Education is Power

European imperialists utilized many tactics to colonize Asia, Africa, and South America, but their primary tool to conquer, was superior education. Superior education, in the case of the era of colonization, which parallels with the European Industrial Revolution, eludes to technology. We have seen throughout history that superior technology enables a society to forcefully, and often unjustly, take for themselves what is not theirs. A society’s ability to conquer a land completely relies upon their technology, and the society they are conquering’s lack there of. A society’s technology is solely dependent upon their outside influence and education system.  This trend of education dictating a country’s fate, to conquer or be conquered, is blatantly clear in India, Korea, the Philippines, and Mexico’s story of colonization and independence.

When studying The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga, we wrote letters to Balram in attempts to convey and convince Balram what the essential and most necessary aspects to a society are. To me, it is education and technology. See my next post for my letter to Balram! In the mean time, check out Ali’s blog on India, Lauren Carpio’s blog on Korea, Kathy’s blog on the Philippines, and Sarah’s blog on Mexico. European imperialists due to poor education systems, and inferior technology forcefully colonized all of these societies. As the British sought colonization of India via the East India Company, they gained power over India.  The East India Company began annexing states within India, which led to a war with the Nawabs. The British completely dominated battle “against Indian Nawabs due to the technological difference created by the Industrial Revolution.” Many Asian countries, particularly Korea, were subjected to isolationist policies, leaving them without negative and positive outside influence. Without foreign ideas to help them improve upon their technology, they were fiercely crushed by Japan. The Philippines are a perfect supporting example as to how technology is necessary for the improvement of a society. Kathy, in her blog about the Philippines, explains how Britain colonization did reap some benefits; a primary one being they did ultimately bring the superior technology to the Philippines. A final and legendary example of superior technology and education prevailing over others is Hernan Cortes’s colonization of the Aztecs. Hernan Cortes succeeded in running out the Spaniards and Aztecs in Tenochtitlan by means of superior technology and knowledge of medicine.

This trend of superior technology due to education civilians doesn’t seem like a coincidence to me. Time and time again, education and technology prevail and those without suffer. This phenomenon of colonization brought pain and suffering to many, but also brought education and technology to those without.

My Letter to Balram (HPP #1)

Dear Balram,

I write to you about your views on democracy and economic development. A democracy is a more effective approach to developing a country, but education is the most important aspect in creating a democracy. If I were establishing a country, I would first fix the educational system, which would improve the democracy, which would then lead to the development of the economy, however what do I know? I’m just a 10^th grader at Vivian Webb School! By first strengthening the educational system, a democratic government will follow. India, contrary to belief, does not hold “the world’s greatest democracy. It may be so in an objective sense, but on the ground, the poor have such little power.”[1]

So how is it that you fix the poor having little power, you ask? Well, start with transitioning education like China did in 2006 to 2008. At that time, China recognized that having a better-trained workforce is an absolute necessity in order for it to raise its GDP. In order to make this goal a reality, China boosted scholarship funding and other types of aid from $240 million in 2006 to $2.7 billion in 2008.[2] However, because of India’s flawed democracy, “India’s elite educational institutions…are under pressure to limit merit-based admissions and accept half their students on the basis of quotas and affirmative action”.[3] Educating those who are considered “poor” directly influences the way a country is governed. In Hope, Human, and Wild Bill McKibben quotes an analysis, “Those who have felt the power of learning know they have rights. They are willing to struggle for them. Such people constitute a democratic force [to] which even a government ostensibly committed to their welfare must pay attention or face direction”.[4] McKibben argues that the government, through educating its residents, “has created citizens able to hold it accountable. They are no longer marginal humans.”[5] When the citizens of a country are educated, a democratic means of governing becomes a reality.

            Education is the key to democratic success.  People who are well educated about their rights are able to fight for those same rights. If Gandhi had been ignorant to his rights and the rights of his people, he would not have known of crusade for greater equality. Because Ghandi was an educated man, he had a voice in society and was able to fight for the rights of his people. Imagine, Balram, how much more you could have done for others to be able to flee the Rooster Coop, had you had more of a formal education and been aware of your rights earlier? When people can appreciate and fight for their own education, they are able to hold their government responsible.  A government that accounts for its peoples’ need is, in its simplest form, a democracy.

            So Balram, it seems we meet eye-to-eye in that we both think that a strong democracy, unlike that of India’s currently, is the most successful approach to economic development. I would expand on your idea, however, and add education to the mix as the way to implement the democracy, and I hope that after reading this letter, you agree.

Best Wishes,

Meredith Hess

---

[1] Hirsh Sawhney, “India: A View from Below Aravind Adiga with Hirsh Sawhney,” The Brooklyn Rail, September 2008, http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/09/express/india-a-view-from-below.

[2] Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World (New York: Norton and Company, 2008), 96.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Bill McKibben, Hope, Human, and Wild: True Stories of Living Lightly on the Earth (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995), 140.

[5] Ibid.

Conquering the Congo

            The colonization of the Democratic Republic of Congo all started with a discovery. A discovery made by journalist Henry Stanley in 1871. He found the claimed to be “lost” David Livingstone, after Stanley became the first man to chart the main stream, the Congo River, in 1867. Once these European men realized that the deep, dark Congo was indeed navigable, they utilized it to become a main route to Central Africa. After this, King Leopold II of Belgium hired Stanley to create inland communications to establish roads and railways, European profitable of course. In the midst of the “Scramble for Africa,” the French hoped to prevent Belgian expansion. To do so, they sent Pierre de Brazza in 1880, to modern-day Republic of Congo, which at the time was called Congo-Brazzaville. Then, during the Berlin Conference in 1884 and 1885, the European Nations gave the Congo Free State to King Leopold of Belgium. As a result, King Leopold treated the Congo like a piece of private property, seeking only profits (1). While there were minor improvements evident in the Belgian conquest (or at least in comparison to other European colonies in Africa), the living conditions were mainly harsh. While the construction of schools, railways, roads, mines, airports and plantations were imposing at the time, they are now beneficial. However, the cruel living conditions completely outweighed these minor long-term improvements (2).

            Every village was required to provide four men a year to “work” as full-time slaves. These unpaid workers brought back rubber latex. The growing of rubber latex greatly upset the Congolese people on account of the fact that, in addition to being subjected to long working hours, they were then unable to grow food to provide for their family. In order to ensure that these men continued to work diligently, King Leopold held their wives and children hostage, and cut off the hands of men who refused to work (3).

            In a word, “Leopold robbed the wealth of the land and put it into his own bank account.” The Christian missionaries present were thoroughly horrified with the actions of Leopold, and the living reports embarrassed Belgium. As a result, the Congo became the Belgian Congo in 1908 instead of King Leopold’s Congo.  Albert Schweitzer related the relationship between the Belgian Congo and Belgium as thus: “I am your brother, it is true, but your elder brother” (4).

Gaining Independence

The Congo gained independence from Belgium on June 30, 1960, becoming the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Without proper planning or a working government, there was a civil war one week later. The diagram in my next post nicely summarizes the four essential sides (5).

Civil War! A Division of Powers

Independence: A Violent Cause

The road to peaceful independence in the Democratic Republic of Congo is long and complicated, but can be simplified without losing meaning in the following process of events.

1.      Katanga, a south eastern province of Congo, was declared independent on July 11, 1960.

2.      Patrice Lumumba and Joseph Kasavubu, the prime minster and President at the time (respectively), requested the aid of the United Nations to help unify the country.

3.      On July 14, 1960, the United Nations force was airlifted into the country.

4.      Patrice Lumumba requested help from the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union provided little help to Lumumba. It is important to keep in mind that the Congo civil war paralleled in time to the cold war, a war between the United States and the Soviet Union (6).

5.      Joseph Kasavubu and Patrice Lumumba politically split. This divide in powers was a turn for the worse in terms of the government.

6.      On September 14, 1960 Colonel Joseph Mobutu and the Congolese army took over. Lumumba then became under house arrest.

7.      On January 17, 1961 Lumumba was killed with assistance from the American CIA.

8.      After the death of Lumumba, Mobutu gave power back to Kasavubu later in January.

9.      The United States worried about Soviet inroads to Africa,

10.  The United Nations supported military action between the province of Katanga with the rest of the Congo, which commenced on September 16, 1961.

11.  Finally, in January of 1963, all the provinces were reunited, and for a short (very, very short) period of time, the Democratic Republic of Congo was at peace.

The extreme violence evident in the Congo would start again five days after their independence and would continue until May 20, 1997 when Laurent Kabila would maintain control of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The next thirty to thirty five years would go something like this for the DRC: coup’s, conflict, and challenge.