3/26/2020 0 Comments Muslim leaders in south Asia EssayMuslim leaders in south Asia and northern Africa both had many issues and difficulties when it came to defining their nationalism as an empire. Both southern Asia and Northern Africa struggled politically, educationally, and religiously to define their nationalism. Both Northern Africa and Southern Asia struggled to define their empires nationalism because of political issues. (4,6). A Muslim Egyptian nationalist is speaking about how the east will never see eye to eye with the west. The Nationalist is saying how Egypt can never create nationalism if his country is at civil war, and cannot see eye to eye and agree on things. (4.) This personal bias is an issue because it is only giving an opinion of an eastern African citizen. A western African citizen could be feeling a complete opposite way about politics. This matters because a western African could have a solution to see eye to eye about politics, and completely fix the problem. It would help to see a document showing the opinion of a western African citizen saying how he feels about the east and the west agreeing on politics. Education was a big factor in South Asia and Southern Africa. (3,1). An educator of an oriental college is saying how people would rather chose to save and adopt Islam then to take in the new British education system. This creates nationalism in a way that Islam is looking for new education that will be better, and more innovative then the eastern education systems such as Great Britain. (1). People are more focused on religious ideologies then the actual educational facts that are shown that says an iaindian Muslim leader who was imprisoned several times for political activism. It defines nationalism by the actual facts instead of faith and religion. (3) I would like to see nationalism in the eyes of someone who is not Muslim or religious to see if they feel the same way about the western education systems. Southern Asia and Northern Africa both used religion and Islamic ideologies and culture to create and define nationalism. (2,5) The Egyptians wanted to focus on their mother land to be their qibla, which marks the direction of mecca, to which a Muslim turns to pray. Egyptians wanted to focus on patriotism and suppress other ties. Religion helped them to do that. (2.) Ahmad lutfi is the founder of the Egyptian people. This is personal bias because he is the leader and thinks what he wants, and wants his people to d the same thing that he thinks. This creates nationalism because everyone is associating with the same thing within their country. (5) Nationalists want to push their ideology onto the people, this is personal bias. It would be beneficial to see an additional document of a political leader instead of just having one from a religious leader.
0 Comments
The Soviet Union and the Legacy of Communist Rule The December of 1991 marked the end of the Soviet Union—and with it, an entire era. Like the February Revolution of 1917 that ended tsardom, the events leading up to August 1991 took place in rapid succession, with both spontaneity and, to some degree, retrospective inevitability. To understand the demise of Soviet Union is to understand the communist party-state system itself. Although the particular happenings of the Gorbachev years undoubtedly accelerated its ruin, there existed fundamental flaws within the Soviet system that would be had been proven ultimately fatal. The USSR became a past chapter of history because it was impossible to significantly reform the administrative command system without destroying its very core, and because Gorbachev's "democratic socialism" was unattainable without abandoning the very notion of Soviet socialism itself. As R. Strayer had pointed out in Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?, the USSR was held together under Communist rule with "a mixture of ideological illusion and raw coercion" (Strayer, 36). The Gorbachev era saw both of these two bases of the party-state's power falling apart. By the mid-1980s, urbanization and higher education had transformed the Soviet society from a relatively homogenous one into one that was considerably diverse with a sizable middle-class. Educated and exposed to Western culture, the professionals and the white collars were far more likely to understand the Soviet Union's weaknesses and the system's fallacies than their counterparts decades ago. Coupled with the intelligentsia's anti-establishment tradition (as embodied by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakhorav), this new class of economic elite had ... ... an enormous void in Russian society. The old party-state machine was demolished, yet no new concrete political system had risen in its place. The old ideology was discredited, yet no newfound conviction could unite the country. After the 1991 coup, even Gorbachev was powerless to steer his Mother Russia. To this day, the old legacy of Communist rule haunts the nation still. Works Cited Aslund, Anders. How Russia Became a Market Economy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. 1995 Brown, Archie. The Gorbachev Factor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996. John L. H. Keep. Last of the Empires. New York: Oxford University Press. 1995. Strayer, Robert. Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? New York: M.E. Sharpe. 1998. Tucker, Robert C. "Lenin and Revolution". The Lenin Anthology. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. 1994. The Soviet Union and the Legacy of Communist Rule Essay -- Politics Po The Soviet Union and the Legacy of Communist Rule The December of 1991 marked the end of the Soviet Union—and with it, an entire era. Like the February Revolution of 1917 that ended tsardom, the events leading up to August 1991 took place in rapid succession, with both spontaneity and, to some degree, retrospective inevitability. To understand the demise of Soviet Union is to understand the communist party-state system itself. Although the particular happenings of the Gorbachev years undoubtedly accelerated its ruin, there existed fundamental flaws within the Soviet system that would be had been proven ultimately fatal. The USSR became a past chapter of history because it was impossible to significantly reform the administrative command system without destroying its very core, and because Gorbachev's "democratic socialism" was unattainable without abandoning the very notion of Soviet socialism itself. As R. Strayer had pointed out in Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?, the USSR was held together under Communist rule with "a mixture of ideological illusion and raw coercion" (Strayer, 36). The Gorbachev era saw both of these two bases of the party-state's power falling apart. By the mid-1980s, urbanization and higher education had transformed the Soviet society from a relatively homogenous one into one that was considerably diverse with a sizable middle-class. Educated and exposed to Western culture, the professionals and the white collars were far more likely to understand the Soviet Union's weaknesses and the system's fallacies than their counterparts decades ago. Coupled with the intelligentsia's anti-establishment tradition (as embodied by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakhorav), this new class of economic elite had ... ... an enormous void in Russian society. The old party-state machine was demolished, yet no new concrete political system had risen in its place. The old ideology was discredited, yet no newfound conviction could unite the country. After the 1991 coup, even Gorbachev was powerless to steer his Mother Russia. To this day, the old legacy of Communist rule haunts the nation still. Works Cited Aslund, Anders. How Russia Became a Market Economy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. 1995 Brown, Archie. The Gorbachev Factor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996. John L. H. Keep. Last of the Empires. New York: Oxford University Press. 1995. Strayer, Robert. Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? New York: M.E. Sharpe. 1998. Tucker, Robert C. "Lenin and Revolution". The Lenin Anthology. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. 1994.
|