Description

Support for populist, ethnically-based nationalism has risen throughout the West (in Europe and in the United States). The success of political leaders such as Matteo Salvini, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, and Marine Le Pen who explicitly support anti-immigration policies are indicative of this transformation. Based upon what you have learned in this class, put Western support for such messages, policies, and leaders into historical context. Some topics to consider might be:

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
University of California Santa Barbara Rise of Ethnic Nationalism and Populism Essay
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

The Atlantic System and the rise of race-based enslavement

The Era of New Imperialism

The Experiences of WWI, WWII, and the Holocaust 

Post WWII decolonization and the role of the Cold War in destabilizing developing nations.

The era of globalism and population migration.

Remember that this needs to be 4-7 page paper (double spaced, 12 pt font) and you must include at least 3 primary sources (chosen from the list below). Do Not plagiarize!

This essay requires you to have a thesis, supporting body, and a conclusion. you need to show analytical support for your answer with evidence (at least 3 primary sources analyzed as supporting evidence). The essay needs to be at least 4-7 pages normal margins, double space, 12pt font. Three primary sources must be incorporated into your response (with analysis, not simply a casual reference / name-dropping).

Bartolomé de Las Casas, In Defense of the Indians

Olaudah Equino, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equino Written by Himself

The Chronicle of Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti

Jules Ferry, Speech before the French National Assembly

Ndansi Kumalo, His Story

National Security Council, Paper Number 68

Ho Chi Minh, Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Vietnam 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

3. Defending Indigenous Humanity
Bartolomé de Las Casas, In Defense of the Indians (c. 1548–1550)
(Textbook chapter 14)
Indigenous peoples in the Americas suffered heavily under Spanish colonization. Millions died as the result of war
and disease, and many who survived were used as forced labor. The fate of indigenous Americans did not go
unnoticed in Europe, where the ethical and legal basis of their harsh treatment became the subject of significant
debate. Charles V, king of Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor, added fuel to the fire. In 1550, he ordered a panel of
lawyers and theologians at the University of Valladolid to evaluate the positions of two prominent opposing voices
on the issue, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1490–1573) and Bartolomé de Las Casas (1474–1566). Drawing heavily on
Aristotle’s notion that hierarchy was natural, Sepúlveda argued that the Spanish had the right to enslave indigenous
Americans because they were an inferior and less civilized people. Las Casas, whose response is excerpted below,
rejected Sepúlveda’s position, based in part on his own experience living in Spanish America. Here he witnessed
firsthand the devastating human impact of colonization and was ultimately swayed by the local Dominican monks’
campaign against the mistreatment of Indians. He joined the Dominican order and thereafter was a vocal advocate
for indigenous Americans until his death in 1566. Although the Valladolid panel did not declare a winner, in practice
Las Casas’s views were drowned out by Sepúlveda and other advocates of slavery and conquest.
As a result of the points we have proved and made clear, the distinction the Philosopher [Aristotle] makes between
the two above-mentioned kinds of barbarian is evident. For those he deals with in the first book of the Politics, and
whom we have just discussed, are barbarians without qualification, in the proper and strict sense of the word, that is,
dull witted and lacking in the reasoning powers necessary for self-government. They are without laws, without king,
etc. For this reason they are by nature unfitted for rule.
However, he admits, and proves, that the barbarians he deals with in the third book of the same work have a
lawful, just, and natural government. Even though they lack the art and use of writing, they are not wanting in the
capacity and skill to rule and govern themselves, both publicly and privately. Thus they have kingdoms,
communities, and cities that they govern wisely according to their laws and customs. Thus their government is
legitimate and natural, even though it has some resemblance to tyranny. From these statements we have no choice
but to conclude that the rulers of such nations enjoy the use of reason and that their people and the inhabitants of
their provinces do not lack peace and justice. Otherwise they could not be established or preserved as political
entities for long. This is made clear by the Philosopher and Augustine. Therefore not all barbarians are irrational or
natural slaves or unfit for government. Some barbarians, then, in accord with justice and nature, have kingdoms,
royal dignities, jurisdiction, and good laws, and there is among them lawful government.
Now if we shall have shown that among our Indians of the western and southern shores (granting that we call
them barbarians and that they are barbarians) there are important kingdoms, large numbers of people who live
settled lives in a society, great cities, kings, judges and laws, persons who engage in commerce, buying, selling,
lending, and the other contracts of the law of nations, will it not stand proved that the Reverend Doctor Sepúlveda
has spoken wrongly and viciously against peoples like these, either out of malice or ignorance of Aristotle’s
teaching, and, therefore, has falsely and perhaps irreparably slandered them before the entire world? From the fact
that the Indians are barbarians it does not necessarily follow that they are incapable of government and have to be
ruled by others, except to be taught about the Catholic faith and to be admitted to the holy sacraments. They are not
ignorant, inhuman, or bestial. Rather, long before they had heard the word Spaniard they had properly organized
states, wisely ordered by excellent laws, religion, and custom. They cultivated friendship and, bound together in
common fellowship, lived in populous cities in which they wisely administered the affairs of both peace and war
justly and equitably, truly governed by laws that at very many points surpass ours, and could have won the
admiration of the sages of Athens.…
Now if they are to be subjugated by war because they are ignorant of polished literature, let Sepúlveda hear
Trogus Pompey:
Nor could the Spaniards submit to the yoke of a conquered province until Caesar Augustus, after he
had conquered the world, turned his victorious armies against them and organized that barbaric and
wild people as a province, once he had led them by law to a more civilized way of life.
Now see how he called the Spanish people barbaric and wild. I would like to hear Sepúlveda, in his cleverness,
answer this question: Does he think that the war of the Romans against the Spanish was justified in order to free
them from barbarism? And this question also: Did the Spanish wage an unjust war when they vigorously defended
themselves against them?
Next, I call the Spaniards who plunder that unhappy people torturers. Do you think that the Romans, once
they had subjugated the wild and barbaric peoples of Spain, could with secure right divide all of you among
themselves, handing over so many head of both males and females as allotments to individuals? And do you then
conclude that the Romans could have stripped your rulers of their authority and consigned all of you, after you had
been deprived of your liberty, to wretched labors, especially in searching for gold and silver lodes and mining and
refining the metals? And if the Romans finally did that, … [would you not judge] that you also have the right to
defend your freedom, indeed your very life, by war? Sepúlveda, would you have permitted Saint James to
evangelize your own people of Córdoba in that way? For God’s sake and man’s faith in him, is this the way to
impose the yoke of Christ on Christian men? Is this the way to remove wild barbarism from the minds of
barbarians? Is it not, rather, to act like thieves, cut-throats, and cruel plunderers and to drive the gentlest of people
headlong into despair? The Indian race is not that barbaric, nor are they dull witted or stupid, but they are easy to
teach and very talented in learning all the liberal arts, and very ready to accept, honor, and observe the Christian
religion and correct their sins (as experience has taught) once priests have introduced them to the sacred mysteries
and taught them the word of God. They have been endowed with excellent conduct, and before the coming of the
Spaniards, as we have said, they had political states that were well founded on beneficial laws.
Now if Sepúlveda had wanted, as a serious man should, to know the full truth before he sat down to write with
his mind corrupted by the lies of tyrants, he should have consulted the honest religious who have lived among those
peoples for many years and know their endowments of character and industry, as well as the progress they have
made in religion and morality.…
From this it is clear that the basis for Sepúlveda’s teaching that these people are uncivilized and ignorant is
worse than false. Yet even if we were to grant that this race has no keenness of mind or artistic ability, certainly they
are not, in consequence, obliged to submit themselves to those who are more intelligent and to adopt their ways, so
that, if they refuse, they may be subdued by having war waged against them and be enslaved, as happens today. For
men are obliged by the natural law to do many things they cannot be forced to do against their will. We are bound by
the natural law to embrace virtue and imitate the uprightness of good men. No one, however, is punished for being
bad unless he is guilty of rebellion. Where the Catholic faith has been preached in a Christian manner and as it ought
to be, all men are bound by the natural law to accept it, yet no one is forced to accept the faith of Christ. No one is
punished because he is sunk in vice, unless he is rebellious or harms the property and persons of others. No one is
forced to embrace virtue and show himself as a good man.…
… Therefore, not even a truly wise man may force an ignorant barbarian to submit to him, especially by
yielding his liberty, without doing him an injustice. This the poor Indians suffer, with extreme injustice, against all
the laws of God and of men and against the law of nature itself.
1. Captivity and Enslavement
Olaudah Equiano, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano
Written by Himself (1789)
(Textbook chapter 17)
The autobiography of Olaudah Equiano (c. 1745–1797) puts a human face on the eighteenth-century Atlantic slave
trade and its consequences. As he describes, he was born in what is now Nigeria and was captured by local raiders
and sold into slavery in his early teens. He gained his freedom in 1766 and soon thereafter became a vocal
supporter of the English abolitionist movement. He published his autobiography in 1789, a best seller in its day,
with numerous editions published in Britain and America. In the following excerpt, Equiano recounts his journey on
the slave ship that took him away from his homeland, his freedom, and his very identity. Millions of others shared
this same fate. Scholars have discovered new evidence that suggests Equiano was born an enslaved person in South
Carolina, so it is likely that early parts of his autobiography melded the oral history of other enslaved people with
Equiano’s personal experiences and emotional responses. Regardless of where Equiano was in fact born, his book is
invaluable as a first-person account of slavery and one of few texts written in English during the eighteenth century
by a person of African descent.
The first object which saluted my eyes when I arrived on the coast was the sea, and a slave ship which was then
riding at anchor, and waiting for its cargo. These filled me with astonishment, which was soon converted into terror
… when I was carried on board. I was immediately handled, and tossed up to see if I were sound, by some of the
crew; and I was now persuaded that I had got into a world of bad spirits, and that they were going to kill me. Their
complexions too differing so much from ours, their long hair, and the language they spoke (which was very different
from any I had ever heard)? united to confirm me in this belief. Indeed such were the horrors of my views and fears
at the moment that, if ten thousand worlds had been my own, I would have freely parted with them all to have
exchanged my condition with that of the meanest slave in my own country. When I looked round the ship too and
saw a large furnace or copper, boiling, and a multitude of black people, of every description, chained together, every
one of their countenances expressing dejection and sorrow, I no longer doubted of my fate; and, quite overpowered
with horror and anguish, I fell motionless on the deck, and fainted. When I recovered a little, I found some black
people about me, who I believed were some of those who had brought me on board, and had been receiving their
pay; they talked to me in order to cheer me, but all in vain. I asked them if we were not to be eaten by those white
men with horrible looks, red faces, and long hair. They told me I was not: and one of the crew brought me a small
portion of spirituous liquor in a wine glass; but being afraid of him I would not take it out of his hand. One of the
blacks therefore took it from him and gave it to me, and I took a little down my palate, which instead of reviving me,
as they thought it would, threw me into the greatest consternation at the strange feeling it produced, having never
tasted such any liquor before. Soon after this the blacks who brought me on board went off, and left me abandoned
to despair.
I now saw myself deprived of all chance of returning to my native country or even the least glimpse of gaining
the shore, which I now considered as friendly; and I even wished for my former slavery, in preference to my present
situation, which was filled with horrors of every kind, still heightened by my ignorance of what I was to undergo. I
was not long suffered to indulge my grief; I was soon put down under the decks, and there I received such a
salutation in my nostrils as I had never experienced in my life: so that, with the loathsomeness of the stench, and
crying together, I became so sick and low that I was not able to eat, nor had I the least desire to taste anything.
I now wished for the last friend, death, to relieve me; but soon, to my grief, two of the white men offered me
eatables; and on my refusing to eat, one of them held me fast by the hands, and laid me across, I think, the windlass,
and tied my feet, while the other flogged me severely. I had never experienced anything of this kind before; and
although not being used to the water, I naturally feared that element the first time I saw it, yet, nevertheless could I
have got over the nettings, I would have jumped over the side, but I could not; and, besides, the crew used to watch
us very closely who were not chained down to the decks, least we should leap into the water; and I have seen some
of these poor African prisoners most severely cut for attempting to do so, and hourly whipped for not eating. This
indeed was often the case with myself. In a little time after, amongst the poor chained men I found some of my own
nation, which in a small degree gave ease to my mind; I inquired of these what was to be done with us? They gave
me to understand we were to be carried to these white people’s country to work for them. I then was a little revived,
and thought if it were no worse than working, my situation was not so desperate: but still I feared I should be put to
death, the white people looked and acted, as I thought, in so savage a manner; for I had never seen among my people
such instances of brutal cruelty; and this not only shewn towards us blacks but also to some of the whites
themselves. One white man in particular I saw, when we were permitted to be on deck, flogged so unmercifully with
a large rope near the foremast that he died in consequence of it; and they tossed him over the side as they would
have done a brute. This made me fear these people the more; and I expected nothing less than to be treated in the
same manner.…
At last, when the ship we were in had got in all her cargo, they made ready with many fearful noises, and we
were all put under deck so that we could not see how they managed the vessel. But this disappointment was the last
of my sorrow. The stench of the hold, while we were on the coast, was so intolerably loathsome, that it was
dangerous to remain there for any time, and some of us had been permitted to stay on the deck for the fresh air; but
now that the whole ship’s cargo were confined together, it became absolutely pestilential. The closeness of the place,
and the heat of the climate, added to the number in the ship, which was so crowded, that each had scarcely room to
turn himself, almost suffocated us. This produced copious perspirations, so that the air soon became unfit for
respiration, from a variety of loathsome smells, and brought on a sickness among the slaves, of which many died,
thus falling victims to the improvident avarice, as I may call it, of their purchasers. This deplorable situation was
again aggravated by the galling of the chains, now become insupportable; and the filth of the necessary tubs, into
which the children often fell, and were almost suffocated. The shrieks of the women, and the groans of the dying,
rendered the whole a scene of horror almost inconceivable. Happily, perhaps, for myself, I was soon reduced so low
here that it was thought necessary to keep me almost always on deck; and from my extreme youth, I was not put in
fetters. In this situation I expected every hour to share the fate of my companions, some of whom were almost daily
brought upon deck at the point of death, which I began to hope would soon put an end to my miseries.…
At last we came in sight of the island of Barbados, at which the whites on board gave a great shout, and made
many signs of joy to us. We did not know what to think of this; but as the vessel drew nearer, we plainly saw the
harbor and other ships of different kinds and sizes; and we soon anchored amongst them off Bridgetown. Many
merchants and planters now came on board, though it was in the evening. They put us in separate
1. Napoleon in Egypt
The Chronicle of Abd al-Rahman al-Jabartî (1798)
(Textbook chapter 19 and 20)
While the Directory government that came to power in 1795 worked to establish order in France, Napoleon
(1769–1821) continued the Revolution’s policy of conquest and annexation abroad, first in Italy (1796–1797) and
then in Egypt (1798–1801). At the time, Egypt was France’s most important trading partner outside of the
Caribbean; it was also a key base for challenging British interests in Asia. Egyptian historian Abd al-Rahman
al-Jabartî’s (1753–c. 1826) account of the first six months of the French invasion offers an Egyptian perspective of
Napoleon. In the excerpt here, Jabartî views Napoleon’s actions skeptically through the lens of his own culture. His
skepticism proved well founded, for Napoleon failed to colonize Egypt. Even so, he retained his reputation as a great
military leader, preparing the way for his mastery of France and ultimately most of western Europe.
On Monday news arrived that the French had reached Damanhur and Rosetta, bringing about the flight of their
inhabitants to Fuwwa and its surroundings. Contained in this news was mention of the French sending notices
throughout the country demanding impost for the upkeep of the military. Furthermore they printed a large
proclamation in Arabic, calling on the people to obey them and to raise their “Bandiera.” In this proclamation were
inducements, warnings, all manner of wiliness and stipulations. Some copies were sent from the provinces to Cairo
and its text is:
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He has no son, nor has He an
associate in His Dominion.
On behalf of the French Republic which is based upon the foundation of liberty and equality, General
Bonaparte, Commander-in-Chief of the French armies makes known to all the Egyptian people that for a long time
the Sanjaqs1 who lorded it over Egypt have treated the French community basely and contemptuously and have
persecuted its merchants with all manner of extortion and violence. Therefore the hour of punishment has now
come.
Unfortunately this group of Maml?ks,2 imported from the mountains of Circassia and Georgia have acted
corruptly for ages in the fairest land that is to be found upon the face of the globe. However, the Lord of the
Universe, the Almighty, has decreed the end of their power.
O ye Egyptians, they may say to you that I have not made an expedition hither for any other object than that of
abolishing your religion; but this is a pure falsehood and you must not give credit to it, but tell the slanderers that I
have not come to you except for the purpose of restoring your rights from the hands of the oppressors and that I
more than the Maml?ks, serve God.…
And tell them also that all people are equal in the eyes of God and the only circumstances which distinguish one
from the other are reason, virtue, and knowledge. But amongst the Maml?ks, what is there of reason, virtue, and
knowledge, which would distinguish them from others and qualify them alone to possess everything which sweetens
life in this world? Wherever fertile land is found it is appropriated to the Maml?ks; and the handsomest female
slaves, and the best horses, and the most desirable dwelling-places, all these belong to them exclusively. If the land
of Egypt is a fief of the Maml?ks, let them then produce the title-deed, which God conferred upon them. But the
Lord of the Universe is compassionate and equitable toward mankind, and with the help of the Exalted, from this
day forward no Egyptian shall be excluded from admission to eminent positions nor from acquiring high ranks,
therefore the intelligent and virtuous and learned (“ulam?”) amongst them, will regulate their affairs, and thus the
state of the whole population will be rightly adjusted.…
Blessing on blessing to the Egyptians who will act in concert with us, without any delay, for their condition
shall be rightly adjusted, and their rank raised. Blessing also, upon those who will abide in their habitations, not
siding with either of the two hostile parties, yet when they know us better, they will hasten to us with all their hearts.
But woe upon woe to those who will unite with the Maml?ks and assist them in the war against us, for they will not
find the way of escape, and no trace of them shall remain.…
Here is an explanation of the incoherent words and vulgar constructions which he put into this miserable letter.
His statement “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He has no son,
nor has He an associate in His Dominion.” In mentioning these three sentences there is an indication that the French
agree with the three religions, but at the same time they do not agree with them, not with any religion. They are
consistent with the Muslims in stating the formula “In the name of God,” in denying that He has a son or an
associate. They disagree with the Muslims in not mentioning the two Articles of Faith, in rejecting the mission of
Muhammad, and the legal words and deeds which are necessarily recognized by religion. They agree with the
Christians in most of their words and deeds, but disagree with them by not mentioning the Trinity, and denying the
mission and furthermore in rejecting their beliefs, killing the priests and destroying the churches. Then, their
statement “On behalf of the French Republic, etc.,” that is, this proclamation is sent from their Republic, that means
their body politic, because they have no chief or sultan with whom they all agree, like others, whose function is to
speak on their behalf. For when they rebelled against their sultan six years ago and killed him, the people agreed
unanimously that there was not to be a single ruler but that their state, territories, laws, and administration of their
affairs, should be in the hands of the intelligent and wise men among them. They appointed persons chosen by them
and made them heads of the army, and below them generals and commanders of thousands, two hundreds, and tens,
administrators and advisers, on condition that they were all to be equal and none superior to any other in view of the
equality of creation and nature. They made this the foundation and basis of their system. This is the meaning of their
statement “based upon the foundation of liberty and equality.” … They follow this rule: great and small, high and
low, male and female are all equal. Sometimes they break this rule according to their whims and inclinations or
reasoning. Their women do not veil themselves and have no modesty; they do not care whether they uncover their
private parts. Whenever a Frenchman has to perform an act of nature he does so wherever he happens to be, even in
full view of people, and he goes away as he is, without washing his private parts after defecation. If he is a man of
taste and refinement he wipes himself with whatever he finds, even with a paper with writing on it, otherwise he
remains as he is. They have intercourse with any woman who pleases them and vice versa. Sometimes one of their
women
1. Defending Conquest
Jules Ferry, Speech before the French National Assembly (1883)
(Textbook chapter 23 or 24)
French politician Jules Ferry (1832–1893) fueled his country’s quest to compete in the continent’s race to conquer
foreign territory in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. While serving two terms as premier during the
Third Republic, Ferry took the lead in France’s colonial expansion in Africa and Asia. Yet not everyone embraced
his imperialist policies, including his conservative and socialist colleagues within the government. In the following
speech, delivered before the National Assembly in July 1883, Ferry faced his opponents head-on, defending not only
the political and economic necessity of French expansionism but also its moral justness. At the same time, his critics
voiced their views, revealing the basis of their anticolonial sentiment.
M. JULES FERRY: Gentlemen, it embarrasses me to make such a prolonged demand upon the gracious attention of
the Chamber, but I believe that the duty I am fulfilling upon this platform is not a useless one. It is as strenuous for
me as for you, but I believe that there is some benefit in summarizing and condensing, in the form of arguments, the
principles, the motives, and the various interests by which a policy of colonial expansion may be justified; it goes
without saying that I will try to remain reasonable, moderate, and never lose sight of the major continental interests
which are the primary concern of this country. What I wish to say, to support this proposition, is that in fact, just as
in word, the policy of colonial expansion is a political and economic system; I wish to say that one can relate this
system to three orders of ideas: economic ideas, ideas of civilization in its highest sense, and ideas of politics and
patriotism.
In the area of economics, I will allow myself to place before you, with the support of some figures, the
considerations which justify a policy of colonial expansion from the point of view of that need, felt more and more
strongly by the industrial populations of Europe and particularly those of our own rich and hard working country:
the need for export markets. Is this some kind of chimera? Is this a view of the future or is it not rather a pressing
need, and, we could say, the cry of our industrial population? I will formulate only in a general way what each of
you, in the different parts of France, is in a position to confirm. Yes, what is lacking for our great industry, drawn
irrevocably on to the path of exportation by the [free trade] treaties of 1860, what it lacks more and more is export
markets. Why? Because next door to us Germany is surrounded by barriers, because beyond the ocean, the United
States of America has become protectionist, protectionist in the most extreme sense, because not only have these
great markets, I will not say closed but shrunk, and thus become more difficult of access for our industrial products,
but also these great states are beginning to pour products not seen h

“Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results.”

SUPPORT

support@classmatetutor.com

About us

Contact us

User reviews

Become a freelance writer

FAQ’s

OUR SERVICES

 

Persuasive essays

Expository essays

Compare and contrast Essays

Persuasive essays

Argumentative essays

Narrative essays

Definition essays

Informative essays

MAIN

Place order

Our Affiliate program

Privacy Policy

 

LEGAL

Our privacy policy

Terms and conditions

Our Cookie Policy

Confidentiality policy

 

 

Disclaimer: Writemasters is a professional essay writing service, providing custom assistance for research and reference purposes only. The use of our work must comply with all academic guidelines and integrity standards. Copyright © 2009 - 2024
7904 Dorothy St, Rosemead, CA 91770
Open chat
1
Need help? Chat Now
Scan the code
Hello, welcome to our instant WhatsApp chat. We are online and ready to assist.
How can we help you today?