How Southeast Asia Used Western Ideas in Their Struggle for Independence - Essay Example

How Southeast Asia used Western Ideas in their struggle for independence Introduction Most countries in the Southeast Asia were under a long period of western rule before they finally gained independence. For instance, the Philippine Commonwealth established in 1934 following nearly 30 years of both explicit and hidden suppression of Philippine nationalism by the U.S. colonizers. In 1937, there was the establishment of sovereign Burma following years of rural and urban struggle against British colonialism. On the other hand, the French in Indochina and the Dutch in Indonesia asserted their colonial rule continuously throughout the end of World War II. In order to resist this colonial rule and to attain independence, these nations employed several ideals. Of most significant, they applied the western ideas of self-governance and modernity in their struggle for independence (Ruiz, 86). Western ideas spread throughout the countries of Southeast Asia in form of governance and more sophisticated political infrastructure. It was through these established infrastructures that these nations organized several grassroots campaigns and resistance towards the colonial rule. Moreover, the extent and fashion of government, the rising centralization of power and the growth of domestic administrations reflected the impact of European organizational practices (Beeson, 3). Influence of Western Ideas in Southeast Asia Struggle for Independence The colonial period attributed a hypothetical division of independence by European public authorities. There was a lot of influence from the traditional leadership to the colonial rule. The systems of the colonial rule acquired some privileges from native rulers, originally by publicly owned state ventures and later on, through executive colonial administrators from the European states. This inspiration would count within the bigger expression of European empires while the original drive of colonialism was purely mercantilist. In this way, the core global law standard of esteem for independent states, disintegrated into an adversative selectivity and arbitrariness of states believed to deserve of independence by other, more influential states (Desierto, 396). In most cases, the colonial authorities assigned some administrative powers to the co-opted local rulers thereby changing legal frameworks towards imbalanced relationships. However, the realm of customary law dealt with matters of personal status, although the legal administrations restrained the individual rights and freedoms by controlling and supervising instead of fostering and liberating. The imbalanced relationships sowed the seeds of aspirations towards nationalism, independence and autonomy. The aspirations were mostly because of the different laws applied to the Europeans and the native population (Desierto, 417). In addition, the power bestowed on the new leader brought about an old order, a western-educated middle-class. Of these, most of them were doctors, civil servants, intellectuals, businesspersons, lawyers, and even students. Some had received their higher education in Europe or the United States. The influence of western economic forces and the growth of social services during the last century of the colonial rule instigated this change. For instance, the peasant obtained new ideas concerning garbage removal, latrines, alterations in his farming techniques and other advances (Mills, 4). The root of the1898 revolution in the Philippines was the ideas of the European enlightenment, where they were against Spain first, and then against the U.S. It was a modern nationalist revolution brought back to the Philippines and incorporated freedom, individuality, and citizenship. However, it was also a pre-national resistance movement because it rested in the resistance of people enlightened by the values of folk Christianity. Actually, the struggle itself instigated the creation of a political society founded on Euro-American suppositions of national community (Ruiz, 84). On the other hand, the Philistines developed a sense of nationalism during the American colonialism era deepening the gap between the rich and the poor. However, the greatest U.S. rule legacy was probably education with 50 percent of the population literate on the eve of the Second World War. In addition, there was a drastic improvement on the Public health with the life expectancy jumping to 40 years in 1940 from 14 years in 1900 (Edgar, 903). On the other hand, using the American model the Philistines’ were able to set a democracy separating the executive powers from the legislative ones (Mills, 16). Since the colonial powers were in need of all types of technical, semi-professional and clerical services, they allowed a small section of the local people the privilege of Western education. It is through this education that the natives acquired and distributed the Western ideas. Despite his academic qualifications, the educated South East Asian appeared in humiliating position compared with Europeans of equivalent education. This type of treatment obviously attracted him to the revolutionary stream of Western thought and to the Leninist explanation of imperialism. In addition, it also attracted him to the Liberal ideal of national self-determination and the Socialist blueprint for economic development. Out of these, he was able to articulate, systematize and rationalize his, and his country's experience while on the other hand the socialist ideas corresponded with his own ambivalence since they were both of the West and critical of the West. In addition, the knowledge of the achievements of existing nationalist movements increased with the spread of literacy (Beeson, 286). The secrets of the power of the west accrued through education by the colonial rulers. In addition, it disclosed that the will of Europe and the United States to conquer and control rested in nationalism. The fundamental theme of much of their literature and political traditions was the achievement and maintenance of national unity and independence. Although there was no existence of nations earlier in the Southeast Asia, western education bore nationalists who steadily changed from s western bureaucracy to elected native leaders through political power. Finally, there would be elimination of the colonial authority and the native people of the country would control their own government (Mills, 5). As more and more young people throughout Southeast Asia went to the parent countries to be educated, they familiarized with the western culture. This resulted to an increasing cultural and social divide between the local leadership and the general population. However, due to fear of releasing their colonies a few imperialists started to prepare their colonies for eventual self-government (Edgar, 902). There were many investment form western nations in the years prior to the First World War. For instance, there was a general increase of primary product prices from 1853 to 1873. In addition, there was rampant economic development in Southeast Asia around that same period. This included among others the expansion of the telegraph cable to Singapore, the development of the canning industry, upgrading of steam ships, the opening of the Suez Canal, the commencement of diminishing prices in the industrial nations, and the industrialization of further Western nations. Western ideas and investment became very popular in Southeast Asia, that they swept and changed the South East Asian culture (Beeson, 283). After World War I, It became apparent to those engaged in struggles against the colonial rule that “the destiny of their struggles rested on the rapprochement between modernity and these struggles.” The contemporary state, or at least, ambitions for a contemporary state, with its associated liberal postulations of community, state, and nation, became the principal medium for restructuring and uprising (Ruiz, 86). The Asians, who received education from the west, believed in democracy and deemed it as a powerful form of government and as a sign of maturity and modernity. It therefore followed that through democracy, the educated Asians felt that they were equal to the west people and they outmoded dictatorship. The arguments used to substantiate the stipulation of transformation of authority from a limited number of foreign leaders to the native people of the nation were the principles of government by popular approval and majority rule. By so doing, the people of these nations were able to rise in to leadership as they gradually reduced the western leadership (Mills, 8). In Burma and Indonesia, the educated elite pushed for a political revolution, which would lead to their independence. In addition to this, they were looking for a social uprising that would enable them to drive the alien traders and advantaged landowners-out of their well-established positions. These alien traders had acquired these lands and businesses as a portion of colonial power. In particular, these educated elites in these countries used the ideas of modernity in trade to drive out these inhabitants. Conversely, In the Philippines and Malaya, the property owners, educated elite and businesspersons could collaborate for political sovereignty without seeking to interrupt the existing social system. Actually, their major purpose was to take over the political system as it was, and merely fill the space left by the departing colonialists. The occurrences of the postwar era enormously reinforced this discovery of interests when the radical up-risings revealed evidently the general risk of the advantaged groups (Beeson, 294). Conclusion It is evident that it took a long time for the Southeast Asian countries to attain independence from their western colonies. These nations however used almost similar methods to fight for their independence. In particular, they utilized the western ideas of self-governance and modernity to struggle for their sovereignty. The colonial powers established institutional and political infrastructures based on traditional leadership. This was an entry point of the colonized nations to use ideas of self-governance. Most of the native people received education in their parent nations in the west. As a result, these educated elite sought to fight for their independence using western principles of governance. Works Cited Beeson, Mark. The Political Consequences of the Southeast Asian Region’s Economic Vulnerability. 2001. Web. Caldwell, Malcolm. Problems of Socialism in South East Asia. 1966. Web. Desierto, Diane. Postcolonial International Law Discourses on Regional Developments in South and Southeast Asia. International Journal of Legal Information, 36.3 (2008): 387-431. Print. Edgar, Robert, et al. Civilizations Past and Present. London: Pearson education, 2008. Print. Mills, Lennox. Southeast Asia: Illusion and reality in politics and economics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1964. Print. Ruiz, Lester. “Nationalisms in Southeast Asia: An Essay on the Cartography of Struggle.” Asian Christian Review 1.1 (2007): 79-100. Print. Read More