Cheong Kah Wah

Vuong Ho Quan

Nicole Chan

Alex Yeo

The development of nationalism in South East Asia before World War 2 was characterized by common opposition to colonial rule rather than a collective sense of nationhood. How far do you agree with this statement?

Intro:

Definitions:

Development: emergence or a growth

Common opposition: anti-colonial sentiments => get rid of colonial rule.

Collective sense of nationhood: national identity +unity .

Time frame: 1900-1941

Scope/Criteria:

-Common opposition > nationhood

-Evolution

-Neither opposition nor nationhood.

Stand: In the early stage of nationalist development, it was more of common opposition. However, progressively, it turns to more of collective sense of nationhood.

Body:

1/ Yes. It was characterized by common opposition. ( Opp > nationhood)

1.1: Nationalists are branches of common opposition to colonial rule.

-Due to political, social, economic marginalization of the locals, they rose up against their colonial masters to fight for better living condition or/and to restore traditional way of lives.

-Example: Pongyis rebellion in Burma, “Can Vuong” movement in Vietnam.

-Link: these rebellions were mostly caused by the removal of center of loyalty/religious belief and the worsening living condition => Opposition to colonial actions.

1.2: Not much of collective sense of nationhood.

-Objectives of the nationalists were diverse, including: economic/political/social aims.

-Not all nationalist movements have national identity (ethnocentric movements)

-Example: Malaya, Indonesia early movements ( Sarekat Islam-economic & religious objectives)

-Link: Since the agenda of individual movements were diverse & some were even based on ethnocentrism.

2/Evolution (gradual changes):

2.1: Developing sense of nationhood over time.

- Nationalist movements have the objective of establishing nation states.

-Example: Sukarno PNI, Vietminh in Vietnam

-Link: these common aims of building a independent nation states indicate that national identity existed.

2.2: Evolution ( Nationhood grew more significant over common opposition )

-In the earlier stage of nationalist development, most movements were based on common opposition. However, gradually due to Western ideology and education and various factors, nationhood grew to become a more significant force driving the nationalist movements rather than common opposition to colonial rule.

-Example: Indonesia, Vietnam.

-Link: The progressive replacement of nationhood over opposition shows that development of nationalism was characterized less by common opposition to colonial rule but more of a collective sense of nationhood in the later stage.

3/ Not common opposition and collective nationhood:

3.1/ No opposition and nationhood

-In some countries, the nationalist movements were based on neither opposition nor nationhood. This is due to collaborative nature of colonial rule & the locals’ lack a sense of nationhood ( due to society being based on ethnocentrism).

-Example: Malaya, Philippines.

-Link: In these countries, there were no significant nationalist movements based on opposition to colonial rule or/and nationhood. Hence, it shows that there was not any major opposition and sense of nationhood.

3.2/ Nationalist movements were not collective and common.

-Nationalist movements in this stage lack unity and thus, cannot be classified as collective and common.

-Example: Indonesia, Burma.

-Link: Nationalist movements were fragmented and aimed at achieving different agendas. Hence, they cannot be seen as unified faction.

Conclusion

-Criteria: Time frame

In the early stage of nationalist development, it was more of common opposition. However, progressively, it turns to more of collective sense of nationhood. This is due largely of Western education which leads to nationalist leaders realizing the need for a unifying force.

-Summarise:

It was characterized by common opposition,

Evolution,

Not common opposition and collective nationhood

-However, exception exists whereby there wasn’t any common opposition nor common sense of nationhood eg. Phillippines.