In summary...

                This research project, for me at least, is not coming to an end. Though this will be my final post on this blog, I will continue to research and learn why many people have little or no faith in the people who govern us, and the effects that this distrust has on the people of a nation and the world as a whole. I’ve decided to use my last post to give a general summary of the things I’ve learned as well as an analysis of the things I thought might be true but wanted more factual evidence than I had in the beginning to base my theory off of. I will also include a conclusion of my thoughts on the subject at the end of the post and how my final analysis relates to our modern world.

                I learned several specific factors to distrust in government as I was reading documentation of historical rebellions and revolutions, many of which fall into a small group of categories that I will describe in the paragraph below. It was interesting to read the similarities and the subtle differences in revolutions that have come and gone, suggesting that since the beginning of recorded human history there have been people who have believed in humanity’s rights as a whole. I can say that for the most part, the rights of all people is the main reason that there have been revolutions in our past and will continue to be revolutions until the end of days. There have been many contributing aspects in each specific situation for why people would need to fight for these rights in different times in history, though the goal has generally always been to improve the lives of the citizens of a country and citizens of the world. In the interest of avoiding redundancy and staying on topic, if you’d like to read more about these specific similarities and differences, read some of my other posts or, better yet, do a little research of your own.

                I wouldn’t say I learned all that much in regards to how distrust in public officials comes to be. For the most part, my research supported my initial hypotheses; that people distrust their government based on the conquering of native lands by unwanted invaders, in the case of the native people not having faith in their conquerors; the deprivation of basic human rights, including but not limited to freedom of religion, implementing exclusive restrictions on minority groups instead of a society as a whole, freedom of speech and self-expression, equal opportunity for all citizens to improve their lives through hard work, and protection of these rights and others by their government; and an oppressive economic disparity between the citizens of a country and those who control the politics in that country. I think people like to believe that many of these issues are confined to our past and are no longer relevant in our modern, progressive world. I would argue that these factors are widely prevalent in modern society and that there are several political revolutions in progress based on these factors even as I type this post.

                The final piece of my research that I’d like to point out is the effects that people’s distrust in government has on the people of a nation. As you can probably tell from my words above, you can probably tell that one of the most discernible effects is political revolution, in which a myriad of human lives have been lost. There is also an aftermath to any revolution, in which a nation may be surrounded in political discourse for an indeterminate period of time after the mutinied leaders are out of power. The alternative to revolution, peaceful or otherwise, is the perennial suffering that those without power must endure if they choose not to act against their oppressors. In either case, anguish is apparent and seemingly inescapable.

                In my safe little corner of the world, in which I have a job, a car that I pay for, a roof over my head that I pay for, and an education that I will be paying for in my coming years, I really don’t have much to complain about as far as my personal economic and political situation goes, and I am truly thankful for the opportunities that have been provided for me, and those that I earned through hard work and dedication. This doesn’t negate the fact that since I can remember I have seen unspeakable tragedies passed off as “just the way it is”, and have only become increasingly disgusted with the “way it is” as I’ve grown older and learned more about our world. People are dying from hunger, untreated disease, weather conditions that can’t be avoided without shelter, and unjust wars, every second of every day. If you think this problem only exists in third world countries, go to downtown Portland and tell me the detriments of “greed is good” aren’t alive and well. People do a lot to help each other with no inhibitions regarding borders or nationality, and this is true throughout humanity; however the fact that people are dying from the lack of fundamental human needs while 46% of the world’s wealth is being controlled by 1% of the population, while an inconceivable amount of said wealth supports politicians, suggests that there is something incontrovertibly corrupt at play in our world today.

The sun never set, nor did it ever rise: The British Empire in India

It was true; the sun never set on the British Empire, geographically speaking. However, metaphorically speaking, the sun never seemed to rise over its Indian colonies, and the aftermath of British rule in India still plays a role in the politics of the region to this day. What started as a collection of merchants from the British East Indies Company looking for “quiet trade” was eventually expanded into a full-blown political state controlled by Great Britain, after British armies and their native Indian, British-trained allies defeated the French in the Seven Years’ War. These victories sparked a period of economic exploitation by the merchants of the British East Indies Company. When the company came close to bankruptcy due to lack of management, Great Britain began sending representatives to govern the territory and oversee the company’s proceedings. Some of these governors were interested in learning about and preserving the native culture and allowed natives to hold office in their government, while others abolished the culturally-sensitive policies put in place by their predecessors and opted for a British-controlled state. This created a large gap in the economic classes, with the British in the higher class and the Indians in the lower class.

                Eventually tension grew between the British settlers who respected the culture of the Indians and those who were devoted to bringing the British customs to the Indians, and in effect, so did tensions between the Indians and the British as a whole. Modern technology of the times being brought into India, which contrasted with the slower, more traditional pace of the economy, as well as Christian missionaries clashing with the Hindu and Muslim populations created more unrest. This unrest culminated in the Great India Mutiny in 1857. The rebellion was put down by the British, and resulted in the queen assuming direct control over most of India, and the eventual disbanding of the British East Indies Company. The queen also indirectly controlled much of India through princes who implemented British policies in their kingdoms.  During this period, British companies and schools helped to boost the economy, and the government ran fairly efficiently. However, these institutions further widened the gap between the classes, and Indians were beginning to work for their independence.

                There were several movements advocating for Indian independence during this time, one of which was a Muslim led movement who feared their voices would not be heard in a largely Hindu state. This realization led to a political issue which still exists in India and the surrounding region today, as Muslim and Hindu populations clashed over the land and politics of India.

                During World War I and World War II, Indian recruits in the British military boosted their forces to such an extent that the British were obliged to promise eventual independence for India, with rights to the citizens and economic advantages being provided on the way to independence. In 1920, Mahatma Gandhi emerged as a leading promoter of Indian independence and peaceful civil disobedience to achieve his goal. For fear of their imperialist policies being frowned upon in the international stage, the British were forced to give in to Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, which he led from 1920 until his death. After World War II, the British relinquished their control of India, but this left the question of whether or not there would be a separate state that would be composed of a primarily Muslim population or if the whole region would be left without borders separating the two religious groups. Eventually a plan was formed to create a separate Muslim state in the north, but disagreements between these groups still play a major role in the politics of the region and threaten the stability of the nation.

                Had the British never taken an economically and politically advantageous position in the region, one might wonder if these problems would still exist between the factions of the native populations. In theory, with practice living together and governing themselves instead of having their decisions made by a foreign super power for hundreds of years, some might argue that a peaceful solution could have been reached long ago. Once again, the treatment of native populations as lower class citizens and the governing body of a region making decisions for groups that they have no involvement in create distrust and unrest in the region. There have been generations of Indians who must deal with the issues that may have been solved long ago had the interests of an imperial state not been considered more important than their own, on top of the fact that, as with many other places on earth, the majority of the population still faces economic turmoil and a lack of aid to their suffering. Rather than working together to create a peaceful solution, they first had to find a way to expel their conquerors simply to regain their land and start again from scratch, which can only be summarized as time that needn’t have been wasted if the British nobility wouldn’t have been so narcissistic to think that their way of life is the best way of life.

Trouble in Tibet

                People everywhere have a lack of faith in those who govern them, whether their leader is from the same part of the planet or not. Imperialism doesn’t always take place across the globe, often times it’s quite the opposite. Most times in history when a territory is taken over it’s by another group of people neighboring the territory, not by a foreign superpower eager for global domination. This was certainly the case in Tibet in the 1950’s, when the People’s Republic of China took over Tibet and annexed it as a part of China. Not surprisingly, this didn’t go over very well with the natives, and their unrest culminated in the failed Lhasa uprising of 1959. Since then, there have been countless protests, freedom marches, and international debates as to what the solution for a peaceful Tibet could be. At the forefront of most of these debates is the Dalai Lama, a native of Tibet and a global symbol for peace.

                As with most imperial conquests, the incentives boil down to the economics of the situation. Tibet has an overwhelming plethora of underutilized natural resources, as well as countless square miles of space for urban development. However, many of the natives in Tibet live by humble means, and the thought of skyscrapers filled with outsiders looking to take advantage of their land is less than appealing. Not to mention the basic human rights that the natives have been robbed of, including the right to practice religion and the right to speak freely. The political police are always present as a violent, oppressive force not to be questioned, as the consequences can often mean death to offenders. The police are kept incredibly busy, as there seems to always be a lingering chance of rebellion. I don’t think it would come as a shock to anyone why Tibet is in such turmoil if they knew the circumstances Tibetans faced.

                So what can we learn from their seemingly perpetual strife? The stripping away of rights is one reoccurring factor. One thing is certain; whenever a group of people feels a strong connection to the land in which they live and that land is taken over or invaded, there will always be conflict. It seems that a peaceful resolution is nearly impossible to bring about when the desire for capital gains and the desire to preserve ancient cultural customs clash in one territory. People are compelled to act in their own self-interest, and I can’t think of a single instance in human history when the interests of a conquered people is taken into account, and they have certainly never been held in a higher regard than the interests of those doing the conquering. Would you trust someone who was forcing you out of a place that you considered sacred, simply for their own personal gain? I didn’t think so.

Bibliography:

The Sun Behind the Clouds: Tibet's Struggle for Freedom. Dir. Tenzing Sonam and Ritu Sarin. Perf. The Dalai Lama, Tenzin Tsundue. Arch Communications, White Crane Films, 2010. Documentary.

Close to Home: The Mexican Revolution

      I’d like to jump ahead a couple thousand years from the Romans and take a look at a more modern example of cultural and political upheaval. The Mexican Revolution, which took place from 1910 into the 1920’s, was the first major national revolution of the 20^th century. Its beginnings were rooted in a meticulously orchestrated uprising of peasants in Mexico, led by Pascual Orozco and Francisco “Pancho” Villa in the north and Emiliano Zapata in the south, and was inspired by individuals who questioned the President at the time, Porfirio Díaz.

The main goal of the revolution was to acquire land rights for the working poor; the people working the fields to produce the crops that the land owners capitalized on. The slogan “La tierra es para el que la trabaja”, or “the land is for those who work it”, was an expertly phrased rallying cry for the majority of the population who worked their whole lives and still struggled to get by. It seems that a pattern is emerging; people don’t like when they know that those who have power who are supposed to be using that power to work for human rights and to create methods for aiding their citizens who are in need are also those who are taking advantage of the people who are suffering. It seems so simple, and yet for thousands of years there has been loss and bloodshed due to the fact that there are people who never have to work a day in their life who live like kings and people who work every day of their lives and live in destitution, or don’t live. Many revolutions in history have been fought over this common theme, and the Mexican revolution was no different.

Yet the Mexican revolution also bears a warning in how the next president of Mexico was chosen after Díaz was overthrown. After Díaz resigned and left the country, 2 of the next 3 Presidents were assassinated, and the third also fled the country. When a revolution turns violent, there is no stopping retaliation from your opposition. Díaz left the country in 1911, yet the violence didn’t for another decade or more. I’m not saying that voicing your opinion through force is never necessary; if your people are dying due to oppressive political regimes, at that point a violent revolution would be considered self-defense in my mind. However, in this case as in many cases, violence is often reciprocated, and though people would often die for their revolution, I believe that a just cause should only ever result in violence when all other alternatives have been exhausted. I’m not saying the revolutionaries of Mexico did anything wrong, as I’m sure the wealthy land owners knew there was a general distaste for the aristocratic class. I just thought it was interesting to point out that even though there was a new, democratically elected leader there was not peace, and considerable social and political change sometimes can take a while for people to understand. Not to mention there will always be the ancestry of those whom a revolution overthrew that will harbor resentment.

Other than the moral debate regarding when to cross the line from protesting to rebelling and considering the implications of crossing that line, what can we learn from the Mexican revolution? Well, as I thought I would come to notice, the pattern of class warfare leading to revolution is beginning to show. This usually only occurs when the majority of people are in the underclass, but generally speaking that is the case. I’ve also concluded that when people are given a position of power based on their actions prior to acquiring the position and what they said they would do while they hold it often contradict what they actually do while they have the job. This was the case of Venustiano Carranza, who was elected president after taking part in the revolution. However, he was a wealthy landowner who supported the revolution, and for some reason when he took office his actions didn’t align with the new Constitution of Mexico. This led to his assassination, but also inspired curiosity and perplexity as to what changed from the time he was elected to the time he was killed. Was there a genuine lack of ability on his end to surmount the old system and design a satisfying new system, or was there a genuine lack of desire and will? I suppose I will continue to wonder, but one thing is for sure; history has taught us that a leader will almost certainly disappoint at least half of the population they are leading, and sometimes they will disappoint a much larger percentage when they don’t seem to stand for the principles that they were elected because of.

Bibliography

"The Mexican Revolution: November 20th, 1910 | EDSITEment." The Mexican Revolution: November 20th, 1910 | EDSITEment. Edsitement!, n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2013.