Course:HIST317/Dominique, Spela and Charles

Closing Statement

Hey guys, I will try to post something by tomorrow morning, hope thats soon enough. Spela :)

All right, here is the rough draft I came up with this morning. Please feel free to take out, edit anything you don't like.  :) Thanks again for posting this when it's done Dominique.

In conclusion, Team B would like to outline why we feel that Zones of Interaction have historically been areas of segregation and upheaval. In Asia, despite the fact that the Opium trade was deemed illegal corrupt officials on both sides were able to take advantage of the trade relationship between the British and Chinese Empires. This led not only to many of the social costs involved with substances abuse but also violent conflict. In North America where much integration did occur, it was only after violent conflict such as the Louis Riel rebellions, and the cruel and often inhumane treatment of native children in residential schools. As well as the abolition of separate benches and other public places for the African Americans and White Americans in the United States. In Africa, cultural syncretisation only occurred after centuries of fighting between the various groups. Occasionally these tensions led to a sort of stability and integration. However as can be seen as can be seen by the example of various warring groups in Africa, or between Roma communities and the non- Roma communities, many of these tensions continue to cause serious social, economic and political problems today. Finally, while it would be wrong to suggest that there was no integration and cooperation in Zones of Interaction these often came at a great cost. Thus, Zones of Interaction were areas fraught with upheaval and segregation.

Rebuttal

Hi Charles, this is Dominque's edited version. I think it is ready to be posted. Also Dominique is posting the concluding statement when we have finished it I think. I think one bibliography is enough?

While Team A notes activities in the zones of interaction that promoted integration, their examples, when studied thoroughly, actually provide further evidences of segregation and racial tension. “Encouraged trading” and “modern regulations” were achieved only through immense costs imposed on minority populations. Though trade facilitated integration, it was done with such great social cost that the material benefits were unable to counteract.

Team A used China as an example of how trade resulted in integration and stability. The British, however, traded Indian produced opium with the Chinese population, despite specific Chines laws (or “modern regulations”) against it. Trading opium in China was punishable by death. Britian’s flouting of China’s restrictions on opium resulted in the Opium War, which resulted in China becoming effectivly a quasi-colony of western empires. This in turn set off a number of other conflicts, such as the Taiping Rebellion; and was also used by the Communist Party as a means of rallying support for themselves in the Chinese Civil War. (Politics 1B). Thus Western interaction through trade in China actually served predominantly as a catalyst for greater conflict and instability.

Where Team A points to Canada for an example of stability, they fail to mention that this "stability" was brought about through the military conquest and forced marginalization of the local communities. The ‘free education’ that Team A claims First Nations children ‘benefited’ from, was actually a method of forced assimilation. These children, separated from their family, frequently experienced physical punishment for speaking their native language or practicing their own faith. Residential schools were, as many commentators described, an institution of ethnocide to “kill the indian in the child” and hardly an example of “stability”.

Team A has described incomplete scenarios, which, when completed, further demonstrate how “zones of interaction” tend to cause segregation and upheaval.

New rebuttel version While Team B agrees with Team A that zones of interaction have “encouraged trading, and “modern regulations” we would argue that this was achieved only through immense costs imposed on native populations. Team B also agrees that trade has facilitated integration. However this was done with great social cost; so much so that the material benefits of trade were unable to counteract. Team A used China as an example of how trade resulted in integration and stability. One commodity traded in China during this time was Opium. The British traded Opium produced in India with the Chinese population. This was done despite specific laws (or “modern regulations”) against it, as trading with opium was punishable by death. Britian’s flouting of China’s restrictions on Opium resulted in the Opium War, which resulted in China becoming effectivly a quasi-colony of western empires. This in turn set off a number of other conflicts, such as the Taiping Rebellion; and was also used by the Communist Party as a means of rallying support for themselves in the Chinese Civil War of the 1930’s and 1940's. Communism itself was an idea unintentionally imported by the West during its intrusion into the region that to this day is responsible for many of China’s social and civil shortfalls (Politics 1B). Thus Team B would suggest that Western interaction through trade in China served predominantly as a catalyst for greater conflict and instability. Also, Team A points to the case in Canada where stability had been established by the mid 1800's. They failed to mention that this "stability" was brought about through the military conquest of the local communities and the forced marginalizing and of them in Canada's growing modern civil society. Team A was correct in saying that free education was provided to the locals, but the quality of it in comparison to the public education received by Canadians of European descent was far worse. Even the relationship between European immigrants of differing ethnicities was rife with tension. In 1867, the British-dominated government of Canada began a program to incorporate the French Northwestern areas into Canadian proper through encouraging British settlers to settle the area. The threat of British cultivators on the livelihoods of French lumberjacks and fur traders was the catalyst for the civil strife between these two groups that would take place during the 1870's and 1880's. Relative peace was not restored in the region until 1885 when the French rebellion was crushed by the Canadian Army and its leader, Louis Riel, was executed.

Hi guys, here is a 160 word, rough draft idea for the rebuttal. It is in Response to the 1st two paragraphs of Team A's opening statement. In Response to the position that: Zones of Interaction have historically been areas of social integration and stability.

While Team A agrees with Team B that zones of interaction have “encouraged trading, [and] modern regulations” we would argue that this was achieved only through immense social costs. Team A also agrees that trade has facilitated integration. However this was done with great cost. Team A used China as an example of how trade resulted in integration and stability. One commodity traded in China during this time was Opium. The British traded Opium produced in India with the Chinese population. This was done despite specific laws against it, as trading with opium was punishable by death. Opium trade resulted in the Opium War, which caused China to effectively be controlled by foreign powers. This in turn set off a number of other conflicts, such as the Taiping Rebellion; and was also used by the Communist Party as a means of rallying support for themselves in the 1930’s and 1940's. (Politics 1B) Thus Team B would suggest that trade in China served predominantly as a catalyst for greater conflict. Also, Team A points to the case in Canada where stability had been established by the mid 1800's. They failed to mention that this "stability" was brought about through the military conquest of the local communities and the forced marginalizing of them in Canada's growing modern civil society. Team A was correct in saying that free education was provided to the locals, but the quality of it in comparison to the public education received by Canadians of European descent was far worse. Even the relationship between European immigrants of differing ethnicities was rife with tension. In 1967, the British-dominated government of Canada began a program to incorporate the French Northwestern areas into Canadian proper through encouraging British settlers to settle the area. The threat of British cultivators on the livelihoods of French lumberjacks and fur traders was the catalyst of the civil strife between these two groups that would take place during the 1870's and 1880's. Relative peace was not restored in the region until 1885 when the French rebellion was crushed by the Canadian Army and its leader, Louis Riel, was executed.

Bibliography: Bentley, Jerry, and Herb Ziegler. Traditions and Encounters: A Global Perspective of the Past. 4th Edition. McGraw Hill, 2008.

Kubicek, R., and David J. Gossen. Section 1-New & Old Worlds: From Antiquity to Afirst Encounters. History 102 Class Lessons. UBC, 2010.

Department of Politics. Class Lectures. University of Glasgow, 2009.

Opening Statement

""Here it is, its amazing"" Zones of interaction have historically been areas of upheaval and segregation. All societies are faced with various types of tension; be they social, economic or political. However, this is increased in areas where different groups interact and cohabit. In zones of interaction, various groups confronted with the task of deciding how to allocate the scarce resources available to them. Because these groups vary culturally, misunderstandings occur that nationalist leaders have used to exploit people’s lack of trust in what they do not understand with violent consuquences. In addition, in zones of interaction a citizen’s social class is commonly determined by their ethnicity, making attempts at social reconciliation very difficult. Examples of this are the socio-economic pyramids in South America, the interactions between natives and European settlers in North America, the aftermath of the Scramble for Africa, and the various ethnicities in Central and Eastern Europe. Before segregation and upheaval in zones of interaction can be discussed, it is necessary to mention the Enlightenment’s role in aggrevating these tensions. The Enlightenment’s values encouraged society to provide equal opportunity, social mobility, and access to public goods for all. This requires taking a portion of the property or resources from one section of the population and redistributing to the lower strata. Where societies were made up of many ethnic groups, these ideas were particularly hard to put into practice. A group’s desire to maintain or enlarge their personal wealth is intensified by its cultures’ diverse customs and varying perceptions of the world. For example, conflicts between the Peninsulares, the dominant group in South America and the free mulattos, blacks slaves and French Colonists in the Haitian Revolution of 1804 as these oppressed groups began to assert their interests more aggressively. In North America, the newly independent United States strove to expand its geographic reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This westward expansion brought European settlers into direct conflict with the indigenous Americans. With the creation of the United States, immigrants of European descent were granted citizenship while the indigenous Americans were not. In the Indian Removal Act of 1830, native communities were forced to relocate west of the Mississippi river for Oklahoma. This 800-mile expedition claimed the lives of thousands of natives through disease, starvation, etc. Even on the government-created Indian reservations, Europeans were permitted to appropriate land for their own commercial or residential purposes. As a result of such policies, indigenous Americans were further marginalized within American society. In Africa, European imperialists seeking to extract wealth from the continent began a violent series of conflicts between not only themselves and Africans, but also between the local indigenous groups. In the late 19th Century, European imperialists raced to make their claim on lands in a process known as the Scramble for Africa. As these imperialists were mostly interested in creating wealth for themselves, they treated locals carelessly, if not inhumanely. They were able to overpower the locals by pitted various local groups against one another by drawing boundaries of colonial holdings in Africa, dividing groups or combining groups that were not formerly in contact with one another. Under this strategy of Divide and Conquer, these Europeans would show preference and grant special privileges to one ethnic group, thereby guaranteeing this group’s support, while at the same time persecuting other groups. In the case of Rwanda, for example, Belgian colonial rule had created the ‘ethnic’ division between Hutus and Tutsis that would later result in the Rwandan genocide. Europe’s Imperial struggle to control Africa’s resources brought about racial tension and segregation. In Central and Eastern Europe the Nationalist leader Milosevic was able to play on the mistrust Serbians felt towards Muslims and Croatians to cause the break up of Yugoslavia and the slaughter of thousands. Even more recent are the tensions between the Roma and non-Roma communities. In some areas, mistrust between the two groups is so severe that communities, including some in France, Bulgaria and Russia, have put up concrete walls between the Roma and non-Roma. Even today, various cultural groups do not cohabite peacefully. In conclusion, the ideas of equality and social justice through redistribution that emerged after the enlightenment amplified already high tensions within societies. This happened because the new ideas threatened the ruling ethnicity’s established order and invigorated the persecuted groups in society, groups based on ethnicity. This is evident in tensions, historical and recent, between American natives and European settlers, the Conquest of Africa, the more recent break up of Yugoslavia, and the continued segregation of Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe.

Ok guys, this is what I am going to post tonight, Please just leave a note saying you are ok with it. I am posting when I get home from work so 8pmish Charles' time and and 5ish Dominique's time, it is 134 over the limit!

Zones of interaction have historically been areas of upheaval and segregation. All societies’ experience various types of tensions, social, economic and political. However, this is increased in areas where different groups interact and cohabit. To begin with, in zones of interaction various groups are forced vie for the same limited resources. Also, because these groups vary culturally, misunderstandings occur, and nationalist leaders can use people’s lack of trust in what they do not understand with disastrous effects. Lastly, in zones of interaction a citizen’s social class is determined by their ethnicity, making attempts at reconciliation very difficult. Examples of this are, the socio-economic pyramids in South America, the interactions between natives and European settlers in North America, the aftermath of the Scramble for Africa, and between various ethnicities in Central and Eastern Europe. Before segregation and upheaval in zones of interaction can be discussed it is necessary to mention the Enlightenment’s role in increasing these tensions. The Enlightenment values of liberty and equality advocated equal opportunity, social mobility, and access to public goods for all. This involved taking the property or resources from one section of the population and redistributing to the lower strata. Where societies were made up of many ethnic groups, these ideas were particularly hard to put into practice. The desire to keep personal wealth is intensified by cultures’ diverse customs and varying perceptions of the world. For example conflicts between the Peninsulares, the dominant group in South America and the free mulattos, free blacks and slaves erupted in the Haitian Revolution of 1688 as the oppressed groups began to assert their interests more aggressively. In North America, the newly independent United States strove to expand its geographic reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This westward expansion brought European settlers into direct conflict with the indigenous Americans. With the creation of the United States, immigrants of European descent were granted citizenship while the indigenous Americans were not. In the Indian Removal Act of 1830, native communities were forced to relocate west of the Mississippi river for Oklahoma. This 800-mile expedition claimed the lives of thousands of natives through disease, starvation, etc. Even on the government-created Indian reservations, Europeans were permitted to appropriate land for their own commercial or residential purposes. As a result of such policies, indigenous Americans were further marginalized within American society. In Africa, European imperialists seeking to extract wealth from the continent began a violent series of conflicts in the zones of interaction between not only Europeans and Africans but also the local indigenous groups. In the late 19th Century, European imperialists raced to make their claim on lands in a process known as the Scramble for Africa. As these imperialists were mostly interested in creating wealth for themselves alone, they treated locals carelessly, if not inhumanely. Furthermore, imperialists successfully pitted local groups against one another by drawing boundaries of colonial holdings in Africa, dividing groups or combining groups that were not formerly connected. Under the strategy of Divide and Conquer, these Europeans would show preference and grant special privileges to one ethnic group, thereby guaranteeing this group’s support, while at the same time persecuting other groups. In the case of Rwanda, for example, Belgian colonial rule had created the ‘ethnic’ division between Hutus and Tutsis that would later result in the Rwandan genocide. European imperialists struggling to control Africa’s resources brought about racial tension and segregation. In Central and Eastern Europe the Nationalist leader Milosevic was able to play on the mistrust between the various ethnicities Serbian, Muslim, and Croatian to cause the break up of Yugoslavia and the slaughter of thousands. Even more recent are the tensions between the Roma and non-Roma communities. In some areas, mistrust between the two groups is so severe that communities, including some in France, Bulgaria and Russia, have put up concrete walls between the Roma and non-Roma. Even today, various cultural groups do not cohabite peacefully. In conclusion, the ideas of equality and social justice through redistribution that emerged after the enlightenment increased already high tensions within societies. This happened because the new ideas threatened the ruling ethnicity’s established order and invigorated the persecuted groups in society, groups based on ethnicity. This is evident in tensions, historical and recent, between American natives and European settlers, the Conquest of Africa, the more recent break up of Yugoslavia, and the continued segregation of Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe.

Newer version, somewhat polished Zones of interaction have historically been areas of upheaval and segregation. All societies’ experience various types of tensions, be they social, economic or political. However, this is increased in areas where different groups interact and cohabit. To begin with, in zones of interaction various groups are forced vie for the same limited resources. Also, because these groups vary culturally, misunderstandings occur, and nationalist leaders can use people’s lack of trust in what they are do not understand with disastrous effects. Lastly, in zones of interaction a citizen’s social class is determined by their ethnicity, making attempts at reconciliation very difficult. Examples of this are the interactions between natives and European settlers in North America, between various ethnicities in Central and Eastern Europe, the socio economic pyramid in South America, and the aftermath of the Scramble for Africa.

Before segregation and upheaval in zones of interaction can be discussed it is necessary to mention the Enlightenment’s role in increasing these tensions. The Enlightenment values of liberty and equality advocated equal opportunity, social mobility, and access to public goods for all. This involved a degree of taking the property or resources from one section of the population, usually one owning the majority of the nation’s collective wealth and redistributing to the less endowed sectors of society. Where societies were made up of many ethnic groups, these ideas were particularly hard to put into practice. Unlike homogenous societies, a citizen’s social class in a multicultural nation is determined by their ethnicity. The desire to keep personal wealth is intensified by cultures’ diverse customs and varying perceptions of the world. For example conflicts between the Peninsulares, the dominant group in South America and the free mulattos, free blacks and slaves erupted in the Haitian Revolution of 1688 as the oppressed groups began to assert their interests more aggressively.

In North America, the newly independent United States strove to expand its geographic reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This westward expansion brought European settlers into direct conflict with the indigenous Americans. With the creation of the United States, immigrants of European descent were granted citizenship while the indigenous Americans were not. In the Indian Removal Act of 1830, native communities were forced to relocate west of the Mississippi river for Oklahoma. This 800-mile expedition claimed the lives of thousands of natives through disease, starvation, etc. Even on the government-created Indian reservations, Europeans were permitted to appropriate land for their own commercial or residential purposes. As a result of such policies, indigenous Americans were further marginalized within American society.

In Central and Eastern Europe The Nationalist leader Milosevic was able to play on the mistrust between the various ethnicities Serbian, Muslim, and Croatian to cause not only the break up of Yugoslavia, but the slaughter of thousands. Even more recent are the tensions between the Roma and non-Roma communities. In some areas mistrust between the two groups is so severe that communities, including some in France, Bulgaria and Russia, have put up concrete walls between the Roma and non-Roma. Even today, various cultural groups do not cohabite peacefully.

In Africa, European imperialists seeking to extract wealth from the continent began a violent series of conflicts in the zones of interaction between not only Europeans and Africans but also the local indigionous groups. In the late 19th Century, European imperialists raced to make their claim on lands in a process known as the Scramble for Africa. As these imperialists were mostly interested in creating wealth for themselves alone, they treated locals carelessly, if not inhumanely. Furthermore, imperialists successfully pitted local groups against one another by drawing boundaries of colonial holdings in Africa, dividing groups or combining groups that were not formerly connected. Under the strategy of Divide and Conquer, these Europeans would show preference and grant special privaleges to one ethnic group, thereby guarenteeing this group’s support, while at the same time persecuting other groups. In the case of Rwanda, for example, Belgian colonial rule had created the ‘ethnic’ division between Hutus and Tutsis that would later result in the Rwandan genocide. European imperialists struggling to cobtrol Africa’s resources brought about racial tension and segregation.

In conclusion, the ideas of equality and social justice through redistribution that emerged after the enlightenment increased tensions within societies. This happened because the new ideas threatened the ruling ethnicity’s established order and invigorated the persecuted groups in society, groups based on ethnicity. As is evident from the tensions between American natives and European Settlers, the more recent break up of Yugoslavia, the continued segregation of Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe, and the Conquest of Africa, frontiers between various groups have and continue to be areas of conflict.

Ok guys, lets all give this one more quick edit and I will post it Sunday Morning, if that works for everyone? Also bibliography, did you use anything other than the notes and text book? If so post it here

Zones of interaction have historically been areas of upheaval and often segregation. All societies’ experience various types of tensions: social, economic or political, however this is increased in areas were different groups interact and cohabit. To begin with, in zones of interaction various groups are forced vie for the same limited resources. Second, because these groups vary culturally, misunderstandings occur, and influential leaders can use people’s lack of trust in what they do not know, with disastrous effects. Lastly, in zones of interaction a citizen’s social class is determined by their ethnicity. Examples of this are the relationships between natives and European settlers in North America, between various ethnicities in Central and Eastern Europe, the socio economic pyramid in South America, and the aftermath of the Scramble for Africa.

Before segregation and upheaval in zones of interaction can be discussed it is necessary to mention the Enlightenment’s role in increasing these tensions. The Enlightenment values of liberty and equality advocated equal opportunity, mobility, and public goods for all. This involved taking power from one section of the population and either redistributing it, or in the case of nationalism giving it to the group that meets certain criteria. Where societies were made up of many ethnic groups, these ideas were particularly hard to put into practice. Unlike homogenous societies, a citizen’s social class in a multicultural nation is determined by their ethnicity. The desire to keep personal wealth is intensified by cultures’ diverse customs and varying perceptions of the world. For example conflicts between the Peninsulares, the dominant group in South America and the free mulattos, free blacks and slaves erupted in the Haitian Revolution of 1688 as the oppressed groups began to assert their interests more aggressively.

In North America, the newly independent United States strove to expand its geographic reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This westward expansion brought European settlers into direct conflict with the indigenous Americans. For example, the new immigrants were granted citizenship while the indigenous peoples were not. Another example is the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which forced native communities west of the Mississippi river to leave for Oklahoma. This 800-mile expedition claimed the lives of thousands of natives through disease, starvation, etc. Even on the government-created Indian reservations, Europeans were permitted to appropriate land for their own commercial or residential purposes. As a result of such policies, indigenous Americans were further marginalized within the American society.

In Central and Eastern Europe The influential leader Milosevic was able to play on the mistrust between the various ethnicities Serbian, Muslim, and Croatian etc, to cause not only the break up of a country, but the slaughter of millions. Even more recent are the tensions between the Roma and non-Roma communities. In some areas mistrust between the two groups is so severe that communities, including some in France, Bulgaria and Russia, have put up concrete walls between the Roma and non-Roma. Demonstrating that even today, various cultural groups do not cohabite peacefully.

In Africa European imperialists seeking to extract wealth from the continent began a violent history in the zones of interaction between not only Europeans and Africans but also local groups. In the late 19th Century, European imperialists raced to make their claim on lands that would become known as the Scramble for Africa. As these imperialists were mostly interested in creating wealth for themselves alone, they treated locals carelessly, if not inhumanely. Furthermore, imperialists successfully pitted local groups against one another by drawing boundaries of colonial holdings in Africa, dividing groups or combining groups that were not formerly connected. In the case of Rwanda, for example, Belgian colonial rule had created the ‘ethnic’ divide between Hutu’s and Tutsi’s that would later result in the Rwandan genocide. European imperialists struggling to command resources in Africa brought about racial tension and segregation.

In conclusion, the ideas of equality and social justice through redistribution that emerged after the enlightenment increased tensions within societies. This happened because the new ideas threatened the ruling ethnicity’s established order and invigorated the persecuted groups in society, groups based on ethnicity. Thus, as is evident from the socio economic pyramid in South America, the treatment of natives in North Americans, the more recent break up of Yugoslavia, the continued segregation of Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe, and the division of Africa, frontiers between various groups have and continue to be areas of conflict.

Here is the new 600 word version! Dominique there is an area for your Africa part. Once we have that we just need to do some more cutting out, lol

Have zones of interaction (frontiers) between cultural groups in various parts of the world historically been locations of social segregation and upheaval? Our team believes this two be the case for three main reasons. First, within zones of interaction various groups are forced vying for the same limited resources. Second, because these groups vary culturally misunderstandings can occur, and influential leaders can play on people’s instinctive distrust of what they do not know. Lastly, in zones of interaction a citizen’s social class is determined by their ethnicity; already present conflict between these classes and ethnicities was increased after the enlightenment because its values of liberty and equality advocated equal opportunity, mobility and goods for all. While there are numerous examples of this we believe that relationships with the natives in North America and the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, the socio economic structure in South America, and the….in Africa demonstrate the above reasons best.

After the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, Britain’s thirteen colonies fought for independence. This was not an attempt at integration; rather it was violent conflict of nationalistic interest. The newly independent colonies continued expansion westward, but they did not integrate the native communities whose land they now claimed. Instead the US government set up reservations, meant for the native peoples, but on which European settlers could still appropriate land. In both the United States and Canada, native children were forced to attend residential schools in an attempt to assimilate them into European culture. The result was the opposite, children were abused and feelings of anger and mistrust increased on both sides. Native and non-native communities alike still feel the effects of these schools, as some of the coping mechanisms within native communities and lingering feelings of superiority among some non-natives feeds continuing stereotypes and segregation.

A similar situation is on going in Central and Eastern Europe between the Roma people and the non-Roma communities in which they live. As neither community understands the culture of the other, racism persists on both sides. Problems are so severe that communities, including some in France, Bulgaria and Russia, have put up concrete walls between the Roma and non-Roma. The break up of Yugoslavia in Central and Eastern Europe is another good example of upheaval and segregation in zones of interaction. The influential leader Milosevic was able to play on the mistrust between the various ethnicities Serbian, Muslim, and Croatian etc, to cause not only the break up of a country, but the slaughter of millions.

In South America the socio economic pyramid demonstrates how in a zone of interaction a citizen’s social class is determined by their ethnicity. A dominant ruling group, in this case the Peninsulares from Iberia, dominates various sectors of society. In South America this would have been the Creoles, Mestizos, followed by the free mulattos, free blacks and slaves. In this case many aspects of the various ethnic groups mixed, in a cultural syncretism, for example voodoo. However, this does not eliminate the fact that these societies were divided, and as the ideas of the enlightenment became increasingly wide spread, the oppressed groups began to assert their interests more aggressively, for example the Haitian Revolution 1688.

In Africa…

Thus, the conclusion is that zones of interaction have historically been areas of upheaval and segregation. From the Haitian Revolution in 1688, to treatment of natives in North Americans, and the socio-economic pyramid in South America, to the more recent break up of Yugoslavia, and the continued segregation of Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe, frontiers between various groups have been areas of conflict.

Bibliography

Bentley, Jerry, and Herb Ziegler. Traditions and Encounters: A Global Perspective of the Past. 4th Edition. McGraw Hill, 2008.

Kubicek, R., and David J. Gossen. Section 1-New & Old Worlds: From Antiquity to Afirst Encounters. History 102 Class Lessons. UBC, 2010.

Department of Central and Eastern European Studies. Class Lectures. University of Glasgow, 2009.

Grasic, Spela. Class Essay on the Roma. 2010. (Information used in the opening statement was based on the reading for this assignment)

Brainstormed Work So Far

Zones of interaction have always been areas of contention. All societies experience various types of tensions be it social, economic or political. In homogenous societies various members vie for their share of basic resources such as access to food, shelter, and spiritual well being. The specifics of these needs vary culturally and have been altered historically the basics have and still remain the same. In zones of interaction, frontiers between cultural groups in various parts of the world, such tensions were further increased when different cultural groups have to decide on the reallocation of resources within these regions However, it is the spread of liberal and nationalistic ideas during the long 19th century in Europe that best proves the above point. It is no coincidence that the long 19th century and early 20th century is referred to as the time of the Democratic Revolution. As various countries in Europe fought for the most equal distribution of power and access to resources: the Glorious revolution in England in 1688, and the French Revolution in the 1790’s, their ideas spread through out the rest of Europe. This spread of ideas was localized in zones of interactions, as this is where new ideologies were localized and interpreted. Liberal and national ideas leave a considerable amount of room for conflict because they involve taking power from one section of the population and either redistributing it, or in the case of nationalism giving it to the group that meets a certain criteria, for example nationality. This volatility is intensified in zones of interaction because it becomes multiple groups that are vying for the same resources. Tensions are further heightened because often the various interacting cultures do not understand each other, or their respective cultures. These misunderstandings and the resulting confusion, lead to fear and mistrust among the various groups. Thus, zones of interaction, the frontiers within which different groups interact and cohabit, have historically been areas of upheaval and often segregation; this tension and the resulting segregation is caused by the desire to keep personal wealth and intensified by cultures’ diverse customs and varying perceptions of the world.

Possible Add-on explaining the enlightenment's impact: Ethnic war significantly escalated with the emergence of the age of enlightenment. Its values of liberty and equality advocated equal opportunity, mobility, and public goods for all. These were far harder to be put into practice, especially when societies were made up of many ethnic groups. Homogenous societies had a natural inclination to have a binding feeling of national unity, making the implementation of the Enlightenment’s ideals of equal opportunity and resource distribution relatively seamless(really what about the French revolution? Could we say that homogenous soceities have a hard enough time with this. Like in homogenous societies, multicultural societies were organized along class lines. But unlike homogenous societies, a citizen’s social class in multicultural nations was determined by their ethnicity. There was a hierarchy of a dominant ruling group, an inferior lower class ethnic group, and others that dominated various sectors of civil society: finance, trade, etc. This distribution was most evident in the case of South America where Peninsulares were located at the top of the socio-economic pyramid, followed by creoles, mestizos, free blacks and so on. With the dawn of the enlightenment, the ideals of opportunity and wealth equality threatened the lifestyles and traditions of the ruling ethnicity and presented the oppressed groups the opportunity to more aggressively assert their interests. Such polarizing dynamics resulted in intense ethnic conflict, such as the Haitian Revolution in the late 18th century, and reformist movements in Brazil. Thu,s enlightenment indirectly invigorated the forces of tribalism and nationalism. With such previously hierarchical social orders, diverse nations were frequently doomed in the process of deciding how to fairly allocate wealth and resources.

For example, throughout the 19’Th century, the areas that had the most ethnic diversity and interaction between various groups of people were also the site of the most violent conflicts. What caused this upheaval was not necessarily the presence of these various groups but how they perceived one another and how important the concept of ethnicity was to the identity of their nation. In some cases, such as with the nationalist uprisings in Europe after the fall of Napoleon, multiple ethnic groups attempted to carve out their own areas of dominance. This threatened Europe’s political order where multiple ethnicities were ruled by the imperial Austrian, Ottoman or British Empires. Where there was ethnic homogeneity, such as in Western Europe, nationalist rebellions were sparse. Central and Eastern Europe saw the most episodes of violent social upheaval which continue to this day. For example, beginning in the 14th century the Roma have faced various means of extermination, segregation and assimilation. These included, institutional schools similar to those forced on native communities in Canada, forced sterilization, housing encampments and extermination camps during world war two. This is caused by large because within Roma culture, to be Roma is often defined by being the opposite of the non-Roma. As a result the Roma do not understand the non-Roma communities in which they live and vice versa. This causes further misunderstandings when it comes to jobs, and the Roma are seen as dirty and lazy which causes a viscous circle of poverty and misunderstanding. Often this leads to racist remarks, segregated communities, at times with a physical wall between communities and occasionally even physical violence.

Continuing on the same trend was the colonization of North America by European immigrants. Here the spread of liberal ideas led to the thirteen colonies breaking away from England. The result of both the colonists and the imperialists vying for the same land, the conflict over resources, led to the American Revolution, which claimed lives on both sides of the debate. Following a belief in the Manifest Destiny, the newly independent United States strove to expand its geographic reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. In its initial stages, citizenship was granted almost exclusively to Migrants from Great Britain. This westward expansion brought these settlers into direct conflict with the indigenous Americans who resided in these areas. Such conflict was actively endorsed by the US government. With the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the native communities west of the Mississippi river were forced to leave for Oklahoma, on an 800 mile expedition that claimed the lives of thousands of natives through disease, starvation, etc. Even on the government-created Indian reservations, European were permitted to appropriate this land for their own commercial or residential purposes. As a result indigenous Americans were further marginalized within the American society. This resulted in further marginalizing indigenous Americans in American Society and thus increasing the disparity of social opportunities between native Americans and settlers of European Ancestry. Segregation was continued throughout North America as both Canada and the United States conflict between European immigrants, the native people and other immigrant groups have involved, has led to upheaval and segregation. The best example of segregation would be the residential schools in Canada that continued past the 1950’s. In an attempt to assimilate the native populations into (European) Canadian culture, young native children were forced into residential schools were they were removed not only from their own communities but also from the rest of society. While these residential schools are no longer in existence the problems caused by them continue, causing upheaval within communities. Though this upheaval is by no means as obvious as the small pox disease in the America’s or the forced labour through a system of forced indebtedness in South America, alcohol abuse and racism still lead to painful situations such as domestic violence, drug abuse, and poverty. Although it is important to note that this is by no means characteristic of all native communities or absent form non native communities. However, the point remains that the fight for resources and the redistribution of wealth was intensified in regions such as North and South America were numerous groups felt that they had a right to these resources not only on a societal level but also on a moral one.

Another ethnic group persecuted in the diverse United States was African Slaves. The United States Constitution guaranteed the protection of the private rights of American Citizens, including their slaves. With the conclusion of the American Civil War, legislation was amended to extend citizenship to former slaves. Despite the word of the law, promises of land grants were not fulfilled, forcing former slaves to work for former owners as share croppers. When blacks attempted to practice their right to vote, they faced violence and intimidation. Southern states established a segregated social hierarchy that deprived blacks the social, economic, and educational opportunities that were available to the white majority. In France in the early long 19th century, differing political and social ideas led to the French Revolution. This happened in a country that was culturally homogenous, yet the differing views and social conditions nonetheless resulted in upheaval. Even in cases were methods of integration and assimilation have been attempted such as Native communities in North America and the Roma in Europe, the results have often been increased segregation.

New Stuff I came up with, added to old, and I attempted to take stuff out, still at 1300 words. Dominique is adding hers today so we have to decrease by at least half! AHHHHHH!

All societies experience various types of tensions be it social, economic or political. Where different cultures meet tensions increase, as different groups have to decide how resources will be relocated. The spread of liberal and nationalistic ideas during the long 19th century in Europe exemplifies this well. It is no coincidence that the long 19th century and early 20th century are referred to as the time of the Democratic Revolution. As various countries in Europe fought for the most equal distribution of power and access to resources: the Glorious revolution in England in 1688, and the French Revolution in the 1790’s, these ideas spread throughout Europe and the rest of the world. If it weren’t for zones of interaction, some of these ideas may not have spread, as different societies would not have had access to them. Liberal and national ideas leave a considerable amount of room for conflict because they involve taking power from one section of the population and either redistributing it, or in the case of nationalism giving it to the group that meets a certain criteria, for example nationality. This volatility is intensified in zones of interaction because it becomes multiple groups that are vying for the same resources. Tensions are further heightened because often the various interacting cultures do not understand each other, or their respective cultures. These misunderstandings and the resulting confusion, lead to fear and mistrust among the various groups. Thus, zones of interaction, the frontiers within which different groups interact and cohabit, have historically been areas of upheaval and often segregation; this tension and the resulting segregation is caused by the desire to keep personal wealth and intensified by cultures’ diverse customs and varying perceptions of the world. Ethnic war significantly escalated with the emergence of the age of enlightenment. Its values of liberty and equality advocated equal opportunity, mobility, and public goods for all. These were far harder to be put into practice, especially when societies were made up of many ethnic groups. Unlike in homogenous societies, a citizen’s social class in multicultural nations is determined by their ethnicity. There was a hierarchy of a dominant ruling group, an inferior lower class ethnic group, and others that dominated various sectors of civil society: finance, trade, etc. This distribution was most evident in the case of South America where Peninsulares were located at the top of the socio-economic pyramid, followed by creoles, Mestizos, free blacks and so on. With the dawn of the enlightenment, the ideals of opportunity and wealth equality threatened the lifestyles and traditions of the ruling ethnicity and presented the oppressed groups the opportunity to more aggressively assert their interests. Such polarizing dynamics resulted in intense ethnic conflict, such as the Haitian Revolution in the late 18th century, and reformist movements in Brazil. Thus the enlightenment indirectly invigorated the forces of upheaval and segregation. Such upheaval and segregation was also evident in 19th Century Europe. This upheaval was caused not by the presence of these various groups but how they perceived one another and how important the concept of ethnicity was to the identity of their nation. In some cases, such as with the nationalist uprisings in Europe after the fall of Napoleon, multiple ethnic groups attempted to carve out their own areas of dominance. This threatened Europe’s political order where the imperial Austrian, Ottoman or British Empires ruled multiple ethnic groups. Conflicts between societies continue today. For example, beginning in the 14th century the Roma have faced various means of extermination, segregation and assimilation. These included, institutional schools similar to those forced on native communities in Canada, forced sterilization, and housing encampments. This is caused mostly because both socities view the other as less human. The Roma are seen as lazy and dirty, thus they are discriminated against when applying for jobs, within the school system and when it comes to finding a residence. A viscous circle of poverty and the fulfillment of stereotypes results. This leads to racist slurs, segregation, sometimes with physical walls between communities and occasionally physical violence. Continuing on the same trend was the colonization of North America by European immigrants. Here the spread of liberal ideas led to the thirteen colonies breaking away from England. The result of both the colonists and the imperialists vying for the same land, the conflict over resources, led to the American Revolution, which claimed lives on both sides of the debate. Following policy of Manifest Destiny, the newly independent United States strove to expand its geographic reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This westward expansion brought these settlers into direct conflict with the indigenous Americans who resided in these areas, as the new immigrants were granted citizenship while the indigenous peoples were not. In the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the native communities west of the Mississippi river were forced to leave for Oklahoma, on an 800 mile expedition that claimed the lives of thousands of natives through disease, starvation, etc. Even on the government-created Indian reservations, Europeans were permitted to appropriate this land for their own commercial or residential purposes. As a result indigenous Americans were further marginalized within the American society. Segregation continued throughout North America. In an attempt to assimilate the native populations into (European) Canadian culture, young native children in Canada were forced into residential schools were they were removed not only from their own communities but also from the rest of society. While these residential schools are no longer in existence their after effects are still felt today. Though this upheaval is by no means as obvious as the small pox disease in the America’s or the forced labour through a system of forced indebtedness in South America, coping methods such as alcohol and drug abuse lead to painful situations such as domestic violence, poverty and poverty which result in continued segregation through stereotypes, discrimination and racisim. Although it is important to note that this is by no means characteristic of all native communities or absent form non native communities. However, the point remains that the fight for resources and the redistribution of wealth was intensified in regions such as North and South America were numerous groups felt that they had a right to these resources not only on a societal level but also on a moral one. Another ethnic group persecuted in the diverse United States was African Slaves. The United States Constitution guaranteed the protection of the private rights of American Citizens, including their slaves. With the conclusion of the American Civil War, legislation was amended to extend citizenship to former slaves. Despite the word of the law, promises of land grants were not fulfilled, forcing former slaves to work for former owners as sharecroppers. When blacks attempted to practice their right to vote, they faced violence and intimidation. Southern states established a segregated social hierarchy that deprived blacks the social, economic, and educational opportunities that were available to the white majority.

Finally, we come to the conclusion in upheaval and segregation erupts in areas were there are opposing views. In France in the early long 19th century, differing political and social ideas led to the French Revolution. This happened in a country that was culturally homogenous, yet the differing views and social conditions nonetheless resulted in upheaval. Even in cases were methods of integration and assimilation have been attempted such as Native communities in North America and the Roma in Europe, the results have often been increased segregation. Thus, we can conclude that in zones of interaction, were one group has more power, and believes themselves to be of higher moral and ethnic placement, such opposing views are increased and the potential for upheaval for segregation amplified to such an extent that there are few if any examples of zones of interaction without upheaval and segregation