[iframe id=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y5pQf-vuDj0″]
Visual Commerce
The Cotton Market, Bombay. Johnson, William. 1857.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but even those thousand words couldn’t begin to explain the importance of the picture above. Look at the surface of the photo and you’ll see Indian men and their cotton. Look deeper into the photo and you will see the lifeblood of the British Empire at its apex. India was the prized jewel of the British Empire, its value coming from the superior cotton grown and the lasting trade routes leading to trade centers all around the massive periphery of the wealth-obsessed British Crown. The wealth of the land was the reason the British did not surrender this land until over halfway through the twentieth century, but on the contrary, Indians went hundreds of years without freedom simply because they were able to master the art of growing cotton and making as much profit as possible through trade. While England thrived because of its most major colony, Spain did not have the same success when they took over the New World, mainly modern day Mexico and the American Southwest. After the gold and silver of the once great Mesoamerican tribes was all looted and sent back to Madrid, the profit of Spain’s lengthy conquest began diminishing. With all the value deep within the rocks in the form of rare minerals, and almost all of the available labor either dead or hateful toward the conquering nation, Spain began to realize that their method of spreading their empire may have not been the best in the long run. Instead of the rich, cotton traders of India, the faces of Mexican industry and trade differ immensely.
Wholesale Loads of Mexican Baskets. Waite, C.B. 1904.
After hundreds of years and dozens of superstition-led voyages toward the fool’s gold they were chasing after up north, Spain was in control of a massive amount of land with a small amount of natural wealth left. With poor political and economic order in the land so far from its empirical mother, the country began to fall out of Spain’s control. Eventually, the white, Christian/Catholic, Spaniards who had attempted to make Mexico the crown jewel of their empire had mostly all bred with the natives, losing their “racial purity” and their pure European ancestry. This new race of people born in the crucible of conquest claimed the country for themselves, with no resistance. Mexico ended up being more of a failure than a success for the Spanish, hence why they didn’t see the need to reclaim the country from the Mexican people who had claimed it as their own. The British Empire’s control of India was more prosperous and long-lived than Spain’s control of Mexico because of England’s emphasis on trade, starting at their first contact with the indigenous people. .
In 1497, the Portuguese explorer Vasco de Gama was the first man bold and brazen enough to round the horn of Africa in order to find a better way to get the spices and other eastern goods the wealth-oriented continent of Europe wanted. What he found was numerous large, well organized trading centers full of profitable goods accessible by boat. From that day on, India became the target of wealth seeking individuals. All across Europe, “all were drawn to India as a staging post in the wider eastern trade in spices and textiles. For the Mughals the British were but one of a range of useful trading partners and for this first century the relationship between Indians and Britons was a purely commercial one” (John 4). The British were quick to try to capitalize on the new land, and found what it was looking for in the Mughals. An already prosperous trade partner in the region, and initial contact being commercial in nature set the stage for what would become the British Raj. In 1857 the East India Trading Company of England essentially integrated itself into the already existing trade centers and set their own rules, all of which benefited the company and the crown. This trading company was so powerful and wealthy, that it altered the course of history. Emily Ericson notes that the East India Trading Company’s “success generated a tremendous amount of wealth, handed the British government the foundation of a global empire, and permanently altered the trade and economics of Britain and Asia” (Ericson 182). The Company, as it was known, gained its wealth through an intricate system of investment and trade. Once everything was in place in India, the Company worked its magic, making large profits in small amounts of time. In fact, “the import trade of the Company amounted, in the year 1814, from India and China to 6,298,386l. The declared value of imports of 1828, is 11,220,576l” (Thompson 17). The area of Bengal, which was part of the British Raj, saw even larger profits: “In 1784, the import from Bengal was 245,000 lbs. In 1828 it was 9,683,626 lbs,” (Thompson 18-19). The British East India Trading Company entered India with the goal of making profit; a goal they would instantly achieve and that would only increase their lust for more gold. Though technically a private company, the British government was heavily involved in the Company, especially when it saw opportunity. It wasn’t until 1857 that after an unsuccessful revolt known simply as the Indian Rebellion of 1857 that the British government officially began ruling over India. Indians, as is the case of most indigenous people of colonized lands, were treated unfairly and as second-class citizens to the British. A lack of nationalism because India wasn’t a nation, but rather an area with many city-states, combined with the fear left deep in the minds of the Indian people after witnessing the brutality of the British army while “subduing” the rebellion meant that none of the many calls of revolution were acted upon for nearly a hundred years. After 1857, the British did everything they could to retain India and milk as much profit out of it before the inevitable day when Indians would rule Indians, rather than the British. The complicated systems of financing and trading set in place by the British ensured profit, but also made sure all the profit was going to English, not Indians. So while men like these brokers toiled away, their hard work and sweat was turned into gold in the English treasuries.
Goojerattee Brokers. Johnson, William. 1857.
Lionel Abrahams was a member of the office in charge of commerce, and he “saw India’s London financial operations as a large waterway system comprising ‘rivers running into a lake at one side and so many rivers running out of the lake at the other side’. The goal of India Office (IO) officials like himself was to connect ‘incoming rivers with … outgoing rivers’, a task he acknowledged was ‘sometimes difficult’” (Sunderland 1). The rivers and lakes analogy shows the complexity of the whole system, with many inflows and many outflows. They used their nearly-perfected understanding of markets and business to ensure that wealth would return to England. Obviously the Indian people were not in favor of this kind of system, but Britain’s large standing military comprised almost entirely of Indians looking to make money while appeasing their rulers made sure any plans of armed rebellion remained nothing more than just plans. All the while, every good sold by the Indian’s was taxed and funded the then mighty British Empire. Some people involved in England’s Indian rule, including Company member T. Perronet Thompson, believed that the Indian people were the most important “object” available in India.
After seeing the Netherlands’ original success after finding a new route to the Indies, Spain made the investment of sending Christopher Columbus across the Atlantic in hopes of finding a quicker way to the goods they want and the wealth it would bring them. As we all know, Columbus failed at finding the non-existent route, but stumbled upon something even better, an entire continent yet to be exploited and drained of its wealth. After Columbus’ initial discovery, the gold-obsessed Spanish made it clear what their intentions were. “In the grants of the country, made to the first adventurers, the Spanish monarchs reserved one-fifth of the gold and silver that might be obtained, and for a considerable period the precious metals were the only objects that attracted attention, either in the colonies or Old Spain” (Niles 70). Knowing from Columbus that the indigenous people possessed precious stones and metals, like gold of course, Spain sent its Conquistadors to the New World to get as much of the gold as possible, then give a hefty chunk to the crown. America’s wealth was not truly realized until Cortez landed in modern day Mexico. He found the great, prosperous cities of the Aztec including the great capital of Tenochtitlan where he was greeted by the great emperor himself. Instead of following the Dutch and British protocol in India of integrating themselves into the already rich society, Cortez decided that kidnapping and assassinating the emperor then slaughtering his people was the best idea at the time. Superior weaponry and tactics meant Cortez returned home with most of his men and a bounty of gold, silver, and other riches looted from the instantly ruined city. Assuming there was much more to follow, the Spanish crown encouraged the exploration and settling of this new land. Coincidentally, the same people encouraging the exploration would still receive 1/5 of the bounty from the fruits of others’ labors. Once the great Mesoamerican cities of gold were stripped of their luster and glory, the only wealth left was deep underground in the form of minerals. With no locals to trade with, the Spaniards began exploring north to find more wealth, fueled by false, deceiving tales of wealth in the North from the understandably distrustful natives. The Spanish eventually wised up after being fooled one too many times, but it was too late to try to salvage the profitable opportunities that were squandered by the war mongers that first entered the lands. Still, the Spanish tried to the levels of wealth that seemed so promising after Cortez returned from the continent significantly wealthier than when he had left. Privately funded colonization to the modern-day American Southwest was one of the last major strides the Spanish took. However, like time and time before, “They were further discouraged when additional explorations failed to discover enough wealth to make the province attractive” (Chipman 60). Even further south, where agriculture, industry, and trade was beginning to pick up, Spain’s decisions proved to be fatal once again. Seeing the new world as inferior, Spain did not want to have to compete with New Spain in anyway. To make sure there was no competition, “several kinds of manufacturers were prohibited, which it was thought might prove detrimental to the mother country. The commercial restrictions imposed on the colonies were rigid and intolerable” (Niles 70). Spain shot itself in the foot yet another time. With little manufacturing, all that was left was agriculture and basic crafting. Unlike the great Indian Bazarrs, Mexico’s street markets were barren of anything of much value, only handmade baskets and other similar items as seen below.
Guanajuato Street Market. Briquet, Abel. 1890.
Spain chose war and plundering over trade, a decision that proved to be counteractive in their pursuit of profit. Lacking the steady stream of income through taxed trade, the large, dry heap of land full of irritated and sometimes violent natives became more of a liability than an asset. So, in 1821, Spain handed over the disorganized country over to the mixed-blood people who learned to call Mexico home.
The parallels between English ruled India and Spanish ruled America are obscured by the massively different styles of rule and the subsequent outcomes. Unbeknownst to then at the time, both the Company and Cortez set the fates of the new lands the ventured to since first contact with the indigenous. The British backed Company instantly found a trade partner in order to gain wealth, and focused majority of its long rule on trade and commerce. On the contrary, Cortez almost instantly turned to violence to gain wealth, and set the tradition of exploitation and violence that would be an ever too present part of the New World’s future. Simply said, the British prospered during their rule of India due to the well-organized systems of trade and commerce they began or improved upon, while the Spanish failed to recognize that a colony with no nurturing would return very little in terms of wealth.
Works Cited
Chipman, Donald E. Spanish Texas: 1519-1821. Austin: U of Texas, 1992. Print.
Erikson, Emily. Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company, 1600-1757. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2014. Print.
John, Ian St. The Making of the Raj: India under the East India Company. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2012. Print.
Niles, John M., and L. T. Pease. History of South America and Mexico: Comprising Their Discovery, Geography, Politics, Commerce and Revolutions. Hartford: H. Huntington, Jun., 1838. Print.
Sunderland, David. Financing the Raj: The City of London and Colonial India, 1858-1940. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2013. Print.
Thompson, T. Perronet. The Article on the Colonization and Commerce of British India. London: Republished by R. Heward, at the Office of the Westminister Review, 1830. Print.
The Power of an Image
Amun Taharka
KNW 2399
30 April, 2015
Visual Culture Analysis: The Contents of an Image
What is contained in an image? The word image is defined as the physical representation of a person, place, or object according to dictionary.com.1 However, anyone who has seen any of Pablo Picasso’s famous paintings, or anyone who is an artist his or herself would contend that much more is contained in an image. Representations of people and places contained in images generate and facilitate emotions, attitudes, and ideas regarding what is being visually represented. Because of the unique ability of images to impact viewers in this way, their use as tools for propaganda throughout history has allowed for photographs to have unique impact on culture and history. Images of colonial India and of post-colonial Mexico generated and spread stereotypes regarding race and gender in order to justify the colonization and exploitation of India by Britain, as well as the mistreatment of Mexican people by Anglo-Americans. The use of photographs as a tool to drive the process of colonization relates to the histories of both India and Mexico.
Colonial India
Orientalism is a set of beliefs created by Europeans in an attempt to label and understand a rich Indian culture which was vastly different than their own. This view depicts Indian people as mystical, and mysterious. Rajeswari Sunder Rajan sums up this view in his article entitled, After ‘Orientalism’: Colonialism and English Literary Studies in India, in which he writes, “Serving as the ‘other’ of Europe, [India] is seen as variously strange, mysterious, corrupt, beautiful, decadent…while fulfilling a variety of European desires” (23).2 The view of India as the “other” created a desire to explore and eventually exploit a new, mysterious land. In addition, negative perceptions about Indian women specifically are included in Orientalist ideology. In Indian culture, the harem is known is both the women in a family but also as a home or sanctuary. However, the harem inaccurately interpreted by Europeans as a symbol of promiscuity and orgiastic sex. Such stereotypes contribute to the dehumanization and objectification of Indian women as well as a perceived lack of morality amongst Indian people. Images and photographs which portray these stereotypes of Indian people contributed to the internalization as well as the distribution of Orientalist attitudes.
William Johnson’s photograph, entitled Brahmin Women of the Konkan, demonstrates how Orientalist ideas can be captured and distributed by a picture.3 Both of the women in the image are looking away from the camera, and are photographed at odd angles with respect to the camera and the viewer. This draws the viewers’ attention away from the women, seemingly in order to portray them as objects of a viewer’s gaze as opposed to people at the center of a photograph. The large building in the background as well as the fact that the women are standing in the bushes adds to the objectification of the Indian women in this picture. The portrayal of the women in this picture as objects in the midst of a busy landscape illustrates Orientalist ideas because it dehumanizes them and creates mystery about them. Because the women are wearing the popular traditional Indian Saris, the portrayal of the women in this picture extends to Indian women in general.
Included in Orientalism is the view of Indian men as lazy, effeminate, morally corrupt, materialistic, and unfit to lead or take charge. This attitude is evidenced by Robert Clive’s speech to the House of Commons in Great Britain when he states, “The inhabitants, especially of Bengal, in inferior stations, are servile, mean, submissive, and humble. In superior stations, they are luxurious, effeminate, tyrannical, treacherous, venal, cruel” (Curtis and MacDowell, 809).4 Clive’s generalization of Indian men was served the purpose of justifying greater control of the region of Bengal by the East India Company.
An additional photograph by William Johnson demonstrates the ability of images to spread such attitudes. This image depicts a Durbar, which is an assembly held by an Indian prince.5 Due to the lavish carpet designs, elegant clothing, servants, paintings, and the pillar contained in this image, it makes sense that this is a meeting amongst royalty. Interestingly, everyone in the image has a blank facial expression, appearing to be sitting quietly. The man at the center of the room who is being tended to by the servants, who appears to be a Prince, has an indignant, condescending expression on his face. Such imagery communicates that these men live lives of luxury, and laziness. The men’s lack of expression as well as their averted gaze suggests that they are effeminate. Men are typically portrayed as dominant figures who are the center of attention. Additionally, the appearance of servants in the image also communicates laziness and moral corruption amongst the elite in India. Robert Clive utilizes these perceptions in his letter to William Pitt when he states, “…they [people of India] would rejoice in so happy an exchange as that of a mild for a despotic government” (Keith, 15).6 Clive demonstrates through his statement how stereotypes regarding Indian people and culture were used to justify British colonization. The communication of such attitudes through imagery reinforced these same ideas, contributing to their spreading as well as their use for the purpose of colonizing India.
Post-Colonial Mexico
For as long as Mexico has been a country, Mexicans have faced and arguably still face oppression by Anglo-Americans partly as a result of the spread and internalization of negative stereotypes. In his book Chicano! The History of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement, F. Arturo Gonzalez explains, “An early source of Anglo-American antipathy towards Hispanics is found in the ‘Black Legend’. This interpretation has sixteenth-century English propagandists discrediting the reputation of Spaniards in the New World in order to further their imperialistic plans. As a consequence, Anglo-Americans held negative views even before confronting Mexicans on New Spain’s frontiers…”(5).7 Gonzalez’ statement suggests that due to stereotypes regarding Spaniards in the New World, that Anglo-Americans held negative views regarding Mexicans before ever encountering any. The negative views regarding Mexicans held by Anglo-Americans were detailed by former U.S ambassador Joel Poinsett, in his article entitled: The Mexican Character. In this article, Poinsett claims, “They are laborious, patient and submissive, but are lamentably ignorant. They are emerging slowly from the wretched state to which they had been reduced; but they must be educated and released from the gross superstition under which they now labour before they can be expected to feel an interest in public affairs” (2).8 Poinsett’s statement highlights the attitude of Mexicans as being submissive, ignorant, and uneducated. As a result of such stereotypes, Mexicans were treated as second-class citizens by Anglo-Americans. In his book Chicano! The History of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement, F. Arturo Gonzalez illustrates this effect when he explains, “In essence, it is true that because of an Anglo-American unwillingness to accept Mexicans as equals, they often ignored treaty agreements that gave Mexicans all the rights of citizens” (6).7 Due to the negative attitudes towards Mexican people held by Anglo-Americans, Mexicans were denied their rights as citizens.
Similar to the spread of British Orientalism, images of Mexicans were propagandized to create and distribute negative perceptions of Mexican people. One example is Abel Briquet’s photograph entitled Tipos Mexicanos. Indios Estado [sic] de Vera Cruz.9 In this image, the two men are both standing barefoot on scattered debris, outside of a simple dwelling made up of sticks. Additionally, the men are dressed in very simple clothing, and one of the men is posing with a gun in his hands. The bare-feet and simple clothing signify that these men are of low economic class and lack of education, reinforcing this perception of Mexican people. The gun, as a symbol of violence, communicates ignorance, lack of education, as well as a lack of order in Mexican society. This image captures and reinforces the perceived “wretched state” in which Mexican people live, as described by Joel Poinsett.
Another example of the negative portrayal of Mexicans through images appears in the form of the above photograph, depicting an execution taking place in Mexico.10 In this image, two people are being executed: one of which appears to be a child and the other an adult. The hanging of these two Mexicans from a tree implies that these people were being punished. However, behind the tree, several men who appear to be wealthy, Anglo-American are standing by watching the men hang. Also, standing next to the hanging bodies, a Mexican soldier stands at attention, as though he is carrying out orders for the seemingly wealthy and powerful men standing behind him. All of these details contribute to a symbolic representation of superiority and authority of Anglo-Americans over Mexicans, reinforcing the mistreatment of Mexican people. Such portrayals of Mexicans in relation to Anglo-Americans create and spread the perceptions used to justify the oppression of Mexican people.
Renowned photographer Terence Donovan once said, “The magic of photography is metaphysical. What you see in the photograph isn’t what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying”.11 In the histories of colonization of India by Britain as well as Mexican oppression by Anglo-Americans, photographs visually spread lies in the form of inaccurate stereotypes regarding race and gender. This distribution of misinformation in reference to Indian and Mexican culture was allowed oppressors to justify the exploitation, oppression, subjugation, and mistreatment of people. What is contained in an image? The power to capture the past while simultaneously shaping the future.
Endnotes
1. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/image
2. Rajan, Rajeswari Sunder. “After’Orientalism’: Colonialism and English Literary Studies in India.” Social Scientist (1986): 23-35. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qvGgsGBFQncC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Chicano!+The+history+&ots=fXH5Wb8WgQ&sig=46cMA0MtqUMraTM5-L07660qlKg#v=onepage&q=Chicano!%20The%20history&f=false
3. Johnson, William. Brahmin Women of the Konken. Digital image. Europe, India, and Asia- Photographs, Manuscripts, and Imprints. 1 Jan. 1855-1862. Web. http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/eaa/id/729/rec/24
4. Curtis, Edmund, and Robert Brendan MacDowell, eds. Irish historical documents: 809-811. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1968.
5. Johnson, William. A Native Durbar, or Assembly. Digital image. Europe, India, and Asia- Photographs, Manuscripts, and Imprints. 1855-1862. Web. http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/eaa/id/757/rec/1
6. Keith, Arthur Berriedale, ed. Speeches & documents on Indian policy, 1750-1921. Vol. 1. H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1922. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VQsDAAAAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Speeches+and+Documents+on+Indian+Policy&ots=eLkGsbKBqa&sig=cg2Y5iyaYKfvL3qbPQg4XUBgFB0#v=onepage&q=Speeches%20and%20Documents%20on%20Indian%20Policy&f=false
7. Rosales, Francisco Arturo. Chicano!: The history of the Mexican American civil rights movement. Arte Público Press, 1996. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qvGgsGBFQncC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Chicano!+The+history+&ots=fXH5Wb9UpU&sig=4l06FY9mIjjOJynOYg_XvVAeU5E#v=onepage&q=Chicano!%20The%20history&f=false
8. Poinsett, Joel. “The Mexican Character.” The Mexico reader: History, culture, andpolitics (2002): 11-14. http://inside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/mexicoreader/Chapter7/poinsett.pdf
9. Briquet, Abel. Tipos Mexicanos. Indios Esatdo [sic] De Vera-Cruz. Digital image. Mexico- Photographs, Manuscripts, and Imprints. 1 Jan. 1875. Web. http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/mex/id/517/rec/12
10. Execution in Mexico. Digital image. Mexico- Photographs, Manuscripts, and Imprints. 1 Jan. 1910-1917. Web. http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/mex/id/301/rec/10
11. “Quotes Relating to Photography.” Quotes Relating to Photography. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. http://www.scienceandreason.net/photo/photquot.htm
Works Cited
Briquet, Abel. Tipos Mexicanos. Indios Esatdo [sic] De Vera-Cruz. Digital image. Mexico- Photographs, Manuscripts, and Imprints. 1 Jan. 1875. Web.
Curtis, Edmund, and Robert Brendan MacDowell, eds. Irish historical documents: 809-811. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1968.
Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Execution in Mexico. Digital image. Mexico- Photographs, Manuscripts, and Imprints. 1 Jan. 1910-1917. Web.
Johnson, William. A Native Durbar, or Assembly. Digital image. Europe, India, and Asia- Photographs, Manuscripts, and Imprints. 1855-1862. Web.
Johnson, William. Brahmin Women of the Konken. Digital image. Europe, India, and Asia- Photographs, Manuscripts, and Imprints. 1 Jan. 1855-1862. Web.
Keith, Arthur Berriedale, ed. Speeches & documents on Indian policy, 1750-1921. Vol. 1. H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1922.
Poinsett, Joel. “The Mexican Character.” The Mexico reader: History, culture, andpolitics (2002): 11-14.
Rajan, Rajeswari Sunder. “After’Orientalism’: Colonialism and English Literary Studies in India.” Social Scientist (1986): 23-35.
Rosales, Francisco Arturo. Chicano!: The history of the Mexican American civil rights movement. Arte Público Press, 1996.
“Quotes Relating to Photography.” Quotes Relating to Photography. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Images
http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/eaa/id/729/rec/24
http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/eaa/id/757/rec/1
http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/mex/id/517/rec/12
http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/mex/id/301/rec/10
Mexico and India Conduct National Railway Systems
Introduction
There are a multitude of differences between the colonization of India and Mexico. Frankly, it is often difficult to come across similarities. However, the industrial revolution introduced an innovative way to access energy through steam and thus sparked the invention of the railroad. This mode of transportation took the world by storm as an economically efficient way to transport people and goods across vast regions. Economic success skyrocketed due to the implementation of railroad travel. What is most interesting in the construction process of the railroads in both India and Mexico is that they occurred similarly in the mid-late 19th and early 20th centuries. The juxtaposition of Mexico’s introduction to railroad travel in post-colonialism compared to India’s introduction during colonialism poses interesting economic, social, and political similarities as a result of this revolutionary mode of transportation.
Mexico
In the late 19th century, Mexican president Porfirio Diaz executed the construction of national railroads in Mexico. The construction began in 1877 and boomed through 1910. During this time there was a “dramatic increase of the Mexican Republic’s railway trackage from 700 miles in 1880 to over 12,000 miles in 1900 and more than 15,000 miles by 1910” (Morales and Schmal).
The Mexican National Railway and the Mexican Central Railway were the two most prevalent railways constructed. The Mexican Central Railway is the more relevant of the two, stretching from central Mexico to the border of the United States. Through a minor connection, the Mexican Central Railway could be taken all the way to Sante Fe, New Mexico, creating an extremely valuable trade route to the United States.
The Mexican National Railway, similarly to the Mexican Central Railway, was a means of transportation to the northern border. It was built starting in Mexico City and ending in Webb County, Texas. It began construction in 1881 but was not accessible until the 20th century. Lorena M. Parlee of the University of California at San Diego stated, “By the turn of the century, the Central and the Nacional [railroads] controlled over half of all railroad track in Mexico and operated the only rail links between Mexico City and the northern border” (Morales and Schmal).
These railroads brought many economic benefits to Mexico. They revolutionized trade in a time of need while the country was growing more and more subordinate to the United States.
The pictures aligned with the text illustrate the landscape in which the two major railways were built in Mexico. At the bottom of the picture there is the script “Ferro Carril Mexicano.” Ferro Carril was a prominent Mexican railroad company during Porfirio Diaz’s reign responsible for a large portion of the construction of the two major railroads. As one can imagine, the uneven surfaces of Mexican landscape provided major obstacles and added difficulty to the construction. To make matters worse, the workers were not appropriately compensated for their work. Teresa Miriam Van Hoy stated, “railroad workers were to conform to a passive, cooperative role in return for which the railroad would confer benefits on them as a natural consequence of its prosperity and that of the economy it stimulated” (Van Hoy 58). Railroad laborers were treated poorly. Porfirio Diaz expected Mexican citizens to labor over railroads for slim to nothing all for the betterment of their country. Laborers in the beginning stages of construction were barely paid for subsistence. As tensions rose and productivity began to suffer, Diaz was forced to up the wages. Yet, “only foreign workers earned more than the minimum” required for living (Van Hoy 50). Economists have calculated that the only backward linkages in the economic success of railroads were the wages. It was up to the citizens themselves to decide whether or not their poor treatment was worth it in the long run.
Although Mexico was fully independent, their laborers on the railways were still oppressed. It may not have been as brutal as it would have been if Mexico were still under colonial powers, but still enough to severely underpay the majority of workers. Diaz had the opportunity to boost the economy through well paying railway jobs in addition to the cash flows that would result from their completion, yet he denied. This goes to show that despite being a free, independent nation similar effects of imperialism can fall through the cracks in the hands of a greedy leader. However, the finished product of a national railroad transportation system sent the Mexican economy into prosperity.
Many markets boomed due to the ability to travel by railway. Mexico’s imports and exports increased tremendously as a result of the quick transportation connecting it to the United States. As this picture illustrates, many freight trains similar to this were used to transport goods. Trains allowed a remarkable amount of material to be moved at once. The increase in exports stimulated job growth. The railroads economically “played a crucial role in the development of northern Mexico, stimulating a mining boom and a tremendous growth in commercial agriculture and ranching” (Morales and Schmal).
This Pan-American train travelled on the Mexican Central Railway. The presence of people gives the railroad a sense of liveliness and excitement. The Mexican Central Railway and Mexican National Railway gave the country something to be excited about and something to be proud of. It created many jobs and led to economic prosperity. Implementation of railroad travel was not only a monetary success but also a nationalist movement that brought pride and joy into the hearts of Mexicans everywhere.
India
India’s construction began a bit earlier than Mexico’s construction. The East India Company had been pushing to construct national railroads for years prior to 1845 when the East India Company’s Court of Directors finally gave in and approved a railroad project. However, construction began slow and treacherous. India’s “inhospitable country” (Banerjee) posed a seemingly insurmountable obstacle.
These pictures to the right reflect this terrain and portray the difficulty of the work the native Indians went through to build the railroads. There were large canyons and valleys, as depicted, all over the country. Not only that, but the workers had to physically dig through many of these canyons to create tunnels similar to the one to the right. This caused a prolonged construction and heavy workforce. Over “10,000 men were employed to drive tunnels and construct viaducts to take a track through the rocky hills and valleys of the Bhore Ghat” near Bombay (Banerjee), and the conditions were awful. Within the first decade of construction, an estimated 45,000 people worked on the country’s railroad construction and over 2,000 died from cholera alone (Banerjee). As seen in the picture below, the Indians were subjected to living in small huts and travelled in bulk building the railroads, which would primarily be used by the East India Company.
In the years 1850-1870 India developed the fourth largest railroad system in the world, connecting almost the entire country. It is also estimated that 10 million people worked on the railroads throughout the entirety of their construction. The British took full advantage of their imperialism and exploited railroad workers, exposing them to disease, malnutrition, and exhaustion. Despite the brutality of construction, the railroads were completed and like many other national railways, led to economic success.
Once the laborers overcame the harsh Indian landscape, the British reaped the benefit of the railways. The trade increased tremendously, from “traveling no more than 30 km per day” to transporting commodities up to 600 km in a day (Donaldson). The British maximized their profits by only enabling military travel and product trade to take place by railroad, leaving the natives exempt from the luxury. Marginal Revolution University states, “if we take the period from 1870 to 1913, it’s been estimated that over those years railroads accounted for about 20 percent of India’s economic growth” (MRUniversity).
Another important economic feat achieved was price dispersion. Dan Bogart and Latika Chaudhary express that the economy “played a major role in integrating markets” (Bogart and Chaudhary 1). The British were able to nationalize the price of many agricultural goods. With the prices of transportation much lower and evenly priced goods sprouting from all parts of the country, the economy was able to flourish. However, the implementation of interconnection proved to be a major factor in the downfall of the British East India Company.
In the beginning stages of railroad travel, the British assumed native travel could be regulated and kept to a minimum. Their assumption proved to be far from the truth. Indians turned out to be devout travellers, given that in “the first five years passenger journeys increased fivefold from about 535,000 to more than 2,700,000” and eventually jumping to 11 3/4 millions to 16 millions between 1864 and 1869 (Sanyar 43). The railroads created a strong bond between Indians. It enabled people to travel the country and explore, eventually leading to a strong sense of nationalism. When the millions of natives travelled across their country their national pride grew and enabled a unified identity. This appreciation for their land stood as motivation to revolt against colonialism and revert back to Indian tradition.
Although the initial success of the Indian railroads benefitted the British, the infrastructure proved to contribute heavily towards India’s freedom. Revolutions are most successful when the oppressed show utmost togetherness. Indian railroads provided citizens with the means to come together, meet other Indians from different parts of the country, and ultimately realize their independence was worth protesting for.
The Connection
We are able to decipher important connections via analysis of both Mexican and Indian national railroads’ effect on economic and social aspects of society. Both railroad systems sparked nationalist movements in the respective countries. Also, even though Mexico was in the post-colonial stage, laborers were still exploited and exposed to oppression just as the Indian workers were. Thirdly, it is clear that the revolutionary transportation led to immense economic booms in both countries. Not only do these connections explain valuable knowledge of Mexico and India alone, but also the overall effect of infrastructure in colonial nations.
Nationalism is an invaluable trait of many strong countries. It is extremely important to have a nation banded together, showing strength and pride. Railroads connect citizens of their respective countries together. In countries under colonial rule, as seen in Mexico and India, revolution is the tool to overthrow an empire. Although railway systems do not directly lead to revolts, they are undeniably factors in the growth of nationalism, which can be the deciding factor between imperialism and independence.
Both Indian and Mexican workers were exploited while building their national railroads. Whether it was with low wages, malnutrition, exposure to disease, or being forced to work to the bone most workers suffered some form of oppression during their time on site. This comes as a surprise given the Mexican workers were not under an imperial government, but shows that leaders of a free nation could exploit their own citizens in similar ways colonial powers used exploitation. It is easier to see through the pictures that Indian workers were stuck in poor conditions and more difficult obstacles to overcome during construction. Overall, railroad construction conveys menial workers can be exploited in a country in any stage of colonialism.
The economic results of the railroads were positive for both India and Mexico. Both spent a relatively small amount of money compared to the unbelievable benefits more efficient transportation brought the countries. Economic success due to railroads is applicable to any country that had not yet implemented this mode of travel. The successes of Mexico and India add to a universal conclusion that an increase in transportation leads to quicker turnover of goods, job growth, and a more prosperous economy.
The Industrial Revolution brought the steam engine into the world. This invention led the most powerful countries in the world to construct railroads, giving them an economic and social step up on other countries. Mexico and India built their railroads during the mid-19th century to 20th century, an advantageous time period to be improving means of trade. However, these historical tracks ran much deeper than the surface. They signified strength and prosperity in the people of the country. Railroads allowed citizens to explore their country. Through that exploration individuals discovered faith, tradition, and pride. Ultimately, railroads enabled a freedom that was foreign to Mexicans and Indians alike.
Written by Patrick Summers
Works Cited
Bogart, Dan, and Latika Chaudhary. “Railways in Colonial India: An Economic Achievement?.” Available at SSRN 2073256 (2012).
Cowen, Tyler, and Alex Tabarrok. “MRUniversity: Railroads and Colonial India.” MRUniversity. Accessed April 30, 2015. http://mruniversity.com/courses/development-economics/railroads-and-colonial-india.
Donaldson, Dave. Railroads of the Raj: Estimating the impact of transportation infrastructure. No. w16487. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010.
Morales, Donna S., and John P. Schmal. “How We Got Here: The Roads We Took to America.” Houston, Texas: Houston Institute for Culture. Retrieved on June 25 (2005).
Rees, Peter W. “Origins of colonial transportation in Mexico.” Geographical Review (1975): 323-334.
Sanyal, Nalinaksha. The Development of Indian Railways. Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1930. Internet Archive. Web. 9 March 2014.
Van Hoy, Teresa. A social history of Mexico’s railroads: peons, prisoners, and priests. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008.
The Railroad’s Impact on India and Mexico
The Railroad’s Impact on India and Mexico
International history illustrates the extent to which new transport inventions changed human life and the international economy. Railroads connected territories that were once isolated. They changed international trade, by decreasing the unit costs of transporting an innumerable amount of goods from textiles to agricultural products. Suddenly, goods were able to be transported 400 miles as opposed much slower modes of transportation used in the past. Also, cargo was better protected from damage and spoilage. In this paper, I examine governmental motives for the construction of these vast railroads, and both the foreign and the domestic effects the introduction of railways had on India and Mexico. Railways were the most significant infrastructure development in India (during 1850-1947) and during Porfiran Mexico (1876-1910). In these places new railroads played a major role in integrating markets and increasing trade.
Above is a photo an Indian railroad construction site of the Benghal Nagpur Railroad Construction (1890).
Link: http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/eaa/id/1503/rec/18
The British colonial establishment oversaw a creation of a state-of-the-art rail transportation network. As opposed to American railway technology in which the focus was to use low-cost, and mass-produced rails, the British civil Engineers insisted on the installation of more costly, but durable rails and bridges made from brick and iron (Sharma 22). By 1910, India had over 30,000 miles of track.
Here is a photo of a train on the Metlac Bridge in Mexico. (1904)
Link: http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/mex/id/785
Rapid expansion of the Railway network in Mexico was one of the clearest symbols of Porfirio Díaz’s developmentalist economic strategy during Porifirian Mexico (1876-1910) (Garner 339). Before the introduction of railroads, Mexico was already producing large amounts of transportable goods. In 1880 Mexico was finally able to secure enough capital to launch a major railroad construction project. However, the lack of sufficient harbor facilities at both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans made the line of little value, compared to the huge costs involved. To fix these deficiencies, the Díaz administration signed a series of contracts with foreign investors, such as the British firm: S. Pearson and Sons, to fix the problems with the port facilities and the railway itself (Garner 340). This illustrates the point I will discuss later in this paper: that the process of modernizing the Mexican economy was dominated by external forces and powerful foreign interests. During the first ten years of the 21st century, railroad construction reached its peak and by 1910 19,205 kilometers of tracks had been built. However, even with these vast railway lines, major portions of the country remained outside the railway network by 1910. For example, Both Baja California and the southern pacific coast remained isolated. The fall of the Diaz dictatorship in 1911 and the revolutionary turmoil that followed ended railway construction and caused considerable construction to tracks. Even when the economy began to recover, the railway system was severely damaged (Coatsworth 942-944).
Numerous studies have been done to estimate the social savings caused by the introduction of railroads to India and Mexico. They helped boost the value of Indian exports from 21 million pounds in 1853 to 333 million pounds by 1920. This new transportation mode is responsible for about 43% of international wheat price decline, and a 55% international price decrease of rice (Andrab). In India railways decreased trade costs and interregional, and increased interregional and international trade. The social savings estimate in colonial India amounted to about 9.7% of aggregate GDP or 14.8% of agricultural income (Kerr 120). The Railroad’s contribution to economic savings derives from unit savings in transport costs and the quantity of passengers traveling by train. Social savings caused by Mexican freight trains, relative to Mexico’s 1910 GDP was between 24.6 and 38.5 percent. However, Social Savings for human transportation was very low and difficult to measure, even though it saved passengers an innumerable amount of time if they choose to take the train. This is due to the fact that during this time there was a large decrease in real wages, and low wages made time less valuable (Coatsworth 948).
Various reasons explain why railroads had a relatively large impact in India. First, they were far superior to the existing transport technology in India. Also, India did not have an extensive inland waterway network (Kerr). Before they were built, the transportation network was poor. Bullock carts were not an effective substitute to railways in India, and India did not have an extensive inland waterway network. Improvements to India’s transport infrastructure brought isolated inland districts out of economic independence by connecting them to the rest of the sub-continent. This striking improvement took place over many decades (Kerr 118).
Many advocates of railroad construction voiced military justifications for the development of a railroad network in British India. They believed it would prevent supply and ammunition shortages, and it would serve to be able to rapidly concentrate troops in the event of a sudden emergency. Clearly, a rail system would reduce expenses of troop movement, and spare the health and lives of European troops who would otherwise be compelled to march through perilous weather and terrain (Sharma 26).
Railways allowed the British Raj to facilitate its colonial state. They allowed officials to establish its authority over the entire subcontinent. By 1912, 90% of the total Railway network was state-owned. Thus, railways operated more efficiently if they were owned by the state. The ways this construction re-shaped the land, showed Britain’s engineering abilities.
This photo shows workers building a tunnel during the Construction of the Benghal-Nagpur Railway in 1890. This shows the british Engineering abilities of the time.
Link: http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/eaa/id/1473/rec/10
At first, they terrified and awed the locals of Indian villages (Sharma 20). Not only were political justifications voiced, but also many officials stated the fact that railroad construction would justify their very existence in and control over the sub-continent. To British policy makers, railways embodied their “civilizing mission”: the ideology that sustained the assumption that they had the right to govern India. Even the public viewed this construction as the realization of Great Britain’s “civilizing mission.” However, this belief exaggerated the railway’s socio-cultural impact; it did not weaken Hindu devotion to their deities. Faster transportation allowed people to travel to festivals and distant shrines. On a monthly basis, railways encouraged interaction of tens of millions of people whom lived from vast distances and came from many different backgrounds (Sharma 27).
In India, locations of commercial significance became connected with the introduction of railroads. Groups with commercial interest had a big influence on railroad policy makers, especially cotton textile-manufacturers. These cotton manufactures tried to convince policy makers that Indian railways would eliminate Britain’s dependence on cotton from the United States (Sharma 31).
Great Britain successfully transformed India into an international supplier of agricultural goods. By the late 19th century, focus shifted to wheat, as the demand for cotton in England declined. As a result Railways caused a price depression of wheat abroad. This made wheat unaffordable for poor Indians, causing millions of Indians to reach a stage of Malnutrition (Sharma 34).
A centuries old Indian textile industry was undermined due to the construction of Railways in India. It was simply more profitable to import manufactured materials than it was to develop the metal-producing regions of the subcontinent. India lacked the manufacturing base required to stimulate industrial development without British Capital. 99% of the capital of the railways came from Britain, and almost all of the policy makers were British (Sharma 33).
During the last two decades of the 19th century, Mexico underwent a rapid, but ultimately unsuccessful process of economic growth. A new flow of Capital from Europe and the United States broke down the obstacles that had been holding back the construction of Railroads, which led to economic growth, in Mexico. New laws were designed to encourage capital accumulation. The government started to give tax-holidays or reductions to foreign investors. Many Mexican mines were drained because the mining code was re-written to favor foreign investment. (Haber 190). Government officials used the symbolic power of the new Railway to portray a positive Image of the regime (Coatsworth).
This photo of an impressive looking train is titled: Mountain Locomotive on the Mexican-Veracruz Railway. It was taken in 1904.
Link: http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/mex/id/679/rec/2
The argument that Railroads would promote economic growth and internal order trumped the arguments against which were regarding the nature, operation and regulation (Randall 25). The Porfirio administration’s program on railway development was centered upon expediting the expansion of the export economy at the expense of developing domestic industry.
This ambitious program meant to industrialize Mexico was based on two pillars: imported technology and businesses having protection from the Government. New policies of trade liberalism reduced tariffs, favoring foreign business. Acquiring foreign capital at any cost to fund railroads and other industries caused the government to be in debt, and allowed foreigners to control the wealth and economy of Mexico. The construction of Railroads was the most tangible aspect of the influx of foreign capital. Opponents of the Porfirio regime stated this belief that the railway development fostered foreign (especially U.S. and British) domination in the economy (Randall 27). These factors contributed to the widening gap between the poor and rich in Mexico. They also contributed toward the furthering of concentration of economic control among small groups, both foreign and domestic. (Ficker 267-275).
During this time, the Government’s mission to secure material and Industrial progress caused many social and political hardships. Before the construction of railroads, the control of transportation was carried out by thousands of mule drivers. After they were it build, control of transportation became consolidated among a few foreign companies. This was contributory towards the acceleration of the eventual dominance of the mercantile industry into the hands of a few. A small group of powerful merchant financiers controlled most of the industry in Mexico. The government favored few businesses and allowed them to form monopolies. This disallowed new business to start, and industrial adaptation and innovation decreased. These factors also contributed to the widening gap between the poor and rich in Mexico, and to the furthering of concentration of economic control among small groups, both foreign and domestic. Despite rapid industrialization, the economy had a limited marked for domestic industrial goods. Railroads made it cheaper. This also contributed to the fact that domestic production was limited to few companies. (Ficker 275-285).
John Coatsworth argues that Railway development targeted economic growth, but failed to promote internal markets and native industries, instead benefiting few Mexicans and mostly foreign investors. Clearly, government officials undermined national authority and power by favoring foreigners. He states that as a result of the anti-promotion of internal markets, the country went through “underdevelopment.”
There is no doubt that railway construction sparked an industrial boom of sorts in Mexico. By the last few years of the Porfirian period of Mexico, large factories churned out products, like steel, cement, paper, glass, dynamite, soap, beer, cigarettes, and cotton and wool textiles, at a rate that was previously unimaginable. However, in most product lines, one or two huge firms controlled the entire industry, employing thousands of workers, and paying low wages. Beginning with the importing of rail technology, foreign-capital intensive methods of production contributed to the fact that Mexico was still importing most of its industrial technology from the United States and Europe (Haber).
Railroad construction caused the dictatorship in Mexico to increase agricultural production and trade. By the end of the Porfirian period, 95% of communal villages had lost their lands. This caused in increase in demand to work, even for extremely low wages. The seizing of village land, and the decrease in real wages paid to laborers were two profound changes during this time period (Katz).
Undoubtedly, the introduction of railroads in India and Mexico forever changed both the economies and the lives of the inhabitants. Due to this new transport technology, the world and international economies were never the same. The Mexican government’s main motivation to build a railway network was its desire to industrialize and expand trade as quickly as possible. The Mexican dictatorship’s policies have lasting effects that can be seen presently. Britain constructed railroads in India, intending that they would only strengthen their power and control over colonial India. However, this faster mode of transportation allowed communication between Indians, living in villages hundreds and even thousands of miles away. This was one of the contributing factors to the eventual success of the Indian nationalist movement, and the eventual overthrow of the British Raj. England and Mexico had their own reasons for constructing railroads, and they experienced effects, both intended an unintended.
References:
Andrabi, Tahir and Michael Kuehlwein. “Railways and Price Convergence in British India.” The Journal of Economic History Vol. 70 (2010): 351-377.
Coatsworth, John. “Indispensable Railroads in a Backward Economy: The Case of Mexico.” JSTOR. December 1, 1979
Ficker, Sandra Kuntz. “Economic Backwardness and Firm Strategy: An American Railroad Corporation in Nineteenth-Century Mexico.” Hispanic American Historical Review 80.2 (2000): 267-298.
Ficker, Sandra Kuntz. “Economic Backwardness and Firm Strategy:
An American Railroad Corporation in Nineteenth-Century
Mexico.” Hispanic American Historical Review 80.2 (2000):
267-298.
Garner, Paul. The Politics of National Development in the Late Porfirian Mexico: The Reconstruction of the Tehuantepec National Railway 1896-1907. 3rd ed. Vol. 14. N.p.: Bulletin of Latin AmericanRessearch, 1995. Print. Pp. 339-356.
Haber, Stephen H. Industry and Underdevelopment: The Industrialization of Mexico,
1890-1940. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1989. Print.
Kerr, Ian J. “Colonial India, its railways, and the cliometricians.” The Journal of Transport History 35.1 (2014): pp114. Academic OneFile. Web. (accessed April 07, 2015).
Katz, Friedrich. Labor Conditions on Haciendas in Porfirian Mexico: Some Trends and Tendancies. 1st ed. Vol. 54. N.p.: Duke UP, 1974. Print. Pp. 1-47.
Sharma, Amit K. “”Fire-Carriages” of the Raj.” The University of Virginia,
- Web. Apr. 25.
Anonymous Was A Woman
Introduction
Author Virginia Woolf claimed in her essay A Room of One’s Own, “for most of history, anonymous was a woman”[i]. While colonial and post-colonial history predominately features the literature and accounts of the struggles of mankind little documentation exists on the accomplishments, adversities, and general lifestyles of women. Colonization by western European powers in the North American Southwest and in India left stratifying societal impacts on these civilizations in ways that still manifest today. Ranking ideals brought over from Spain and Britain such as marital status, skin color, family upbringing, and ethnicity completely dictated the paths of Mexican and Indian women and further emphasized their place in society. These reinforcements of gender roles left women, especially poor women, experiencing “meager, if not inconsequential treatment”[ii] and exploitation from an indisputably male dominated culture. In Spanish ruled Mexico, women received value through the family lineages they could create with their ethnicity. Women in India endured seclusion, polygamy and the one-sided right of divorce for men during the reign of the British Raj[iii]. Colonialism perpetuated the segregation of class as well as gender, and these two societies would fail to “[integrate] women quantitatively and qualitatively into organizational and political work”[iv] for centuries.
Spanish Colonialism
Spanish colonialism provided vivid, physical examples of the classifications and social order through casta paintings. Developed in the viceroyalty of New Spain and inspired by curiosity of the new world inhabitants, painters illustrated family dynamics and created societal phylum terminologies to explain hierarchy in the conquered Spanish colony[v]. Different casta paintings stimulated various narratives based on race and gender. Most of the casta paintings showed Spanish males intermarrying with wives of a lower ethnic grade- ie. Spanish-Indian or Spanish-black. The paintings maintained the image that white Spanish men “were in command of the sexuality of all [types of] women” in the new world[vi]. The women of lesser ethnic value became the subject of a reinforced “sexual subordination” dominated by this misogynistic colonial power[vii]. A woman’s sole identity became her ethnicity, leaving her no choice but to attempt to cement her presence within Spanish pedigree. Isabel de Tolosa Cortes Moctezuma, the granddaughter of Hernan Cortes and great grand-daughter of Aztec Emperor Moctezuma Xocoyotzin, married wealthy Spaniard Don Juan de Onate to secure a “white” future rather than an impure, “indigenous” future for her children[viii]. The more integrated new world Spanish settlers became in Mexico, the more challenges the castas system faced. Because Spain predominantly sent male colonizers to the new world, the population began to see a dramatic increase in families with mixed ancestry and indigenous backgrounds[ix]. As identifying pure Spanish lineage became more difficult to prove, women’s identity began to shift from cultural ethnicity to outward appearance. Woman of lighter complexion with Spanish-looking features could achieve social mobility, while dark women remained stagnated in society. The casta system, although giving misleading and bigoted views on some aspects of social order, did give accurate portrayals of the lifestyles of the types of women illustrated in the paintings. Light-skinned women in the upper crust of Mexican society that married pure Spanish peninsulares employed darker, ethnically inferior women as unskilled laborers, like seen in the picture to the left[x]. This trend in ethnic separation influenced the labor and lifestyle of Mexican women even after the removal of Spanish power.
The arrival of European missionaries and the strictly enforced Catholic ideology brought over from Spain beginning in the sixteenth century heavily influenced women’s societal worth from a different angle. Spanish colonizers in the Southwest, especially in California, created a culture centered on the classic patriarchal order of Spain[xi]. With this patriarchy came an understood routine that perpetuated the idea that the hard-working male of the household provided for the wife and children who in turn “owed him obedience and respect”[xii]. This male-dominated societal expectation subjected wives to a life of slavery in their own home. As seen in the picture to the right, women cooked; women cleaned; women nurtured the children; repeat. In addition to having to work towards a life centered on becoming the most submissive of domestics, this extremely Catholic society demanded that women keep their sexual purity before marriage and keep a chaste mind even after marriage[xiii]. Historian Antonia Castaneda went as far as to say that a woman’s honor is “centered on their sexuality, and on their own [control of it]”[xiv]. Society viewed female victims of rape and sexual abuse as dirty, contaminated, disposable and impure. As discussed earlier with the legacies of casta paintings, class hierarchies formed to further define the status of the Mexican women. Spanish-speaking women, along with Spanish speaking males, were considered gente de razon, or “people of reason”[xv]. Spanish-speaking Christian women generally possessed the highest status in society, while a non-Christian woman possessed the lowest status in the Catholic missionary culture[xvi]. While ethnicity and appearance slowly became less of a ranking scale, Spanish heritage and ties to Christianity stepped in as the new measuring stick for the value of a woman in the American Southwest/ Mexico.
British Colonialism
The British Raj used socioeconomic and gender divisions as a “vehicle for proving their liberality” and as a catalyst to legitimize outstanding authority[xvii]. Indian women already endured generations of mistreatment and oppression at the hand of Brahmin law. Brahmin women and girls, as shown in the photo, could not divorce their husband, women could not claim ownership to family land, and widows were prohibited from remarrying[xviii]. Unfortunately, the official arrival of the British government did not improve the Indian woman’s quality of life. Although British liberal reformist agreed to end some obviously inhumane traditions and practices of Indian culture, the colonial authorities did not plan to give up female dominance[xix]. British policymakers enacted positive reforms for women, such as the illegalization of Sati, or widow-burning, the restoration of prostitution and conjugal rights show that their intentions “were far form progressive” and enlightened[xx]. The British introduced the reinstatement of the Christian-influenced conjugal law that allowed a male spouse to “sue his [wife] for refusing to fulfill the sexual obligations of marriage”[xxi]. Indian women who refused to comply with this law, such as with the case of the college-educated Rukhmabai, spent time in prison[xxii]. This law also continued to firmly tie women’s sexuality to men by requiring that the wife stay in the marital house instead of returning to her original home to escape an abusive, idle, or unfortunate marriage; Indian males had complete control of their spouses[xxiii]. Demand from British soldiers for more young, beautiful Indian women continued to rise, for they saw it as their right as a soldier to receive sexual services from young women against their will.
Also, the British authorities exploited Indian women, like the Lowana women shown to the left, as well-oiled “licensed” prostitutes for the British and Indian soldiers. This policy subjected these women to constant medical examinations, and a “sliding tariff according to the soldier’s rank”[xxiv]. British generals and other policymakers alike agreed that the female prostitutes acted as a morale boost for the troops, but in actuality many of these women fell victim to abuse and violence from the soldiers that claimed to need it for morale. The authorities ignored these disturbing incidents in the interest of the reputation of the British army. Other problems erupted, such as the wide spread of venereal diseases and infections between the women and the soldiers. Some British officials had the nerve to call the young soldiers the “victims” of the prostitutes they forced themselves upon[xxv]. To the authorities that turned a blind eye to this licensed sex trafficking claimed that the sexual activities these women performed for the soldiers fulfilled a duty to their country.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, women and strong, feminist supporters in both Britain and India began to push for beneficial legislation for Indian women. Women’s suffrage and voting in India, first raised as an issue in 1917, could not catch momentum due to the conflicts that would soon ensue with the highly conservative culture[xxvi]. The British officials had just banned long-standing, yet horrible, societal conducts and did not want to cause uproar from Hindu or Muslim traditionalists. At first, the 1919 the Central Assembly dropped its exclusion clause to allow women to share opinion in public forum. The British quickly reversed that notion. Although the colonial government and British officials claimed it wanted women “free from male dominance”, the authorities did not want to allow women equal voting rights[xxvii]. The All India Women’s Conference met in 1929 to discuss adult suffrage, but the British government vetoed the notion altogether. This policy to allow Indian women to vote would never pass in 1919, especially because even women in Britain could not vote until 1928. The British government saw the Indian women’s movement as a threat to male privilege and traditional Hindu society. Indian male domination did not act alone in disseminating women’s subordination. The British policymakers’ actions came from a place of selfish financial interests and intemperate political dominance in their profitable proxy state.
Conclusion
The male supremacy ideals of European colonists in Mexico/ American Southwest and India stagnated the progress of woman’s equality and impeded a whole half of a population from realizing an identity of self-worth beyond social patriarchal-placed norms. From absurd attempts at protecting pure lineage in Mexico to reinstatement of licensed prostitution for the British army in India, both societies of women endured unbridled classist and sexist hardships. The perpetuation of segregated class, ethnic, and gender roles only helped colonial powers gain the foreign domination they craved. Colonial powers purposefully struck divides between socioeconomic tiers, genders, and religions in order to prevent a unified rebellion against the authority they created. These great imperial nations failed to recognize the “particular form of male supremacy in their own culture”, and therefore had no interest in preventing the male dominance that they unknowingly propagated[xxviii]. The radical “power differential” between genders in Mexico and the American Southwest has lightened significantly beginning in the mid-twentieth century[xxix]. The nationalist movements and constant push for educating women in India has taken place and has continued to persist since the beginning of the twentieth century. Although the last one hundred years has shown an enormous amount of progress in the social, mental, and physical well being of women, challenges still lie ahead for these deeply European, patriarchy-dominated cultures. The policies, actions, and cultural ideologies of these colonial powers left a lasting impact on these two impressionable civilizations.
[i] “A Room of One’s Own,” Hold That Thought, Accessed April 24, 2015, http://thought.artsci.wustl.edu/podcasts-retellings/a-room-of-ones-own
[ii]Magdalena Mora and Adelaida R. Del Castillo, Mexican Women in the United States: Struggles Past and Present (Los Angeles: U of California, 1980), 7
[iii] Sophie M. Tharakan and Michael Tharakan, Status of Women in India: A Historical Perspective (Nov.-Dec, 1975), 120, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516124
[iv] Mora and Del Castillo, Mexican Women, 7
[v] “’Limpieza de Sangre’ in the Age of Reason and Reform”, 229
[vi] “’Limpieza de Sangre’”, 233
[vii] “’Limpieza de Sangre’”, 233
[viii] Laura Woodworth-Ney, Women in the American West, (Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, 2008), 76
[ix] “’Limpieza de Sangre’”, 239
[x] “’Limpieza de Sangre’”, 239
[xi] Woodworth-Ney, Women in the American West, 83
[xii] Ibid., 83
[xiii] Ibid., 83
[xiv] Ibid., 83
[xv] Ibid., 83
[xvi] Ibid., 83
[xvii] Liddle Joanna and Rama Joshi, Gender and Imperialism in British India (Economic and Political Weekly: 1985), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4374973, 1
[xviii] Liddle, Gender and Imperialism, 2
[xix] Tharakan, Status of Women, 119
[xx] Liddle, Gender and Imperialism, 2
[xxi] Ibid., 2
[xxii]Ibid., 2
[xxiii]Ibid., 2
[xxiv]Ibid., 2
[xxv]Ibid., 3
[xxvi]Ibid., 4
[xxvii]Ibid., 4
[xxviii]Ibid., 1
[xxix]Woodworth-Ney, Women in the American West, 85
Bibliography
Chavez, John R., The Lost Land: The Chicano Image of the Southwest. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984.
Hold That Thought. “A Room of One’s Own.” 2013 Accessed April 24, 2015. http://thought.artsci.wustl.edu/podcasts-retellings/a-room-of-ones-own
Johnson, William, Brahmin Women of the Konkan. 1855-1962. DeGoyler Library, Dallas.
Johnson, William. Lowana Women. 1855-1862. DeGoyler Library, Dallas.
Liddle, Joanna and Rama Joshi. Gender and Imperialism in British India. Economic and Political Weekly, 1985, WS72WS78.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4374973
“’Limpieza de Sangre’ in the Age of Reason and Reform”, pp. 227-264
Mayo & Weed. Mexican Wash Woman. 1895-1910. DeGoyler Library, Dallas.
Mora, Magdalena and Del Castillo Adelaida R. Mexican Women in the United States: Struggles Past and Present. Los Angeles: U of California, 1980.
Peers, Douglas M., and Nandini Gooptu, India and the British Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012
Tharakan, Sophie M. and Michael Tharakan, Status of Women in India: A Historical Perspective (Nov.-Dec., 1975), 115-123 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516124
Unknown, Mexican Women and Children Cooking Outside. 1897. DeGoyler Library, Dallas.
Woodworth-Ney, Laura. Women in the American West. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, 2008.
Rebellions, Revolutions, and Movements of Mexico and India
[iframe id=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/PzLxTYm8ts4″]
Final Report Gruber
[iframe id=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/LTZ6mwBy0gg”]
CNN iReport The Ugly Truth of Colonialism
[iframe id=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/Iy96xDSGmgc”]
Progress Delayed, Recognition Deflected
Introduction
Globalization: a magnified pre-colonial system of transportation and trade. While attribution for connecting trade markets across oceans often falls to European colonizing powers, such as Spain and Great Britain, the fundamentals of long-distance trade stem from pre-colonial India and Mexico/the American Southwest (hereafter to be referred to as Mexico). Prior to European intervention in these self-sufficient regions, trade routes fulfilling the desired trade of the respective cultural centers flourished. Propelled on the false premise of a need to aid India toward civilization, the British outlandishly convinced themselves that India, a land that, according to Adam Smith, nearly rivaled Britain in terms of “universal civilization,” or capitalism, desperately sought European intervention into their affairs.[i] Additionally, Anglos, more specifically the Spanish, incorrectly viewed the New World as theirs to claim because of its previous vacancy. However, Chicano history, a tribe of Native Americans who lived in Mexico, contradicts the Anglo belief, claiming that “[Chicano ancestors] had already founded such cities as San Antonio…and Los Angeles well before the appearance of Anglo-Americans.”[ii] Therefore, European justification for colonization and rule over perceived less-than-civilized cultures resides on false pretenses yet again. European intervention into India and Mexico not only rooted itself in faulty reasoning, but also halted progress of such trade previously mentioned. By forcing its industrial ways and self-exalted superior trade knowledge upon India and Mexico, respectively, European colonizing powers destroyed, if not wholly, at least partially, trade routes and transportation networks from pre-colonial times. Though globalization seemingly stemmed from European ambition and colonization of India and Mexico, pre-colonial trade and transportation methods in the aforementioned cultural centers existed prior to European colonization and would have contributed immensely to the installation of global trade were they not first obstructed by European expansionism.
Pre-Colonial Mexico
Prior to Spanish intervention in Mexico, local area tribes thrived through the use of lakes as an avenue to transport goods for trade. In the mid-1700s, Spanish explorers observed Nahua communities that utilized canoes as transport over lakes, reporting that, “Nahuas long relied on canoes for a wide range of enterprises: lake-borne transportation provided employment for local residents…and artisans and merchants reached their customers by canoe.”[iii] Nahua communities’ utilization of canoes for transport and trade connected cities separated by long-distances and boosted shipping time. Moreover, Nahua canoes “helped supply Mexico City with essential goods. As such…the rowers of canoes assumed a key, intermediary position in the transportation network.”[iv] Nahua transportation and transshipment networks combat the European claim that pre-colonial Mexico lacked civilization and order. Additionally, hierarchical systems of labor webbed into the trading industry highlight a high level of self-sufficiency within Native American and Mexican cultures prior to the forceful rule of the Spanish Crown.
Pre-Colonial India
Similarly, pre-colonial India possessed international trade capabilities prior to European expansion into the subcontinent. Rich in textiles, the trade routs within and branching out of India existed well before the British arrival. In fact, India’s international trade suffered following Britain’s Industrial Revolution, providing evidence of India’s flourishing trade developments in pre-colonial times.[v] Economic decline caused by a rise in industry half way across the face of the globe underlines an existence of interconnectivity of Indian and European trade partners. Though European colonizers of India used their fleets to ship textiles via ocean trade routes to distant trade centers, these powers did not first connect Indian commodities to outside markets, but did, however, first exploit Indian goods for profit.
Colonial Detriment to Mexican Trade
Victim to the fate of merely being, Mexico’s trade networks experienced turmoil at the hands of Spanish thirst for riches. Though infamous Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés reported that the city of Tlaxcala rivaled Granada, a Spanish city, in strength and boasted both prominent markets and an honorable judicial system, the impressive nature of Mexico failed to prevent Cortés from tearing her apart.[vi]
In the wake of Cortés’s slaughtering at Cholula, the Aztec Empire’s great riches and prosperous trade lay crippled. In addition to the destruction caused by man, the introduction of horses to North America also wreaked havoc on Mexico.
Imported from Europe during Spain’s expansionist period, horses often highlighted social stratification within the indigenous class system. Mexican and Native American elites sought the privilege of learning to ride horses and incorporate them into entertainment for the social elites (see picture top left).[vii] Peoples of lower classes, those without permission to ride and own horses, attended to burros during pasteurization and transport to market (see the picture bottom left).
The increased distance between class levels in Mexican and Native American communities damaged the previously cohesive labor hierarchy adopted by peoples like the Nahua. Additionally, the Comanche integrated horses into their military strategy as weaponized vehicles, with which they terrorized other tribes more quickly and easily.[viii] Already a violent people, horses enabled the Comanche to plunder neighboring civilizations with a much greater success rate, leaving their victims nearly helpless when defending themselves. Expanded social divide and an exponential increase in death-by-tribal-warfare halted trade both because of a temporarily scarce middle class and heightened inter-tribal hostility. Continue reading