Friday, February 10, 2017

Month 6 Week 3

Discuss how does indirect and direct control affect cultural identity?

Direct: 
In a direct rule, a colony would be governed by foreign officials while no self-rule was given to natives. The goal was assimilation of the colony into an empire. Government institutions were based on European governments. The Belgian King Leopold II practiced the most brutal style of direct rule in the Belgian Congo. Almost 10,000,000 Congolese were killed in his entire rule. France also often practiced direct rule of her colonies. Vietnam, Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia are notable examples.    

Indirect:  
In an indirectly ruled colony, local government officials might be used, while the native upper-class was given limited self-rule over the colony. The goal was to Westernize future leaders of a colony in order to perpetuate a power’s control. This was accomplished in Raj India under the British East India Tea Company until the Sepoy Rebellion. After the rebellion was put down, the British Government assumed direct rule over the colony.

8 comments:

  1. Indirect control affects cultural identity by making new rules more acceptable to the public. Direct control often causes unrest and fear in a population.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Direct control completely destroys cultural identify. Foreign officials are brought in to rule, meaning there is no self-rule whatsoever, and government institutions are based only on European styles. The entire goal of direct control is assimilation, where the local populations become absorbed into the culture of whatever power controls that colony. Thus, the people lose their culture amidst all of this foreign influence and take-over. They are essentially forced to lose who they are as a people in order to submit to the rule and control of a powerful European country. Even later when the policy of “association,” a milder version of assimilation, was accepted, the native peoples' cultures were always considered inferior to the European cultures.
    Contrastingly, indirect control only slightly interferes with cultural identity. Local governments are used, meaning there is limited self-rule (rather than none), and government institutions are based on European styles, but may have local rules. The overall goal of indirect control is not to completely take away the natives' culture, but instead to develop future leaders and ultimately make the colony self-governing, yet answerable to its European colonizer. Thus, while the rulers and government must remotely answer to the powerful European country, they still have control of the day-to-day management and have a legislative council for the colony. Its native peoples are still able to practice their traditions and keep their culture alive, though there is foreign influence that may cause people to slightly change the way they think, act, and follow their traditions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Indirect control affects a country by putting higher class citizens into a higher power. this also was led by a small government. The higher-ups usually oversaw this small government. Direct control was when the main government led everything. whether it was laws, if they were to stay as a puppet state, or if they were to be annexed, etc. -Christian Beatty

    ReplyDelete
  4. Direct control would eliminate cultural identity, because assimilation into European culture leaves no room for your own. Indirect control would not have any effect on cultural identity, because it doesn't involve assimilation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Colonization itself is a danger to cultural identity no matter the variety, but the more damaging version is obviously direct control. Powers that practice direct control don't only disregard and look down on the local people's preexisting culture(s), but they often wish to eradicate it/them. When nations like France aim for this goal, it is called assimilation. All local establishments, from schools to courts to businesses, are modeled after those of the imperialist power with the goal of assimilating the locals into said power's culture over time. Direct control essentially depends on one culture cannibalizing another, for what the misguided power perceives as the world's benefit. Even when assimilation is replaced with its successor "association," local culture is recognized as still being inferior--even if it's being recognized, which is a theoretical upgrade.
    Indirect control, on the other hand, allows for a bit more cultural breathing room. Reliant on local rulers rather than imported officials, this method lets the resident culture exist in its own way, albeit with heavy Western influence. The goal, rather than assimilation, is developing future leaders out of the region's people. While there is still an undeniable sentiment of racism and a perceived need to Westernize the population present, indirect control is definitely less severe than its carnivorous alternative. It still can leave an incredibly negative imprint on the people and their culture(s), though. Britain's indirect control over Nigeria and India saw passionate resistance and resentment in both cases.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Direct control affects cultural identity by whoever is ruling deciding on all the laws and not allowing the people any say which causes the culture to sway more towards one person's specific vision. Indirect control affects cultural identity by allowing a culture to get slightly too hectic by the people having more of a say in the laws they want and what they invision. 3

    ReplyDelete
  8. In direct rule none of the natives had any say in the rule. The government can control all of the cultural identity. Indirect rule there was little bit more control to the upper class people and let them have more authority and say into the cultural identity.

    ReplyDelete