Course:HIST102/History 102 - Zones of Interaction TEAM B - Debate
Zones of interaction (frontiers) between cultural groups in various parts of the world have historically been locations of social segregation and upheaval.
Opening Statements
The creation of states has been characterized by nations forming boundaries in order to protect their resources, interests, and identity from neighboring nations. For example, in nineteenth century Europe, national sentiments increased feelings of national pride, political loyalty and cultural identity, which created tensions between nations that did not subscribe to similar ideologies. States were created based on a country’s dominant ideology, however, cultural minority group(s) within a state’s borders found themselves marginalized and pushed to the periphery of society. Sometimes these groups straddled the borders of neighboring states, i.e. Poles, Native Americans, Romas, Jews; creating a shared burden between two or more countries. In an effort to protect national interest, countries have always sought to avoid foreign influence; because of this, borders have commonly been areas of conflict.
In Europe, countries that were able to maintain their dominant ideology and defend their borders, such as England, France, and Spain, became the most powerful countries. The increased power of these countries compelled other European powers to increase their security by the proliferation of resources. Imperialist conquests increased the power and spread the ideology of a number of European countries. Colonial conquests quickly became the new frontiers of conflict between nations. The creation of states, and colonization are the products of communities seeking to protect their cultural and political identities. To protect these identities, nations are compelled to increase their security; consequently creating tensions and conflict on the peripheries of their borders. Therefore, zones of interaction between cultural groups in various parts of the world have historically been locations of social segregation and upheaval. The evidence for this statement will be provided by using examples of conflict and tension that have occurred in zones of interaction in modern Europe and its colonies.
The fall of the Ottoman Empire signified the rise of nationalistic sentiments and conflict. The Empire’s demise had a lot to do with the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities, and the rise of nationalism. Differences between ethnic groups fragmented society along cultural, historical and linguistic lines. Foreign influence began to penetrate the Empire’s borders through trade and education. Factors such as these contributed to the Empire’s demise. Nationalism of the ethnic groups and foreign influence weakened loyalty to the Empire’s dominating ideology. After the First World War, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned. From that point on, nationalism in Europe created and strengthened states, and influenced ethnic groups to assert autonomy.
South Africa’s modern history has been characterized by internal ethnic conflict. The following brief history explains how South Africa is a zone of interaction that experiences conflict due to cultural clashes. In the eighteenth century, Boers, an ethnically mixed group of mostly European descent had established settlements in South Africa. They lived relatively peacefully with the native Hottentots; however, the peaceful relationship was based on the Boer’s dominance over the Hottentots. In the nineteenth century, British imperialism made its way to South Africa. In the 1830’s, to avoid British colonial rule, the Boers left the Western Cape in a Great Trek eastward. Eventually, the British asserted dominance across Africa, fully threatening the Boers’ strong cultural identity and political autonomy. As a result, two wars between the Boers and the English were fought, the First Anglo-Boers (1880-81) and the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902). British rule prevailed, but Boer-English tensions still continue today. Black Africans have been oppressed in Africa since the Europeans arrived. Black resistance led to violent massacres of thousands of ethnic Africans by the Boers and the British. In 1948, the white South African government created the rule of apartheid in order to dissuade further black African resistance, separating the worlds of black and white, ultimately forcing black South Africans to the periphery of society, restricting them from fully participating in society. This zone of interaction experienced major clashes between three major ethnic groups due to threats to national identity and autonomy. Apartheid ended in 1994; however, South Africa continues to experience conflict due to the unequal distribution of power between the Boers, English and black Africans.
As mentioned earlier, foreign influence has been viewed as a threat to cultural autonomy. Trade along borders between countries creates interactions that sometimes do not agree with state policy, i.e. illegal trade of goods, services, animals, and even humans. The ethnic minority groups that often straddle borders weaken security through human trafficking and guerilla activity, i.e. the Polish insurrections of early nineteenth century and the Irish War of Independence from England in the twentieth century. Some of the most recent examples of conflict in zones of interaction between cultural groups are in European colonies. Oppressed ethnic groups such as the Native Americans in Canada and the Unites States, the Africans of South Africa, and emancipated slaves of the North America, the Caribbean, and South America; have violently clashed with government troops in an effort to assert their cultural identity and political rights in countries that have refused to acknowledge their independence. There are many examples of conflict along political borders and social borders; most often, the reasons are threats to a nation’s independence, identity, or interests. In effort to secure defenses against foreign ideologies, the proliferation of resources and arms create tension along borders; subsequently, perpetuating tension and conflict between different cultural and/or ethnic groups along zones of interaction.
Rebuttal
The argument that zones of interactions between cultural groups in various parts of the world have historically been locations of social integration and stability reveals that such areas have also experienced a history of social upheaval and segregation. In fact, because of a history of social upheaval and segregation, these areas remain characterized by persistent tension, and even violence. By using examples of Europe, India, and Canada to argue that zones of interaction are areas of relative peace and integration, Team A fails to recognize that these three areas are socially stratified to the advantage of a dominant group. Team A also uses the argument of diffusion to explain social integration and stability between cultural groups; however, they fail to acknowledge that dominant and oppressive groups control the process of diffusion. Diffusion theory may be used to explain an integrated social structure; however, it neglects to explain any process of social stability. Diffusion occurs due to the proximity of cultures; however, it does not prevent tension between majority and minorities groups due to an imbalance in power, and the under-representation of oppressed groups. A more accurate description of areas of social integration and segregation is that such areas are dominated by a majority that keeps minority groups in check through discrimination and marginalization. The portrait of social stability in zones of interactions is in fact a dominant power’s success in quelling threats to power from less powerful groups. Diffusion may encourage social integration, but it does not equate stability. Finally, social integration in zones of interaction disguises social stratification based in ethnicity, revealing that stability is a facade, and in reality, a place of segregation and social upheaval.
We rebut Team A’s evidence on India. India’s Western influence did not integrate society nor stabilize it, rather the East India Company’s unwanted involvement in India brought social unrest, rebellion, and rejection of British Imperialism. Although Education was brought to India by the British, their rule was undesired by many, and resulted in the forming of the Indian National Congress in 1885 who were seeking to obtain self-rule for India. Not only did British rule ensure that Indians were seen as second class citizens, but objections against imperial rule were frequently met by violently repressive measures. For India, the British involvement brought about forced and sometimes unwanted change through repressive means. In the case of Japan, it was only after the decimation of the Japanese way of life through WWII that relations between Japan and other nations involved improved to what they are today. As peace was only achieved through a war which devastated millions, involved Japanese imperialists in a power hungry and vicious take-over of Manchuria and Korea, and resulted in the use of the most vicious war weapon seen in the history of human kind, the interaction of Japan with these countries can be seen as anything but stable. It can be argued that if a nation only achieves peace through such means, the interaction can be seen as that which bred great social upheaval and instability. The main mechanisms of social change described by Team A, those being conflict, tension and adaptation, and diffusion of innovation fail to adequately prove zones of interaction as places of stability. The same mechanisms can be described as well as ingredients for a revolution. Although revolution is often necessary to achieve change, it is often closely associated with social upheaval and repression. The point made clear by Team A is that stability between zones of interactions only comes through frequently violent social change. As the nature of stability and social integration should not be associated with a violent means, this justification fails to adequately prove these interactions as positive, since the beneficial results described by team A only manifest after periods of great civil unrest.
Bibliography
Bentley, Jerry, and Herbert Ziegler, Traditions & Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008.
“Ethnic Conflict in the Ottoman Empire” (2009). Available from: North Star Republic ( accessed 2 September 2009).
“January Inserrection: Polish History” (2009) Available from: Encyclopædia Britannica Online (accessed 2 September 2009).
“The History of Apartheid in South Africa” (1995). Available from: Stanford Computer science (accessed 2 September 2009).
“The Irish War of Independence” (2005). Available from: BBC Home (accessed 2 September 2009).
“The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine” and “The Myth of Palestinian Nationalism” (2001). Available from: www.eretzyisroel.org (accessed 2 September 2009).
Rebuttal - Final Draft
Rebuttal to the argument by Team A that zones of interactions have historically been locations of social integration and stability The argument that zones of interactions have historically been locations of social integration and stability reveals that such areas are more associated with a history of social upheaval and segregation. In fact, because of a history of social upheaval and segregation, these areas are characterized by persistent tension, and even violence. By using the examples of India and Canada to argue that zones of interaction are areas of stability and integration, Team A fails to recognize that these areas are socially stratified to the advantage of a dominant group. Also, Team A argues that diffusion leads to social integration and stability between cultural groups; however, they fail to acknowledge that dominant and oppressive groups control the process of diffusion. Diffusion theory may be used to explain an integrated social structure; however, it neglects to explain any process of social stability. Diffusion occurs due to the proximity of cultures; however, it does not prevent tension between majority and minorities groups, nor does it prevent the imbalance of power and the under-representation of oppressed groups found in areas of diffusion.
We rebut Team A’s argument by offering a more accurate description of the occurrences of social integration and stability and by defending our position that such areas are actually areas of segregation and social upheaval. The portrait of social stability in zones of interactions is in fact a dominant power’s success in quelling threats from less powerful groups.
Team A’s evidence on India is inaccurate. Influence from the West did not integrate society nor stabilize it; instead, Britain’s involvement in India brought social unrest, rebellion, and rejection of British Imperialism. Not only did British rule ensure that Indians were second-class citizens, but objections against imperial rule were frequently met by violent repressive measures. For India, the British involvement brought forced and unwanted change through oppressive means. India remains socially stratified by a persistent caste-system and ethnic based elitism.
Team A’s example of Japan is not a good example of a zone of interaction; the population is predominantly of Japanese with its own distinct society and culture. The foreign powers may have forced a political restructuring of Japan; however, there has been no substantial social integration with foreigners.
Team A argues that the area of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda has developed into a thriving and prosperous area due to trade and investment with Arab and European nations. In actuality, this area still experiences social upheaval between cultural groups because Imperialism forced different cultural groups to conform under national majority state policies. The influence of the West in these countries brought wealth to a small elite majority – mostly Western or Arab, leaving ethnic minorities disadvantaged, oppressed and unrepresented in the political realm.
Team A fails to recognize that Canada is a nation that has segregated its indigenous people. The agreements that have been made between the government and indigenous groups have been on the terms of the government, and one solution has been segregation on reservations. The social integration is minimal. Discrimination and oppression of native peoples persist. Next, many French do not feel properly represented in Canada and would prefer to separate from Canada. Many French Canadian adamantly retain a separate culture from English speaking Canada, insisting that they are a separate nation. It can be concluded that because of the segregation of native peoples and the persistent issues with the French, Canada has serious issues regarding segregated and disadvantaged minorities that could lead to social upheaval.
Social integration in zones of interaction disguises social stratification based in ethnicity, revealing that stability is a façade; and in reality, a place of segregation and social upheaval.
Bibliography
“Japan’s Foreign Population” (1999). Available from: http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1943_0_3_0 (accessed 10 September 2009).
“Long term effect of Imperialism in Africa” (2009). Available from: www.myteacherpages.com/webpages/.../files/Africa%20Review.pp (accessed 10 September 2009).
“Minority Women of North America: A Comparison of French-Canadian and Afro-American Women” (1988). Available from: http://www.fawi.net/ezine/vol3no4/FAAAFemmes.html (accessed 10 September 2009).
“The First War of Indian Independence 1857-Indian Nations and Imperialism” (2008). Available from: http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/the-first-war-of-indian-independence-1857-indian-nations-and-imperialism/?referer=sphere_related_content/ (Accessed 10 September 2009).
“The Segregation of Native People in Canada: Voluntary or Compulsory?” (1986). Available from: http://www.tgmag.ca/magic/mt3.html (accessed 10 September 2009).
Closing Statements
Throughout this debate, meaningful points have been made by both sides. Although Team B still is convinced of the truth of our point, we have come to recognize that although upheaval and segregation are often present in different zones of interaction, these situations are often infused with examples of integration.
In a last defence of our position, it seems that Team A misinterpreted some of our points in made in our opening statements. Mainly, they state that we believe the fall of the Ottoman Empire to be due to foreign ideas, although in our opening statements the damage caused by foreign influence was only one point of many in our portion of the debate. Read more closely, it can be determined that our stance saw nationalistic sentiments as the main cause of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, not foreign ideas. Furthermore, in response to the additional discussion on the slave trade, we argue that since it was Europeans who were the primary purchasers of the slaves for centuries they cannot be given credit for having a directly positive influence since this trade would not have flourished if the strong demand did not exist from European buyers.
Although this is a debate that has the potential to carry on continuously due to its substantial nature, the nature of this assignment has allowed us to at least graze the surface of this topic and enable us to realize its depth. In closing, we believe that it cannot be denied that upheaval in a zone of interaction is always present to some degree even if it later transforms into an area of successful integration, as Team A pointed out. Despite this, Team A has made some strong points which helped our own view change and move in different directions. Thanks to their strong argument, we were able to consider the topic in greater depth and with more thought than thought possible, although we still remain convinced of the segregation and upheaval that is possible with different zones of interaction.
Bibliography
Bentley, Jerry, and Herbert Ziegler, Traditions & Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008.