History

The Chinese have been living in USA since the eighteenth century, though some claim that they have been living there from as early as the seventeenth century. In the middle of the nineteenth century, there was great migration of the Chinese due to abundance of gold in California, while others migrated to seek refuge from floods. During the time they have spent in USA, they have made significant contributions in their quest to be a part of the United States of America. Today, the Chinese make up the largest population of Asians in United States (Chang).

The immigration of the Chinese into USA can be divided into three eras; 1850 to 1882, 1882 to 1965 and from 1965 to present time. In the first phase, there were no laws preventing the movement of Chinese from China to US and back.

They had the freedom of living and working anywhere they wanted in United States. The continued influx of Chinese in America created stiff competition in certain job positions which were considered to be of whites only, this led to the exclusion era (Zia).

Their migration came to a halt instantly after the passing of the Chinese exclusion act in 1882. The act limited their job opportunities and sent them back to China after retiring. Many of them lost their jobs and ended up staying in isolated sections of large cities like Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco. These sections were completely ignored by the American government, thus they lacked some basic provisions from the government. Despite of discrimination, the Chinese managed to interrelate with other racial groups to some extent. For example, after the civil war, the Chinese who opened retail shops in Mississippi interacted with the African Americans; while others wed the native Indians and Mexicans (Zia).

There was so much exclusion such that the Chinese born in America with college degrees were unable to find jobs that suited their qualifications. During this period, very few chosen people like merchants, diplomats and students were allowed into US from China. This exclusion in employment changed dramatically after the beginning of world war two. They were accommodated into virtually all sections of the American army, including army related factories and research centres. This was made easy by the fact that the American born Chinese performed exceptionally well in technology-related fields in schools (Chang).

In 1960s, there was great pressure from the minority races in US to have equal rights for all. After the civil right movement back in 1960s, the US community became more tolerant to other ethnic groups than before. Even after the civil right movement, racial discrimination was still a source of tension between communities. Any single act towards another ethnic group was considered racial driven. However, the Chinese race was considered favourable than any other foreign race by the media. This might have been influenced by their achievements in academics and their contribution in the military (Fong and Shinagawa).

Finally in 1964 and the following year the Civil Rights Act and Immigration Acts were enacted respectively, relieving the Chinese Americans and other ethnic groups from repression. The passing of these two legislations lead to many Chinese moving to US and also brought back many of their constitutional rights.

From 1970s two types of Chinese have been migrating to US; one group consisted of highly educated Chinese who were looking to advance their education and the other group was running away from their unstable government and oppression that followed the cold war. The new immigrants revived their cultural activities in many Chinese communities existing in US. The presence of old communities shaped by discrimination and the introduction of more liberal fresh immigrants, varied their lifestyle and resulted to division, sometimes conflict (Zia).

The scholarly immigrants were able to live in environs near research centres in large cities such as Houston due to NASA. By 1970, they had turned to entrepreneurship with their technological skills, and started companies such as Wang Laboratories and AST. Such success stories were printed in the newspapers that caught the attention of not only the residents of USA but the world. Chinese Americans were portrayed as good examples all Americans should copy, thus they earned the term ‘Model Minority’.

USA was portrayed as a place where one can achieve his lifetime dreams and have the best life possible on planet earth. Surprisingly many people from different ethnic group showed up with success stories of how they rose from rags to riches. For example Chong Moon Lee, an entrepreneur was portrayed as a relentless man who struggled with hardships of life to become wealthy. His wealth enabled him to donate fifteen million US dollars to an Asian Art Museum in San Francisco (Chang).

Some of the problems of these success stories are that they lacked sincerity. The stories ignored some factors as social background and availability of information at a particular time and at a particular place. In the example of Mr Lee, the story never mentions that he had a lot of connections, and he hailed from a royal family. The stories failed to show that the success of one person is an exception, not a rule. The other shortcoming of these stories is that they failed to show the problems faced by the individuals, were problems present in the societies and should be addressed as soon as possible.

The success stories were a major motivation for the Chinese to move to US. Some Chinese immigrants moved to US with high hopes of achieving their dreams. Some even came from wealthy families hoping to be wealthier. To their shock, they found out that USA had problems too, and one had to work extra hard to make a living. Many of them did not have any kind of professional qualifications, and they barely spoke English. Most of them ended up being employed by other Chinese Americans, and were paid low wages (Fong and Shinagawa).

However, discrimination still continued and this led to some cases of conflicts between the Chinese Americans, African American and whites. There were cases of ethnic murders, for instance Vincent Chin in 1982 and Jim Loo in 1989 were killed by white folks who blamed them for lack of employment and the Vietnam War respectively. The Chinese Americans can be divided into two groups; the working class and the professionals. This division has caused some of them to conflict with one another on matters of equality and accessibility to proper education.

Most of these conflicts range from employment, housing, land use and working conditions. Some of the conflicts began during the cold war when immigration laws were changed allowing large immigration of Chinese in US. For example, there was some dispute on land use during the building of the International Hotel in San Francisco, and workers in Chung Sai Sewing Factory usually complained of poor working conditions. These conflicts proved to be invaluable when they were seeking political seats (Zia).

The civil rights movement initiated by the African Americans brought a sense of cultural pride thereby making them to more conscious on political matters. Together with other ethnic minorities, the young Chinese Americans rejected the racial structure which secluded them from political affairs. The pressure from the young Chinese intellectuals, led to the formation of organizations such as the organization of Chinese Americans which advocated for equal input in politics and government affairs. This movement led some of Chinese Americans such as March Fong and Michael Woo to take an interest in attaining political post. Later they were involved in other sections of the government such as the judiciary, where Delbert Wong was nominated as a municipal judge and Lim P. Lee, a postmaster (Chang).

The Chinese, like most foreign ethnic groups, faced discrimination. Compared to other immigrants the Chinese were better off when it came to discrimination. The African Americans for example, were slaves. They were treated like animals and worked in the cotton firms without pay. The Native American Indians were chased away from their lands, and most of them killed such that today, their population is diminishing in America. The Chinese on the other hand, were praised and shown to be a hardworking race in the middle of the twentieth century.

Works Cited

Chang, Iris. The Chinese in America: A Narrative History. New York: Viking Adult , 2003. Print.

Fong, Timothy P and Larry H Shinagawa. Asian Americans: Experiences and Perspectives. New York: Prentice Hal, 1999. Print.

Zia, Helan. Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001. Print.

Introduction

The United States Intelligence Community, commonly referred to as IC, refers to a joint association of seventeen distinguished United States administration outfits that operate independently and jointly to carry out intelligence operations. These operations are essential for the performance of overseas affairs and the safeguard of the state-run safety of the United States (A Framework for Reform of the U.S. Intelligence Community 2010). Affiliate associations of the IC consist of intelligence organizations, armed forces intelligence, and resident intelligence and scrutiny administrative centers inside national decision-making units. The Director of National Intelligence, DNI, is the person in charge of the IC, he or she reports to the President of the United States.

Amongst their wide-ranging duties, the associates of the Intelligence Community gather as well as generate distant intelligence, home intelligence, chip in to armed forces scheduling, and carry out surveillance. The IC was set up by Executive Order 12333 it was subsequently assented in December fourth of the year nineteen eighty one by President Ronald Reagan.

In prop up of the work of the sixteen foremost units, The Washington Post has detailed that there are about one thousand two hundred and seventy one government bodies. There also exist one thousand nine hundred and thirty one concealed corporations in ten thousand localities in the United States that are working at counter-terrorism, motherland safety, and intelligence. The intelligence fraternity as a complete entity comprises of eight hundred and fifty four thousand persons who hold classified clearances.

Intelligence refers to the information that various organizations gather, scrutinize and dole out in reaction to regime persons’ in charge queries and requisites. It is a wide-ranging expression, with it entailing gathering, evaluating, and production of insightful information. This information is used to prop up state security heads, as well as strategy crafters, armed forces commanding officers and Members of Congress.

It also entails upholding these procedures and data by way of counterintelligence doings and carrying out of concealed procedures backed up by the head of the nation (Warner and McDonald 2005, 97). The IC makes every effort to offer important insight on key matters by collecting new intelligence, scrutinizing that information in perspective, and coming up with well-timed and significant outcomes for consumers at all echelons of state-run security, that is, all the way from the war-fighter in the battle field to the President in Washington.

The by and large association of the Intelligence Community is principally presided over by the National Security Act of the year nineteen forty seven and Executive Order 12333. The constitutional directorial affiliations were to a large extent modified with the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, IRTPA modifications to the National Security Act of 1947.

Despite the fact that the Intelligence Community sets itself apart as an association of its constituent facets, it’s by and large framework is well again set apart as an association as a result of it being short of a clearly distinguished, cohesive headship and authority framework (Warner and McDonald 2005, 102). Before 2004, the Intelligent Community was headed by the Director of Central Intelligence, DCI, who still served as the executive of the CIA. The main denigration of this system was that the DCI held petite or no concrete power over the budgetary powers of the other Intelligence Community units and as a result had restricted control over their procedures.

Reforms in the Intelligence Community

The United States Intelligence Community has gone through remarkable change at three points in the last 100 years. These stages comprise of World War II, the Congressional investigations of the 1970s, and as a result of September 11, 2001 and the War in Iraq initiated in March 2003.

This study looks at the starting points, circumstances and outcomes of these four major official studies and reforms that have taken place in the period following the Second World War. It looks at the grounds upon these studies were instigated, the proposals made concerning them, and the most important outcomes that they came up with (Arthur, Darling 1990).

From the time when World War II began, presidents, members of Congress, armed force commandants, and a horde of administrators have perplexed over the vague capacity and patchy show of the United States intelligence organization. From time to time, particularly in periods of emergency, Congress and the executive have embarked on changing it around or readdressing the path of its advancement.

Suggestions for restructuring and transformation, however, every so often let somebody see diminutive understanding or facts of the way in which intelligence units’ have gone forward over the years, how these units in point of fact work, and how they fit together. To figure out the way in which the American intelligence framework works as a scheme and the way in which it has been altered over time is an overwhelming undertaking even for the people who work in it. Inattentiveness to the Intelligence Community’s past and institutionalized perspective may be of importance in giving details why earlier period efforts to transform it have in most times come up with inadequate and patchy change.

To be aware of the Intelligence community as it exists at present in consequence calls for some grounding in the way it has moved forward from World War II into its current multifaceted, spread, and frequently perplexing form.

World War II and the period after

The United States got universal tasks in World War II, but neither Congress nor the White House at first had a comprehensible plan of the way in which to fulfill them. The unplanned period of war procedures that President Franklin Roosevelt had embarked on prior to his passing away in April of 1945 now required to be weighed up with a decisive eye. When he rose to the presidency, Harry Truman accounted afterward, one of his strongest fervors was that the old-fashioned security arrangement of the United States needed to be put in order speedily.

In the same way, in September 1945 the Joint Chiefs of Staff raised calls for intelligence transformation (Michael, Warner 2002, 74). With the advancement in the sector of modern weapons at the time, a well-organized and professional intelligence service was imperative. This had to be to an extent never arrived at and never imagined in times gone by. Failure to make available such a set up could bring nationwide adversity. As a result, the question at the time was not if modernizing intelligence was necessary but the way in which it could be carried out.

Every one of the Truman government appeared to hold it its own thoughts concerning the lessons drawn from the war and the appropriate manner for intelligence to prop up policymakers and commandants. A bulk of these thoughts was commonly conflicting, and few officers had the perceptivity to see the entire expanse of the United States’ new capacities.

All the same, in the commencement of 1946 the Truman government came up with three essential resolutions for postwar intelligence. These resolutions were systemized by National Security Act of 1947 and jointly they set the track of United States intelligence for decades to come. The first resolution was from Truman himself and he wanted no recur of Pearl Harbor. According to him, the Japanese assault could possibly have been thwarted if there had been an aspect of harmonization of information in the administration. There was without a doubt no such thing in 1941 as the armed forces did not have full acquaintance of what the State Department knew. Diplomatists also did not have acquaintance to all the military knew. Truman endorsed an arrangement that his Joint Chiefs of Staff had put forward. This was an autonomous centralized unit to fulfill the fusion of departmental intelligence.

The Truman government’s next key resolution came about after creation of the Central Intelligence Group. This was early on in 1946 and it entailed getting a person in charge and a home for the concealed outfitted means put up in the course of the war. It also led to the combination of administrative intelligence fusion and operational synchronization in a single central agency of the same kind as that Truman had endorsed at the beginning of 1946 (Michael, Warner 2002, 74).

The merger of these two utilities in the new Central Intelligence Group was a rejoinder to a definite set of past situations in the instantaneous after effects of the Second World War. This made the Director of Central Intelligence ostensible leader of United States intelligence. As head he or she was to watch over an intelligence organization with two major undertakings: offering tactical forewarning of dangers to the nation and directing undercover activities out of the country.

The Truman government’s third major resolution was to make certain that United States intelligence stay put as a free association of groups with no well-built bearing from either national or armed forces decision makers. The idea here was that every branch needed its own intelligence. This step, though, bore some unforeseen outcomes. The president and his advice-givers did not have up to date knowledge of the factual situation of departmental intelligence.

Congressional investigations of the 1970s

The most notable researches of intelligence in the 1970s were from Congress. In 1975 and 1976, two select commissions investigated disclosures of a number of Central Intelligence Agency abuses that first came out in the press in 1974. Senate came up with a commission at the beginning of 1975 to look into foreign and internal intelligence activities, comprising accusations of unlawful activity and the capability of the regulations and supervision systems presiding over the Intelligence Community.

The commission was chaired by Frank Church and was popularly known as the Church Committee (Warner and McDonald 2005, 104). The commission’s main duty came to be the establishment of what clandestine governmental doings are essential and how they best can be carried out under the rule of law.

Church’s committee took fifteen months and came up with a well researched and laid out report. In fact, some of the proposals in the report go well together with those of current executive branch studies, a good example being the idea that the Director of Central Intelligence needs to lay emphasis on society dealings and hand over express administration of the Central Intelligence Agency to a second-in-command.

The committee also reiterated on the importance of enhanced congressional as well as policymaker supervision of intelligence. The breakthrough for this committee was in its management of the operational part of United States intelligence. Expenditure and effectiveness which had not been easy for recent studies were not an issue. The commission proposed that intelligence needs to be a gatherer of information and producer of data, and a tool for executing American foreign policy.

The Church committee’s accomplishment in drawing two-way resolutions and winning executive division endorsement to giving a civic account stands in disparity to the outcomes of other congressional researches carried out at the time. The congressional committee, moderated by Otis Pike, took an adversarial set about to the intelligence sector and then protested that the decision-making branch was hindering its research. Early in 1976, the full House refused to make public the complete report. Sections of the report nonetheless soon seeped out to the press and the House made known its recommendations.

A majority of these resolutions recommended restrictions on internal and foreign procedures. This included an outlaw on blackwashes and on all concealed paramilitary force goings-on with the exception of times of war. The committee’s proposal on Intelligence Community was to the effect that the Director of Central Intelligence be set apart from any of the outfitted and diagnostic intelligence units (Warner and McDonald 2005, 111). This was meant to keep him or her accountable for the administration and management of all units of America involved in overseas intelligence. The sensible outcomes of the two congressional studies took a number of years to come out. The most immediate effect was on congress itself: its two chambers before long set up enduring select committees to oversee intelligence activities.

The period after 9/11 and the 2003 war in Iraq

The events of eleventh September 2001 impelled calls for specialized inquiry of what had taken place to allow a devastation of such extent to take place. Two such explorations brought to the fore broad analysis of the Intelligence Community’s performance and got extensive interest. One of the proposals brought up by these committees was that of the signing up of a Director of National Intelligence set apart from the usual administration of the Central Intelligence Agency, who would oversee enlarged budgetary and managerial powers to manage the Intelligence community (The 9/11 Commission Report 2004, 403–406). At the same time as the 9/11 Commission carried out its vocation for a period of 18 months, a number of congressmen brought bills to the house to put into operation resolutions comparable to those established by the mutual inquest.

The 9/11 Commission’s Report recommended across-the-board adjustment in the Intelligence Community. A number of its proposals were in line to those of prior researches. One of the suggestions was that the Director of Central Intelligence’s responsibilities should be divided between the person in charge of the Intelligence Community and a director of the Central Intelligence Authority. The fellow in charge of the Intelligence Community would brandish full power.

The National Intelligence Director would oversee three second-in-commands National Intelligence Directors for homeland safety, security intelligence, and far-off intelligence, each of whom would also bear mutual engagements as higher second-in-commands in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Authority and the Defense Department.

Another reform proposed by the commission, which is conceivably the most original was the one to the effect that domestic and far-off terrorism investigation and tactical scheduling be carried out by a National Counterterrorism Center, NCTC, under the National Intelligence Director’s say-so. The NCTC would be an amalgam institute to connect, and this is in relation to terrorism.

The Director of Central Intelligence was allowed the task to implement his powers to the full degree of the legislation. Orders assented to by President Bush called attention to the director’s responsibility to make available intelligence against all dangers to the United States, regardless of where the intelligence emerged from. This is all in a bid to make certain that the amalgamation of Intelligence Community actions and to come up with state-run centers to tackle high-precedence intelligence areas.

The director was also given new powers to keep an eye on the Defense Department’s expenditure on strategic intelligence and to be in accord in the designations and occupancy of the persons in charge of other intelligence units.

In the early October 2004, the House and Senate independently voted for comprehensive alterations to the National Security Act (The 9/11 Commission Report 2004, 411-414). These long pieces of legislation comprised of rather incongruent aspects for the function of acquiring extensive hold up in their individual chambers. The Senate’s bit was almost as that of the 9/11 Commission’s suggestions, with it providing a more modernized directorial system for the new director as compared to what the commission had proposed.

Conclusion

At the same time as a good deal of reform in the Intelligence Community has been more unsystematic and unplanned, the routine impulsion to hire a comprehensive study when thinking of alteration is nearly inescapable. These reforms are largely seen to be ad hoc since they come about in the period following an event where the security of citizens is threatened (A Framework for Reform of the U.S. Intelligence Community 2010).

There are two vital things that a study commission has to get right in order to bring about noteworthy reform to the Intelligence Community. These are process and substance. Process refers to the particular course of action intended to achieve the end result while substance is the choicest or most essential or most vital part of the suitable ideas or proposals. Both these need to be carried out effectively with the aim of achieving the required desirable outcomes. It also should not be forgotten that the recommendations put forward need to have in mind the long-term and not just the short-term. They need to be as comprehensive as possible.

Reforms as a result of the aforementioned events have ensured that the Intelligence Community has known changes and alterations throughout. What comes out clearly here is that a majority of these reforms have been reactive as they are out to deal with events that have already taken place. They are basically in readiness for any future repeat of such happenings. Other than this, these reforms should be forward-looking and proactive with the point of dealing with future trends and patterns in national security and national economic threats.

There is an important lesson that should be drawn from this study as regards to the bigger course of intelligence alteration. All-encompassing intelligence alteration is uncommon as it is so complicated. To come up with more than additive alteration, the American Constitution needs wide-ranging collaboration by two whole chambers of government.

Bibliography

The 9/11 Commission Report, (2004). 403–406, 411–14.

Michael, Warner and Kenneth McDonald. US Intelligence Community Reform Studies since 1947.

Michael, Warner, “Prolonged Suspense: The Fortier Board and the Transformation of the Office of Strategic Services,” Journal of Intelligence History 2 (June 2002): 74–76.

Arthur, Darling. The Central Intelligence Agency: An Instrument of Government, to 1950 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1990), 299.

A Framework for Reform of the U.S. Intelligence Community, Web.

The primary dilemma of any minority community is and always has been, whether to keep themselves inside the boundaries of the community or to integrate with the majority, which is the major issue of American-Chinese relationships.

The two different claims of “belonging” in the 1936 Chinese American essay contests

The radically opposing views presented in the 1936 Chinese American essay contests are not only the issue of allegiance to one or the other country. The contestants who defined themselves as belonging to America did not refuse on their national heritage and cultural values. They, probably, were the first to find a way to integrate into another foreign culture without losing their national identity. Similarly, the Chinese-Americans who in their 1936 essays identified their lives and future as part of China just did not find a chance to assimilate fully into the mainstream American culture because of the feeling of alienation. Those two positions can only be viewed in the context of the time period and circumstances of the life of Chinese-Americans in the 1930s.

How is it possible that there were more than 70,000 Chinese immigrants despite the US immigration quota is capped at 25,600?

However, there are still many Chinese who leave their homeland to live in the United States. The government has the quota for the immigration from China of 25,600 people. Nevertheless, there are many immigration practices that are not included in that quota, the illegal immigration still exists, and the US passage of immigration is favorable to the Chinese. The grounds for immigration not included in the quota are, for example, employment-based and family-sponsored preferences, immediate relatives of the U.S. citizens, asylees and other groups (Chen 171).

Gary Locke and his ambassadorial tenure in China

The integrity between America and China, and between the Chinese-Americans and the Chinese was improved during the ambassador tenure of Gary Locke. Locke’s family experienced America as immigrants, and the US Ambassador himself contributed to the bilateral cooperation between mostly Chinese mainland companies that received goods produced in the US, and the ability for the US companies to extend their markets (Chen and Yoo 15).

What did the Chinese American community do in resisting the SF City Hall attempt to relocate them after 1906?

After the ethnic conflicts, taking place in San Francisco, the Chinese and supporting protesters organized the meeting at “sand-lots” by the San Francisco City Hall (Yung 277). It became the beginning of the equality movement for Chinese-Americans in California.

How did Post-WWII political issues in China lead America to become a political refugee haven for the Chinese dissents?

From the perspective of political life, the post-war period is marked by some drastic changes in the norms of social behavior and morals towards more open and less formal society. The new wave of the Chinese immigrants was seeking the asylum in the US because of the Chinese Civil War. Leaving the homeland away from communist troops, the immigrants settled in America as the country opposing to communism. In the post-war years, the life of a younger generation of Chinese-Americans was impacted by the economic and urban shift that gave them opportunities to build careers and stop being associated exclusively with the working class (Lee and Zhou 6).

Response to the Chinese Exclusion Act

According to Ellen Wu, before the 1940s and 1950s, the Chinese were stereotypically deemed as “unassimilable aliens” (Wu 2). However, with the raising levels of the Chinese among the educated and professionally qualified strata and slow acceptance of their community as part of the American society, the dilemma became crucial for the Chinese-American themselves, for “the need and feasibility of staying connected to the ethnic identity” has many factors underlying and supporting it (Du 41). The story of Chinese American is in many ways a story of overcoming both challenges, preserving the native culture in the new environment, and eventually defeating the dilemma of choosing where belonging.

Works Cited

Chen, Shehong. Being Chinese, Becoming Chinese American. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press, 2002. Print.

Chen, Edith Wen-Chu, and Grace J. Yoo. Encyclopedia Of Asian American Issues Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press, 2010. Print.

Du, Liang. Learning To Be Chinese American. Lanham, MD.: Lexington Books, 2010. Print.

Lee, Jennifer, and Min Zhou. Asian American Youth. New York, NY: Routledge, 2004. Print.

Wu, Ellen D. The Color Of Success. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013. Print.

Yung, Judy. Unbound Feet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995. Print.

Introduction

Civilization mission is one of the major factors used to justify colonization. It involves the spread of western culture to indigenous communities. Its pedigree can be traced to the middle ages in the Christian tradition. At the time, the European colonial powers saw people from other nations as inferior to them. They termed them as backward and uncivilized societies. The perception made the imperialists assume that it was their duty to westernize these communities. Westernization was synonymous with civilization.

The colonial powers used the assimilation ideology as a tool for spreading their cultures.¹ The Europeans were also racist and had a negative view of what they regarded as ‘backward’ nations. They wanted all societies under their control to abandon their native traditions and customs and embrace the new way of life. The colonial powers affirmed that traditional customs had to be destroyed at all costs. The societies had to fully adapt to and follow the western traditions. The parties who were unable to follow them had no choice but to disappear.

In this paper, the author will analyze the British civilization mission in India. The analysis will be in the context of the English East India Company. The author will analyze the company’s civilization mission in 1830. In addition, the Great Rebellion of 1857 with regards to the company’s incursions will be reviewed. It is apparent that the civilizing mission was the major reason behind the uprising.

British Civilization Mission in India

The presence of the British in India dates back to the early 17^th century.² When they first arrived, their main aim was to venture into trade with the locals and other foreigners in the country. On December 31, 1600, Queen Elizabeth 1 gave in to the demands made by representatives of the investors and traders. The merchants wanted a new trading company to be granted a royal charter. Between 1601 and 1613, the British made twelve voyages to India.

The expeditions were made possible by the entrepreneurial intent of the East India Company merchants. In 1609, William Hawkins set foot in Jahangir’s court. The purpose of his visit was to seek authorization to establish a British company in India.³ In spite of the merchant’s overtures, Jahangir turned down his request. The permission was later granted in 1617. That was after Sir Thomas Roe’s visit to the Mughal Empire. Thomas was again permitted to set up a British factory in Surat in 1619. In addition, St. George Fort was established in 1639.

In 1757, Robert Clive led the British military to victory at Plassey. The army was fighting the Nawabs of Bengal forces and the Siraj-up-daulah. The triumph was a major milestone in the growth of the East India Company in India. As a result of the win, the establishment changed from an association of merchants to a conglomeration of rulers. The rulers went on to exercise their political powers in other parts of the country. In addition to the Plassey triumph, Robert dramatically increased the number of Indian soldiers recruited into the British force.⁴ Ten years later, East India Company gained the right to collect taxes in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. The development was a major boost to the political and economic campaigns waged by the establishment. The taxes were collected on behalf of the Mughal Empire.

The strengthening of the colonial presence was later made the responsibility of Warren Hastings. That was after the initial military successes. He dispelled the notion that East India Company was still under the auspices of the Mughal Empire. Hastings also ensured the British familiarized themselves with Indian history, geography, and culture. In addition, the new ruler established the Asiatic Society of Bengal. The institution was founded in 1784 under the leadership of Sir William Jones.⁵ At the time, British society had dedicated itself to studying India’s religion and cosmological texts. In spite of his efforts, he was impeached after his return to England. He was accused of engaging in criminal acts and misdemeanors.

The State of English East India Company from the 1830s

By 1830, East India Company had established itself as ‘the master’ of India. The new status was large as a result of Lord Wellesley’s leadership as the Governor-General. Lord Wellesley arrived in India in 1798. He arrived with a new vision that enabled the British Empire to take over the Asian sub-continent.⁶ In the 1820s, there was a major change in the theoretical understanding of India among foreigners. James Mill and Jeremy Bentham set the motion for utilitarianism. The knowledge created the desire to reform the Indian society. The restructuring was to be carried out in accordance with the model prescribed by the British.

The period between 1828 and 1835 saw a number of reforms implemented in India. For example, the company abolished some of the customs that were viewed to be intolerable. Christians and civilized citizens were tasked with the responsibility of eliminating these practices. At the time, Lord William Bentinck was the Governor-General. His first duty in office was the abolition of sati. He made this decree on 12^th December, 1829.⁷ The practice was declared a criminal activity. Sati involved the burning of Indian widows alive with their deceased husbands.

It was done in the name of love and religion. It was a cultural practice that had mesmerized the missionaries and Europeans for more than two centuries. It elicited varying reactions among this group. They included admiration and abhorrence. However, the true meaning of the act was never made clear to them. The Europeans viewed it as either a Hinduism rite or an ancient practice of protecting a man’s honor. The criminalization of this practice was not supported by the locals. It was an indication of how the civilization activities of the East India Company led to the Great Rebellion of 1857. The reforms carried out by the British showed that the civilization mission had already come into play.

The Great Rebellion of 1857

The Indian uprising was brought about by a number of elements. They included economic, military, political, religious, and social factors. It started on 10^th May, 1857. It began with the uprising of sepoys in Meerut town.⁸ The unrest later spread in the country to include civilian upheavals in central India and the upper Gangetic plain. Some of the regions that experienced major hostilities include present-day Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.⁹ Other areas were Delhi and northern Pradesh. In spite of the major uprisings, some regions remained calm. They included Bengal, Bombay, and Madras Presidencies. The people were expressing their dissatisfaction with the civilization missions carried out by the British Company.

Causes of the Rebellion

It is a fact that the rebellion started as a sepoys’ mutiny against the British rule. However, there were other factors that fuelled its spread. They include civilian disquiet, economic factors, and the Enfield rifle.

Disquiet among the Civilians

The Indians were not pleased with the draconian rule of the British.¹⁰ The colonials engaged in rapid expansion and spread of western civilization. The Indians felt that the activities were conducted with disregard to their cultural practices. The company also abolished sati and child marriage.¹¹ In addition, it proscribed a number of native religious customs. The natives viewed those acts as steps towards mandatory conversion to Christianity. The realization prompted them to join hands and fight for their religion and faith. They went staged wars against the British Christian men and women, sparing only those who had converted to Muslim.

Sepoys

The activities of this group are also attributed to their dissatisfaction with the colonialists. The group was made up of local soldiers who had been recruited into East India Company’s military arm. Prior to the uprising, the number of locals recruited into the force was six times that of the foreigners.¹² As the British territory expanded, the professional terms of the sepoys changed. They started serving in areas they were less familiar with. In addition, they worked without the company’s service reimbursement. Retired personnel were also denied pension. The limitations applied to new recruits. Later on, the British stopped viewing the sepoys as foreign soldiers. That was after the invasion of Oudh and Punjab. The soldiers received low pay for their services and were denied extra allowances.¹³ The reductions and harsh treatment made the troop lose faith in the company. That led to a revolt against the British, which escalated into a rebellion.

Economic Factors

The locals were not pleased with the heavy taxes imposed on them by the British. For example, tax on land was increased. Bentinck repossessed tax free land. In addition, he confiscated a number of Jagirs.¹⁴ The locals were angered by the acts, leading to deep seated resentments. They directed their bitterness towards the landed aristocracy and the middle-class British settlers. The tracts of land were later impounded and placed on sale.

The Enfield rifle

It was another factor behind the unrest. The gun was a major contributor to the uprising. The fighters were issued with the Pattern 1853 Enfield musket rifle. The new gun was more accurate at greater distances compared to the Brown Bess.¹⁵ However, it scored low on the loading process. Both weapons were loaded by biting off the cartridge and powering the gunpowder in the muzzle. The sepoys believed the cartridges were lubricated with lard and tallow. Both Muslims and Hindus considered these two elements as unclean. As such, they were not happy using the rifles.

The Four Rebels of the 1857 Uprising

The rebellion was associated with a number of ordinary rebel representatives. Each played a unique role at the time. In addition, each had his own perception of foreign rule and its impacts on Indian way of life. The rebels were Shah Mal, Devi Singh, Gonoo, and Maulvi Ahmadullah.

Shah Mal

He was a Bijraul resident. The community was located in the eastern part of Pargana Barout. At the time of the revolt, he was a Malik of a part of Bijraul village. The community had been divided into two parts, Kullo and Ladura. His rebellion against the British began as a local affair. He cut off the communication lines between the British forces.¹⁶ He also brought together communities within his territory. His region acted as a strategic rear and supply base.

Devi Singh

He was a rebel from Tappa Raya in Mathura. His rebellion had no exterior intervention. His revolt was carried out by a peasant community in a small region.¹⁷ He was also a master of fourteen villages. Later on, the villages merged and formed a single state. Out of him, a peasant king was made. He derived his power from Jat’s age-old tradition.

Gonoo

In comparison to the other rebels, Gonoo had a lower social status.¹⁸ He was a farmer from Singhbhum. He went on to become a leader in spite of his humble beginnings. He used the threat of collective aggression to enhance co-operation in his tribal community. In addition, he carried himself as a Singhbhum and wore mankee attires.

Maulvi Ahmadullah Shah

Some people were personally involved in the uprising. The individual mentioned above became a preacher at a very young age. He travelled a lot around the country. In November 1856, Ahmadullah was in Lucknow. He pulled large masses of people to his meetings and preached against the British government.¹⁹ On 8 June, 1857, he was appointed a leader by the insurgents.

Conclusion

The civilization mission in India led to the Great Rebellion of 1857. The British justified their rule by asserting that Indians needed to be civilized.²⁰ The revolt posed a threat to the British rule after they acquired the territory in 1757. In addition to the sepoys, the old aristocracy offered great resistance to colonial rule in the country. The upheaval made the Indians realize that they cannot be ruled forever by a foreign nation. It also marked the end of the East India Company’s rule in the country. The organization closed down on mid 1858.

Bibliography

Bayly, Christopher. Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Guha, Ranjit. Selected Subaltern Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Hay, Stephen. Sources of Indian Tradition, Vol. 2: Modern India and Pakistan. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press, 1988.

Kishore, Prem, and Anuradha Ganpati. India: An Illustrated History. New York: Hippocrene Books, 2003.

Metcalf, Barbara, and Thomas Metcalf. A Concise History of Modern India. 3rd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Sugata, Bose, and Ayesha Jalal. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2011.

Travers, Robert. Ideology and Empire in the Eighteenth Century India: The British in Bengal. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Waligora, Melita. “What is Your ‘Caste’?: The Classification of Indian Society as Part of the British Civilizing Mission.” In Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India, edited by Harald Fischer-Tine and Michael Mann, 68- 91 London: Wimbledon Publishing Company, 2004.

Footnotes

1. Melita Waligora, “What is Your ‘Caste’?: The Classification of Indian Society as Part of the British Civilizing Mission,” in Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India, eds. Harald Fischer-Tine and Michael Mann (London: Wimbledon Publishing Company, 2004), 71.
2. Christopher Bayly, Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 72.
3. Ranjit Guha, Selected Subaltern Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 25.
4. Barbara Metcalf and Thomas Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India, 3rd ed, (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 61.
5. Metcalf and Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India, 62.
6. Robert Travers, Ideology and Empire in the Eighteenth Century India: The British in Bengal (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 51.
7. Waligora, “What is Your ‘Caste’?”, 80.
8. Stephen Hay, Sources of Indian Tradition, Vol. 2: Modern India and Pakistan, 2nd ed, (New York: Free Press, 1988), 73.
9. Bose Sugata and Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy, 3^rd ed, (London: Routledge, 2011), 36.
10. Guha, Selected Subaltern Studies, 93.
11. Prem Kishore and Anuradha Ganpati, India: An Illustrated History (New York: Hippocrene Books, 2003), 52.
12. Travers, Ideology and Empire in Eighteenth Century India, 71.
13. Bayly, Indian Society, 89.
14. Kishore and Ganpati, India: An Illustrated History, 49.
15. Travers, Ideology and Empire in the Eighteenth Century India, 86.
16. Guha, Selected Subaltern Studies, 135.
17. Ibid, 145.
18. Guha, Selected Subaltern Studies, 156.
19. Ibid, 163.
20. Kishore and Ganpati, India: An Illustrated History, 112.

In XIX – XX centuries, segregation and discrimination of black Americans was enshrined in the laws of Southern states. The active struggle against racism in the United States began after the Second World War. The supporters of racist views felt they were supporting the just beliefs. The segregation was firmly established in the life of American society. It was observed both in the spiritual realms as well as in everyday life.

The separation of African-American citizens from white people was observed even during the War. Black and white people served in different military blocks and were placed in different conditions. Such infringement of the rights bothered many people, while most Americans were busy with the expansion of the state welfare and military operations. However, there were also those who tried to draw attention to the principle of universal freedom, equality and strived for boosting the capacity of the country’s power.

The problem of infringement of the black population has its roots in the history of the USA, and it intensified in the 20th century due to the desire of the African-American population to be equal in rights with other citizens of the country. In this case, African Americans went from servants at the beginning of the 20th century to the labor and freedom fighters and white-collars in the post-war period and 2000s because of rising concerns about the universalism and freedom in the American society.

At the beginning of the 20th century, African Americans were recognized as servants and did not have rights. However, they began to fight for their position and equality actively at the beginning of the postwar period.¹ In turn, “the Congress of Racial Equality” was organized to support the rights of African Americans. ² They made use of all the means available for them, ranging from literature to the litigation to oppose the principle of freedom and equality to the established tradition of racism.

However, their opponents sought to slow down and limit all the legislative and political changes, and they were successful in their actions. In the period from 1920 to 1940, the division of black and white did not gain any positive tendency. For instance, African-American children in the Southern states still could not go to school with white children.³ Simultaneously, local authorities responded with “the resistance” while “the protests escalated”. ⁴

In the 20th century, there were significant changes associated with political beliefs and public understanding of equality and freedoms. These modifications pertained to the situation when a black woman did not want to allow a white man to take her seat in public transport. It meant a violation of the law of segregation in public transportation resulting in the arrest of the woman.⁵ After this incident, the black women decided to boycott the bus lines, which subsequently led to the legal confirmation by authorities that segregation in public transportation in Montgomery was inappropriate.⁶

This kind of situation made it possible to bring the fight for the rights to a new level. The struggle became more pronounced and intense. Nevertheless, the situation with African-Americans did not change radically, and the problem of discrimination remained acute and constant. In this case, this period is associated with “the emergency of twenty-six-year-old Martin Luther King”. ⁷ This political leader was firmly entrenched in the history of the African-American fight for equality, and until the present, he is associated with a non-violent struggle for the rights of the black population of America.⁸

He called black citizens to fight oppression by passive resistance and disobedience to the civil authorities while paying attention to “the working class and the poor”. ⁹ He was highly devoted to his duty, and even after the imprisonment continued to express his opinions about the freedom movement and expressed it in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. ¹⁰ He governed various organizations and movements and inspired the African-Americans to fight for their beliefs in a non-violent way. One day King called the people to a peaceful provocation that led to the fact that the wave of protests swept across the country. In 1963, a quarter of a million people participated in a protest march, and King delivered his famous speech about justice and fraternity.¹¹

A series of protests contributed to the implementation of laws that gave blacks the voting rights and eventually led to the abolition of segregation. However, the black fighters for freedom and equality had to go through a fierce resistance of racists, which included the Ku Klux Klan, terrorist attacks, and bombings of their homes and churches, and the brutal murder of activists.¹²

Due to the Americans’ desire to increase the level of equality and rising concerns about universalism and freedoms, African Americans became freedom fighters and as a consequence white collars. Nevertheless, the fighters were not consistent in their beliefs and divided into those who wanted to follow the ideas of Martin Luther King Jr. and those who believed his actions were ineffective. The result of this separation was a series of street clashes that began in the mid-1960s.

These clashes took place in several cities and states and led to the appearance of separatist organizations. At the end of the 1970s, the African-American population was divided more intensely, and the economic side of life affected this division within the black community. By the end of the 1970s, almost a third of all African-American population could be considered middle class, and by the early 1990s, almost half of black employees could join the category of white-collar workers.¹³

At universities, there were many black applicants and, in general, the living standards of the black population has grown, which resulted in the greater division within the African-American population of the United States.¹⁴

Although at the beginning of the 1970s some reduction in the scope of mass demonstrations and other militant actions was present, the reasons for African-American protest did not only disappear, but they worsened in many ways. Since the 1980s, the protests were carried out under socio-economic, anti-war, and anti-racist slogans indicating the possibility of the revival of the mass movement for social justice. It is worth noting that in the period from 1970 to 2000 the movement of black Americans against discrimination has become more diverse than in the 1960s.

The black Americans have fought on many fronts: at the local and national levels, in state legislatures, in city municipalities, the workplace, trade unions, Congress, and in the black neighborhoods.¹⁵ They utilized both parliamentary and non-parliamentary forms of struggle trying to strengthen contacts with other units of the democratic forces. However, the quantity of participants of the struggle of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s was inferior to the movement of the 1960s as it encountered much more resistance.

In conclusion, the discrimination of the African-American population has its roots in the middle of the XIX century after the slavery was abolished in the United States. The US government did not take any practical steps or drastic measures to change the situation. The neglect of the discriminated population by the government led to the intensification of the struggle for the basic human rights of African Americans. Despite the fact that this population was fighting for its basic freedom, rights, and universal equality, and many people have been suffering from harassment for decades, the issue of infringement of the black population in the US is still relevant. Until present, their civil and political rights are violated, which indicates that the society and the state still have a lot to improve to achieve social justice in the country.

Footnotes

1. Oliver Stones, Untold History of the United States, Dailymotion. Web.
2. Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty!:An American History (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014), 442-746.
3. Untold History of the United States: Episode 3, Youtube. Web.
4. Foner, Give Me Liberty!, 440.
5. Jessie Smith, Handy African American History Answer Book (Canton: Visible Ink Press, 2014), 97.
6. Foner, Give Me Liberty!, 443.
7. Ibid, 407.
8. Howard Zinn, A People’s History of United States (New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2005), 134.
9. Foner, Give Me Liberty!, 442.
10. Foner, Give Me Liberty!, 758.
11. Callie Crossley & James DeVeney, PBS: Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years 1954-1965, Freedocumetaries. Web.
12. James Campbell, Crime and Punishment in African American History (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 220.
13. Philip Reiss, Blue Eyes on African-American History (Bloomington: Archway Publishing, 2013), 244.
14. Thomas Borstelmann, The 1970s: A New Global History from Civil Rights to Economic Inequality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), 282.
15. Angela Jones, African American Civil Rights (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2011), 213.

Quote

According to Sheridan, the creation of Native American reservations in Arizona “proceeded sporadically and haphazardly over 119 years” (305).

Booth states that “modern Native Americans face different challenges than did their ancestors, and many of those challenges affect how they can now relate to the land” (330).

Paraphrase

Original Material

“Navajo and Hopi living near Black Mesa, in northern Arizona, are suing the federal government to protect ancient burial sites from Peabody Coal, which is seeking a lifetime permit. Hopi leaders say the coal company, which has been mining Black Mesa since the 1960s, has already desecrated, dug up, and shipped off archeological artifacts without tribal consent” (Langlois).

My Paraphrase

The ancestral lands of the many Native American tribes are currently threatened. As stated by Langlois, ancient burial sites of archeological significance located in Black Mesa, Arizona, are at risk of destruction because, for decades, Peabody Coal has conducted mining operations there and removed some archeological artifacts from the area without seeking the agreement of the indigenous people.

Original Material

“By the mid-1800s, American settlers were pouring into the land. As they searched for wealth, they, too, paid little respect to the people who had lived in a balance with the land for hundreds of years. Many new settlers were openly hostile, declaring war, poisoning, or shooting native people” (“American Indian Tribes and Communities in Arizona”).

My Paraphrase

As stated in “American Indian Tribes and Communities in Arizona,” when newcomers were arriving in Arizona searching for wealth in the 1800s, they were extremely hostile towards Native Americans who had tried to live in harmony with nature for millennia. The conflicts between settlers and indigenous people often turned into wars with mass shootings and poisoning that resulted in enormous casualties on both sides.

Summary

Original Material

“Tribes sharing reservation land grew together to form sovereign nations under one government. Though tribes living on some reservations in Arizona retain different ancestry, culture, and language, they became one nation. The Gila River Indian Community, where Pima (Akimel O’odham) and Maricopa Indians live together, is an example of one government comprised of more than one original tribe.” (“American Indian Tribes and Communities in Arizona”).

My Summary

In “American Indian Tribes and Communities in Arizona,” the authors observe that, before becoming a unified nation, Native American tribes were often highly diverse in terms of culture and linguistic ancestry. However, although remaining in close contact with each other today, the tribes manage to preserve their distinctive in-group cultural features.

Original Material

“Black Mesa Water Coalition (BMWC) is an Indigenous-led environmental justice organization based in Flagstaff, Arizona. BMWC is dedicated to preserving and protecting Mother Earth and the integrity of Indigenous Peoples’ cultures, with the vision of building sustainable and healthy communities. BMWC was formed in 2001 by young, inter-tribal, inter-ethnic people dedicated to addressing issues of water depletion, natural resource exploitation, and health promotion within Navajo and Hopi Communities” (D’Arcy 30).

My Summary

D’Arcy notes that the primary goals of the Black Mesa Water Coalition founded in 2001 include environmental protection, promotion of ecological sustainability, and preservation of Native American culture (30).

Combination

Original Material

“In the songs and legends of Native American cultures, it is apparent that the land and her creatures are perceived as truly beautiful things. There is a sense of great wonder and of something that sparks a deep sensation of joyful celebration” (Booth 331).

My Combination

Booth claims that the legends of Native Indians convey a feeling of reverence for nature’s beauty − “there is a sense of great wonder and of something that sparks a deep sensation of joyful celebration” in them (331).

Original Material

“Reservations today range in size from the enormous Navajo Nation, which covers nearly 16 million acres and is the largest reservation in the United States, to the tiny Tonto Apache reservation which occupies 378 acres south of Payson” (Sheridan 305). Havasupai Tribe − “Population: 639: size: 518 acres” (“American Indian Tribes and Communities in Arizona”).

My Combination

Some of the communities in Arizona, such as the “enormous Navajo Nation,” can be so large that they spread across several states and 16 million acres, while the smallest ones, such as the Havasupai Tribe, may comprise only 639 people and cover about 500 acres (Sheridan 305; “American Indian Tribes and Communities in Arizona”).

Works Consulted

“American Indian Tribes and Communities in Arizona.” The Arizona Experience. Web.

Booth, Annie L. “We are the Land: Native American Views of Nature.” Nature Across Cultures: Views of Nature and the Environment in Non-Western Cultures, edited by Helaine Selin, Springer, 2013, pp. 329-350.

D’Arcy, Angela Mooney. “Environmental Justice.” Native Voices Rising: A Case for Funding Native-led Change, edited by Louis T. Delgado, Common counsel Foundation, and Native Americans in Philanthropy, 2013, pp. 25-37.

Langlois, Krista. ” How Native Americans Have Shaped the Year’s Biggest Environmental Debates.” High Country News. 2014. Web.

Sheridan, Thomas E. Arizona: A History, Revised Edition. University of Arizona Press, 2012.

Who participated in the war, and why?

The six-day war was fought by various countries in the Middle East region. Essentially, the war was between various Arab countries against Israel. The Arab countries that actively participated in the six-day war included Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Prior to the 1967 war, the presence of Israel in the Middle East was hanging in the balance. The combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria started to openly prepare for war against Israel, whereas other Arab leaders called for Israel’s destruction. This war was borne out of historical resentments in which the Arab countries neighboring Israel did not welcome Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East (Smith, 2001).

The Arab world was not happy with the Balfour Declaration and Jewish nationalism that was allowed to take place in the British Mandate of Palestine. Also, the status of international waterways that led to Israel was one of the reasons behind the 1967 six-day war. It has to be noted that Egypt implemented a blockade on the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran, restricting shipping destined for Israel in the 1940s and early 1950s. This was action violated the various resolutions and conventions that had been previously established (Gat, 2005).

Why did Egypt re-enter the Sinai?

Egypt had been forced to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula in 1956 following the invasion that was conducted by Israel, France, and the United Kingdom to open up the blockaded Straits of Tiran. Following this move, the United Nations Emergency Force was deployed in the Sinai in an effort to stop Egypt from re-imposing a blockade. In the wake up to the 1967 six-day war, Egypt was regarded as a force to reckon with in the Arab world (Gat, 2005).

The re-entry of the Egyptians into the Sinai was based on faulty intelligence that was provided by the Soviets. It was been argued that the Soviet ambassador to Cairo informed Egypt about the presumed looming attack that Israel was planning against Syria. The ambassador noted that Israel was busy amassing her army near the Syrian borders in preparation for an attack against Damascus.

In response to these assertions, Gamal Abdel Nasser mobilized his army and stationed them in the Sinai. He also called for the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force that had been deployed in the area after the 1956 conflict (Ajami, 2007). It has been observed that Nasser wanted to engage in disingenuous political maneuvers so as to gain a political edge over Israel, similar to the case in the Suez conflict. Nasser also aimed to show his military might in an effort to reinforce and strengthen his pan-Arab credentials that were diminishing (Gat, 2005).

What were the effects of this in the Arab world?

The 1967 six-day war is regarded as critical in the history of the Middle East as it has redefined the political scenario in the region. Also, this conflict redefined the boundaries of the state of Israel. With Israel emerging victorious against its Arab enemies, Israel redefined the political as well as the military geography of the Middle East region. This war also accelerated the pace of cultural identification between the United States and Israel (Stephens, 2007). The pre-emptive war of 1967 led to the destruction of the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian warplanes while still on the ground. Israel was able to take control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza strip, the West Bank of Jordan, and the Golan Heights (Gat, 2005).

The defeat of the Arab states in the six-day war with Israel marked a critical event in the history of the region. This is because this war was associated with political, economic, military, and cultural importance. From this war, it was established that the Arab governments derived their legitimacy from the objective of liberating the Palestinians.

After the war, the Middle East was characterized by an assortment of various elements such as dented pride, desire for justice, political rivalry between rival political groups, and increased frustration and lack of comprehension with respect to the ‘Zionist’ state. After the defeat, Arab leaders converged in Khartoum and resolved not to establish peace with Israel; not to negotiate with Israel; and not to recognize Israel. Therefore, the defeat acted only to exacerbate the enmity between Israel and her Arab neighbors (Smith, 2001).

What did the Israelis gain?

The 1967 six-day war was fought swiftly, with Israel emerging victorious over her Arab adversaries. Israel was able to defeat the frontline enemies and captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza strip from the Egyptians, the Golan Heights from the Syrians, and the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem from Jordan. The ease and greatness of the victory of Israel in the war had profound impacts on the part of Israel.

This victory redefined Israel’s society and politics. It is worth noting that Israel has remained undecided on how to deal with the territories that were captured during the 1967 war. Israel is contemplating whether to use these territories as a tool for peace or use them for strategic and/or religious purposes (Smith, 2001). The 1967 Israel-Arab conflict was locked up in a complex situation in which the Arab countries were said to be supported by the Soviet Union.

In the meantime, Israel was not backed by any state and acted on its own. However, the victory redefined Israel’s relation with the international community, especially the United States. Ever since that victory, Israel has become a close associate of the United States. Stephens (2007) noted that, even though the war was short-lived, it had a profound impact in the sense that it consolidated a special relationship between the United States and Israel.

What significant issues resulted in the Palestinians?

After the Arabs lost heavily in the 1967 six-day war, Israel occupied territories that once belonged to the Palestinians. The Israelites were not willing to oversee the division of their ‘new territory’ into two states with independent economic and political entities. At the same time, Israel negated the establishment of a single political and economic entity that included the Palestinians (Arnon, 2007). To the Palestinians, this war transformed the manner in which they perceived the world. Before the war, the Palestinians had their beliefs in the Arab countries and hoped that the Arab states would be able to destroy Israel.

However, this was not to be after the disastrous loss of the Arab states in the conflict. The Palestinians turned to national movements that were distinctive from the Arab states. They embraced international terrorism strategies in an effort to attract world attention. Though the PLO accepted the establishment of a two state solution to the problem, the Islamist Hamas were opposed to any peace agreement with Israel. The violent struggles that are witnessed between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza are an indication of internal division among the Palestinians on how to handle Israel. It can be argued that the 1967 Arab-Israel war led to the emergence of Palestinian nationalism which has adopted terrorism as the way to make their plea to be heard (Smith, 2001).

How did the international community react?

The 1967 six-day conflict was fought in a volatile atmosphere and the international community chose to abstain. In this case, both the United States and the United Nations were committed to inaction. The United States did not engage in the conflict due to the fact that the country was already engaged in the Vietnam conflict. Also, it has been noted that President Johnson was concerned more with his waning popularity and reelection than what was happening in the Middle East. President Johnson, drawing from his past experience, also thought that the Congress would not let him engage in another military confrontation (Arnon, 2007).

After the war had ended, the United Nation Security Council passed Resolution 242 which laid emphasis on the inadmissibility of a territory that had been acquired through war. It was also demanded of Israel to withdraw from the areas that had been captured during the war. This resolution also called for respect among all the nations in the region, asking them to refrain from war-like activities (Arnon, 2007).

This resolution was rejected by the Palestinians as it only mentioned them as refugees who needed to be settled. Apart from the numerous resolutions which have been adopted, efforts have been undertaken to resolve the stand-off between the Arab states and Israel but effective results are yet to be attained. Egypt managed to negotiate for a return of its territory but other countries are yet to strike a deal with Israel. The issue of the Palestine state has remained controversial but the international community has not given up on finding a long-lasting peace settlement (Smith, 2001).

References

Ajami, F. (2007). Israel’s Triumph. U.S. News & World Report, 142(21): 41-44.

Arnon, A. (2007). Israel policy towards the occupied Palestinian territories: the Economic Dimension, 1967-2007. Middle East Journal, 61(4): 573-595

Gat, M. (2005). Nasser and the Six Day War, 5 June 1967: A Premeditated Strategy or an Inexorable Drift to War? Israel Affairs, 11(4):.608–635.

Smith, C. D. (2001). Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Stephens, E. (2007). America, Israel & the Six Day War. History Today, 57(6): 12-19.