Summary

As we enter the beginning of the 20th century, it is clear that science will play a prominent role in all aspects of society. Science in Europe began under the radar, limited in application and influence by the domination of religion. But through the centuries, as the church has weakened and science has garnered more attention, we have seen scientific breakthroughs and influences both challenging and shaping society. The 19th century was home to critical scientific studies and theories whose influences expanded beyond the scientific community. Darwin's theories challenged the way society was structured and the way humanity viewed itself. Herbert Spencer's belief of social Darwinism merged scientific and social proponents, underlining the significance and influence science now held in European society. Scientific innovations modernized warfare and manufacturing. Science affected Europe's modernization and its role will strengthen as Europe enters the 20th century.

A Struggle with Character

At the very beginning of the fall semester, we debated as a class whether to classify Russia as a part of Europe. There is no right answer, but as we have followed the development of Russia through the centuries, it is clear that our MEH class was not the only group befuddled about the correct way to view Russia's association with Europe. The country itself had trouble defining its character. This struggle is clearly explicated in the late 19th and early 20th century Russia. Through class struggles and a conflicted government, we see the country torn between abiding to western influences and maintaining a strictly traditional Russia. As industrialization renovated western Europe into a stronger basis for economic and political expansion and stability, Russia was forced to consider industrializing for the sake of their military power amidst strengthening western countries. Russia was behind in modernization, and its rapid push towards industrialization intensified class struggles. The state took a militaristic approach to structure the industrial workforce, leaving little leeway for fair working conditions already fought for and established in the west. Although Russia attempted to model itself industrially like western Europe, the country was resistant to makeover its legal and political systems to match a modernizing society. It is here where Russia's identity crisis takes a grave turn as Russia's western and Russian influences clash without any authority willing to concretely choose one over the other. Tsars attempted to maintain conservative policies, but industrialization asked for more liberalizing policies and control. Although Russia was behind western Europe industrially, the country did not consider looking at the effects and consequences of western Europe's industrialization and the country instead opted for a weird and imbalanced blend of western Europe and Russia to model its society after. The Russian government's indecisiveness on how to handle Russia's modernization and stubbornness to retain a traditional Russian society created such a discordance that a revolution would be inevitable and necessary.

Darwin

Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection was certainly a radical scientific claim. The idea that variations within a species determined their fitness for survival added a new element to the system of nature, the notion of competition and the survival of the fittest. The most interesting part of Darwin's theory is how we see it manifested in all aspects of society. Darwin proves competition's relevance in the natural world, but 19th century society had been grounded with a sense of competition for centuries. Competition defined social structures and developed the basis for capitalism and imperialism. Humans' natural impulse towards competition and securing dominance over one another is closely tied with the natural world in Darwin's theory. In the countless ways we have seen European society modernize and structure itself to command itself superior not only over nature, but over other nations, Darwin claims that all of this motion is natural occurrence. Such a claim weakens the superior stance Europeans assumed. Modernization and innovation were signs of superior success, something that alloted a greater sense of power to one country over another. But Darwin suggests that the ability to compete on such a level is not a mark of a superior European but is a natural impulse shared by all organisms on earth. Society had constructed ways to interpret competition and the rank of countries, and Darwin suggests that it must simply remain a construction, not a natural law. Darwin's studies surpassed a strictly scientific vector and challenged the way society conceived hierarchy. Society's uses of competition, for economic and political powers, were not resultant of a modernizing society. The ability to compete was not a societal invention, but rather an ability derived from the natural world.

The Machine Gun in Africa

The mid-nineteenth century renovated machine gun provided new points of access to global powers searching for dominance in Africa. The "Scramble for Africa" had pinned powers against each other in a struggle to claim the most rewarding and economically beneficial lands in all parts of Africa. It was no coincidence that the first wave of imperialist Europeans struck northern Africa first as the region was the easiest to access. Other colonies blossomed around the coastline of Africa, following the popular trading route. But while these colonies were certainly progressive and helpful in staking countries' claims on the African continent, no countries dared to set foot in Africa's interior. Ample resources resided in there no doubt, but without sufficient equipment to guide the Europeans into Africa's depths, no one would venture in unarmed. Populations of African tribes, diverse in itself, would have remained virtually unaffected by European invasions on the coast and in the north if it were not for technological innovations that granted Europeans the means for Africa's further exploitation. The maxim automatic machine gun, developed in 1884, gave Europeans the ultimatum in imperialist warfare. The gun drastically imbalanced wars with Africa's natives and acted as a sure sign of European superiority in Africa. The employment of a single utility allowed Europeans to advance their claims in Africa and to move swiftly, with little native retaliation, into Africa's interior. The significance the machine gun played in the 19th century imperialism suggests the power technological innovation now held in the modern world. Industrialization and the inventions it inspired changed the European scene. Countries bathing in the prosperity of industrialization were now equipped with new tools that cemented their superiority over unindustrialized countries. 

Summary of New Imperialism

In studying European history, I have become aware of its cyclic nature through the centuries. Similar themes and players reemerge over and over again. One of these reoccurrences is imperialism. Although the two imperialist movements were both influenced by  the environments of their centuries, the two movements also share common motivations.The first imperialism was set in an era where governments in Europe were predominantly autocracies and where navigation and exploration were gaining importance on the European stage. Religion played an important role in the daily lives of Europeans.  The first imperialist movement, characterized by the motto "Gold, God, and Cathay" relied on religious and economic aims. The discovery of the New World attracted major European powers to the new land, using missionaries and brutal wars to suppress and christianize natives. The colonies established worked many times as a source of income for the mainland, using native labor to harvest and excavate natural resources to then import to the European mother countries. 

The 15th and 16th century European society undoubtedly influenced the ways in which imperialism was handled, but we see similar motives for the new imperialism in the 19th century even though the political, economic, and social climates of Europe had significantly shifted. 19th century European society was set in an ever industrializing environment, far different from the atmosphere of the 15th and 16th centuries. Politics had gained more complexities and the notion of capitalism united both government and industrialism in the drive for state and industry income. Expansionism and imperialism were key instrumentations in acquiring this money and power in the intensifying relations between Europe's main powers. New technologies allowed for different approaches and strategies for imperialism and allotted a greater sense of superiority to the imperialists, who, equipped with armed armies, could seize control over a native population more swiftly than before. The railroad helped define these colonies as purely moneymakers for the mother countries, withdrawing natural resources from the colonies to deliver them to the "superior" nations. In an age dominated by science, religion played a lesser role in the new imperialism, and rather beliefs in Europeans' natural ascension to lands 

populated with "savages" provided reason to suppress and civilize these populations. 

Although the two imperialist movements emerged from drastically different environments, the underlining political, economic, and social motivations are shared in both. The only stark difference I see that differentiates new imperialism from its former is the interesting role the populace played. Nationalism was definitely a tool employed by governments to reason the nations' imperialist actions, but not all people were swayed by the generalized concepts nationalism preached. The development of journals, newspapers, and photography allowed individuals to witness the realities of imperialism and the treatment in the colonies. Such developments allowed people to take a more forceful role in their countries' partaking in imperialism, something they would not have assumed in the earlier imperialism, where Europeans were mainly left obscured to the realities of the colonies.

A New Role for Nationalism

The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 weakened France in many respects, one of which helped to redefine the nation's political atmosphere. The installment of the Third Republic in 1875 represented a desired democratic pathway following the Second Empire, but the transfer from an authoritative government to a democratic one was not smooth and allowed for the advancement of radical right-wing politics. The new conservatism responded negatively to the new system of government, labeling itself as anti-parliamentary and against the protection of individual liberties. While it could be said that right-wing politics in the past have had the same values, late 19th century conservatism relied on one principle it had not associated itself with before: nationalism. When it was formally related to liberalist values, nationalism stood as a celebration of the nation and a union of the people of that nation. The liberalist nationalism provided reason for representation for the common man in society. However, this new conservative nationalism interpreted the celebration of a nation and its principles in a different manner. Conservatives used nationalism to promote the supremacy of their nation and culture over others. Nationalism provided reason to distrust and reject foreigners as well as prove to be an essential component for the promotion of anti-Semitism. Nationalism provided a basis for racism and injustice and a moral reason for imperialism, in which the stronger nation would help "civilize" the weaker and savage nation.  The idea of nationalism is a flexible one; one that can be molded to fit into a certain ideology. The way nationalism had been used in the 19th century, amongst revolutionaries and governments, liberals and conservatives, acknowledges nationalism's morphology. 

Summary

Industrialization and Nationalism were two constant themes in the 19th century that interestingly shared a lot of connections. Industrialization greatly transformed the social atmosphere, reconstructing the role of workers and imposing new social issues. The colossal size and mechanism industry favored lessened the importance of an individual worker, paving the way for protests for workers' rights and unions. The worker's role was one of many new social issues industrialization introduced, others including the loss of a rural environment and the role of industrialization for the state that often times influenced particular political, economic, and social measures. These social changes created issues that needed to be dealt with reform. Nationalism in the 19th century acted as a valuable mechanism for reform. Nationalism meant tearing down the political, social, and economic barriers within a state in hopes of unifying the state under common law and common goals. Under unification, reform would be much easier to pass in legislature. In this case, nationalism acted as a response to Europe's growing industrialization. 

Additionally, industrialization, particularly modernized transportation with the railroad, encouraged the growth of nationalism. With railroads, regions within a state or nation that had once seemed so distant from each other were pulled closer together economically and socially as people, food, and other items could travel across large distances faster. Railroads encouraged a unified trade and economy as well as a singular cultural identification. Industrialization and nationalism both worked as independent events in the 19th century, but their simultaneous presence in Europe allowed the two ideas to influence one another.

The Eastern Question

In the second half of the 19th century, a weakening Ottoman Empire prompted the reemergence of the "Eastern Question." In what eventually culminated in the Crimean War (1854-1856), the tensions between great European powers for control of the territory of the Ottoman Empire begs another question: what happened to the "balance of powers"? The 19th century began with a pan-European idealism to pacify and stabilize Europe while preventing any country from becoming overly dominant. But halfway through the 19th century, the goals set forth by the Congress of Vienna seemed to be obscured by arising prosperous opportunities as the Ottoman Empire began to fade. The Balkans appeared so desirous that personal interests had to trump goals agreed to in the Congress of Vienna and as a part of the Concert of Europe. Does this make the intentions of the Congress of Vienna a failure? Or did the Crimean War merely mark the end of an era for European peace? The Great Power politics that arose during the onset of the Crimean War harken back to traditional dominating and power-seeking intentions of countries. The Great Power politics would remain the go-to strategy up to World War I. 

Bismarck

I find Bismarck to be one of the most interesting political figures we have studied thus far in MEH. His strict, anti-liberal measures and manipulative foreign policy may not have made him a popular leader, but his aggressive strategies secured Prussia decisive victories to solidify the state as the dominant one in the German Confederacy. August Ludwig von Rochau's Realpolitik describes Bismarck's motivation "to the T", that power does not come to those arguing for just causes such as enlightened values of reason and rights, but to those through economic expansion and social institutions. It appears that Bismarck's first and foremost thought was that for the Prussian state, not for his image.

It is interesting to compare Bismarck's politics to those of the politicians we see in American politics today. In American politics, image is everything. A politician's policies are crucial, but American politics have been crafted in such a way that it is sometimes better to subtly manipulate the way a politician presents his policies rather than straightforwardly present them. Image determines popularity which determines votes and the win or loss of a political seat. This is ultimately a function of a democracy, but a political process in which image may occasionally be weighted more so than policies does not represent the way I believe politics should be handled. It is in this light when Bismarck's state-focused leadership stands out. Although Bismarck's political role came as an appointment by the Prussian king, a political figure who is willing to devote all areas to the benefit of the state is something that rarely is found in its pure form today.