Khoikho woman literally imported to Europe and exposed as the ‘Hottentot Venus’. When she died in 1815, her body was autopsied as part of the science of race’s research program and then kept on public display in the Musée d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. These French scientists were interested in observing enlarged genitalia, referring to ‘racial characteristics’ and thus would be the product/sign of low brain capacities. By doing so they would link physical features to moral characteristics and cognitive capacities; they deduced identity from physicality. The racial differentiation they made explained the superiority they granted themselves with. It was only in may 2002 that her remains were repatriated to her homeland. (please insert name)

Imperialism in Literature

 * Lenin, V., Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917)
 * Shakespeare, W., The Tempest (1610)

Further readings
Further readings for someone who is interested in Imperialism are the following:


 * Bush, B. (1999) Imperialism, Race and Resistance, Routledge.
 * Shakespeare, W.,(1609) The Tempest (Imperialistic relationships between England and America are explored throughout the play and applied to personal human interactions between the central characters.)
 * Conrad, J. (1899), Heart of Darkness ( A parallel is made between the Congo free State - the heart of Africa, a place of darkness - and "the greatest town on earth" - London.)
 * Sealey-Huggings, L.'1.5 oC to stay alive'?: climate change, imperialism and 'colonialism' in the Caribbean. (Podcast focussing on the Imperial character of the threat of climate change).