A Great Game...

Well not really, as you've probably picked up I've become rather obsessed with a period stretching from 1813 to 1945 and has (arguable) begun once again known as the Great Game. Well that's great but what is it? Glad you asked! The Great Game classically refers to strategic armed rivalry between the Russian and British Empires over the region of Central Asia.

I don't get it either 

 It was a rivalry over territory, particularly spark by the Russian Empire's continued march into Central Asia towards Afghanistan. England viewed this movement as a direct threat to the power in the area, and more importantly, India. So, in response, England launched the First Anglo-Afghan war (which was a glorious catastrophe) and kicked off one of the world's first cold wars. 

What are we doing today Victoria?
The same thing we do ever day Disraeli my dear:
Ruining everything

The Games went on in such a fashion with England and Russia trying to out compete the other (Old Vicki was crowned Empress of India so she'd have the same political footing as the Tsars) and actually caused England to invade Afghanistan not once more, but twice. In fact it went on for so long that it had several books written about it, or used it as a background setting, or as some other sort of plot device, Kim by Rudyard Kipling perhaps being the most definitive and critical of them all.

Its as awesome as it sounds

So what does this have to do with Islam? Well a lot actually. Remember how last week I brought up that Sufism (and Islam in general) has been branded as fundamentalist, extremist, or overly violent by Europeans as a way of defaming and delegitimizating resistance to their rule? And how much of that behavior that Europeans defamed existed because of Colonialism in the first place? Well this is part of that Colonialism which gave rise to much of that resistance.

As I often point out it is important that too the victor goes history, and here is no exception. In many ways Russia lost the great game long before England did (as they had a revolution and everything) and while there was a brief rematch with the USSR, England got to write the history of the game down. Therefore, much of the rhetoric of the game has been critiqued as being a smoke screen for England subduing the native people's of India and Central Asia. Because of this the game provides an overarching context for what I described in my previous post. 

Which raises the question of who was playing the Great Game? Was it just England and Russia, or are there more players to be accounted for? I would personally say yes, and it is rather important to include this 3rd side of sorts in an a more accepting way. After all it is a 3rd side made up of those who paid the true cost of the great game, so can you really blame some of those taking up arms, or protesting the game through other means? its an important aspect to consider, especially since the great game has resumed once more between the US, China, Russia, and a few others. 

Because as Rudyard Kipling said "When everyone is dead, the Great Game is finished. Not before."

  

Till next time, 

Jacob 

sources

Karsh, Efraim. Islamic Imperialism: A History. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2007.

Meyer, Karl E., and Shareen Blair Brysac. Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint, 1999

Rashid, Ahmed. Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Muslim, Democrats, and Prime Ministers..OH MY

So earlier this week David Cameron (British Prime Minister) took a trip to Indonesia and stated (among many other things) that: “What Indonesia shows is that in the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, it is possible to reject this extremist threat and prove that democracy and Islam can flourish alongside each other.” Which in someways makes sense.

This guy

not this guy

 But the Guardian was quick to counter point and critique Cameron, claiming that he left out a few convient facts. Like that confessing monotheistic belief is required, or that the president is a military general, or that in many ways Indonesia is an oligarchy. Which all may very well be true, however what raised my ire was when Indonesia's problems were compared along side and claimed as the most likely potential of the Arab Spring: "In fact, Indonesia's trajectory might suggest a rather different message – and likely outcome"

sigh...okay lets unpack this

It may very well be true that both Egypt and Indonesia are both Islamic, and it may very well be true these democracies were born out of the violent overthrow of a (EUROPEAN IMPOSED) military dictatorship. But that does not, DOES NOT, mean that they are the same Guardian.  I'm mean for fuck's sake this is exactly what I was talking about last post. The west has a catastrophic assumption that Islam contains within it a dangerous bias (or even extremist intolerance) against everything that isn't Islam. The Guardian is taking these structural problems of a post colonialist system and blaming them solely as the responsibility and consequence of Islam. They are forgetting to take into account that many of these problems were caused by European Colonialism in the region, in the first place. Corruption, oligarchy, and other issues in Indonesia may be in someways supported by certain interpretations of Islam but that doesn't inherently mean that what has occurred in Indonesia will happen in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, or anywhere else in the Arab spring because they allow Islam to participate in their democratic process.

GAHHHHhhhhhHHHHhhhHHh

And people wonder why I'm angry all the time....Gods. 

Till next time

Jacob 

Articles mentioned

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17686174

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/12/indonesian-democracy-scrutiny-david-cameron?newsfeed=true

http://dawn.com/2012/04/12/cameron-praises-indonesia-as-model-of-democracy-and-islam/

The Bolsheviks of Korea

I do love a good conspiracy theory and it seems that this week on The Gods Talks we have something along those lines on are hands. As I mentioned two posts ago I've been looking into the 1919 March 1st Movement in Korea, ever heard of it?

oh ok

Don't worry neither had I until a week ago. Basically in 1910 the Empire of Japan annexed Korea ending the 500 years of stability under Joseon Dynasty and, to put it bluntly, the new Japanese Imperial policies were not kind to the Korean people. There was a vast reeducation campaign mounted by the Japanese and there was an attempt to erase much of Korea's history (particularly the bits about them repelling the previous unsuccessful Japanese invasions). So by the time 1919 rolled around the Koreans were getting a little annoyed with the Japanese and with advent of the 14 Points at the Paris Peace Conference the Koreans began to nonviolently demand their independence from the Empire of the Rising Sun ala a mass movements.The Empire did not take this very well and there was a harsh backlash against the campaign.

While all of this was going on a Canadian Presbyterian Missionary and veterinarian named Frank Schofield started writing about the atrocities going on Korea sending his articles to the Japan Advertiser as well as Canadian newspapers. His writing helped the growing crisis in Korea gain international press as he was spreading a story which was not being published by the main stream news. Eventually the Japanese, and to a slight degree English, aggression turned towards Schofield for his words and he was recalled to Canada by the Mission office. However he continued writing when from home and eventually managed to return to Korea permanently till he died in 1970 in Seoul. He was also declared to be one of the patriots of Korea and is an important part of the honoring of the March 1st Movement to Korea to this day.

He didn't think he was gonna be a badass either

And while all of this is interesting it is isn't really the tofu (ha see what I did there) of what I want to talk about today. You see my research question for this week was investigating the British Response to Frank Schofield’s involvement in the March 1^st Movement and the protests in Korea in general. Why you ask? Well the thing is while Schofield's writing started out as being critical of the abuses being perpetuated in Korea it increasing began to focus on problemetize the system of Imperialism that in many ways had been pioneered by his own country. And there are a few who say that this critique is part of what got Schofield pulled out of Korea by the mission.

So thinking like any good historian would the first place I checked was the vaults of the London Times and, to my surprise, the first article that pops up for this period is barely 100 words long and comes with perhaps the most fantastically typical title I have ever seen:

McCarthy would be proud

That's right they used the red scare tactic. And to be honest that's really as controversial as the Times gets on this issue. There are only 4 articles from 1919 on Korea at all and all of them have to do with the Japanese opinion on what the crisis is and how it is to be solved. Including the correct view that independence would not be gained but more civilian control of Korea would be granted to the Koreans (although almost all of this was withdrawn during WWII). And Schofield ? Well he doesn't come in the Times at all actually, which really isn't that surprising to me. While I currently do not have enough evidence or research to support this I personally feel that the British felt that the best way to deal with Schofield's criticism of imperialism ruining everything was the easiest, yank him from Korea, make it impossible for him to go back, and leave him Canada where his complaints could go on mostly unheard. 

honest truth 

Which leads us into my ever present question of where do we go from here? Well to be frank more research. My understanding and knowledge of Korea and events of 1919 is very limited and it needs to be broadened still. In terms of specifics if I, or anyone else, were to fall down the rabbit hole of this project I'd say an investigation of British Imperial policy towards the other major Empires of the day would be good, as well as finding away to go further back in the Japan Times archives than 1999 or see if there could be anyway to access the vaults of the now defunct Japan Advertiser (which was coincidentally eaten the Japan Times in the 1930s) so I could access more primary documents on the crisis as well as more of  Schofield's articles.

So that's all for now, 

Till next time (when well probably talk about Daoism) 

Jacob 

References:

Bolshevism in korea. 1919. The Time, Thursday, Apr 10, 1919.

Korea's rights. 1919. The Times, Thursday, Apr 17, 1919.

Reforms for Korea. 1919. The Times, Tuesday, Apr 22, 1919.

Reforms for korea: Ultimate equality with japanese, imperial rescript. 1919. The Times, The Times Friday, Aug 22, 1919.

Legault, Barbara and John F. Prescot. “The arch agitator:” Dr. Frank W. Schofield and the Korean Independence Movement. Veterinary History.

Oh, Wei Nam. 2008. The transformation of frank schofield (1889-1970): Opening korea, a hermit nation in east asia. Social Identities 14, no. 2: 233-251.