The main reason for the USA’s military intervention in the Korean war was that of containment. The American aims was to work with its allies to contain the spread of soviet and communist Chinese power using political, economic and if necessary military pressures. Any failure of containment was potentially disastrous. According to the USA the loss of SK might well lead to a chain reaction leading to the loss of much of the rest of Asia, including Japan. This was called the domino theory.
This furthered the Indian’s desire for independence but they were still faced with the challenges of overcoming the divisions within India. Members of Congress were appalled by this high-handed action, although they also sympathized with Britain’s fight against Fascism. As shown in throughout the war. The main opposition to India’s independence from the British came from one faction of the Conservative Party which later formed itself into the Imperial Defense League. As told in source 16.
Japan is a small country, while considering the contribution to the world economic Japan still is a big country. So trade exchanges and business negotiations between these two countries is a systematic project because of different national culture, beliefs, values and norms. All of these differences may lead to some unpredictable issues in commercial activities if both side do not clearly know the difference. Japan is a typical oriental culture nurtured the country, while the United States is a combination of Western civilization itself nurtured the development of the United States set their own unique culture. These two contradictory business negotiations and cultural differences between countries and thus caused inconvenience to bring the negotiation process was affecting each other.
Foreign Reactions to Western Imperialism China and Japan India and Japan’s reactions to Western imperialism was the same as in they first resisted outside control, but eventually gave in to Westernization; however, India resisted through physical methods while Japan resisted through cultural methods. Europe wanted to expand their empire to include colonies in India and to also have an influence on Japan. The building of the Suez Canal was funded and lead by Britain. The canal allowed for easier trade for the Dutch East India Company that was based in India. This new passage allowed for Western Influence to spread to the Eastern world.
Imperialism in China Between 1750 and 1900, both China and Japan endured pressures from their foreign counterparts make themselves open to trade and relations. In the beginning both China and Japan were resistant against foreign domination, but in the 19th century Japan progressively accepted foreign domination to achieve the goal of modernization while China continued to resist foreign control and remain true to their ancient way of life.. In the 1700s, both China and Japan viewed the West as conflictions against their way of life and had perceived them as barbarians believing that their way of life was far more superior. When European ambassadors were sent to their lands in valiant attempts to negotiate trade with China and Japan, the emperors mocked them and boasted about how they possessed no need for Western influence. The Japanese originally developed an interest in trading with the Europeans, but the Jesuit missionaries who followed the traders arose hesitation that ultimately affected their decision to succumb to Western influences in the sense of preserving their beliefs and cultures.
These feelings of hatred arose when the Japanese began to move into the United States in search for work industries on the West Coast. Upon there arrival, they encountered racist reactions from many Americans. The Americans believed that the Japanese were stealing jobs and lowering wages. Many laws were passed that openly discriminated against Asians, Japanese in specific. Many of these laws stated that Japanese could not become citizens of the United States and could not hold basic rights.
Nationalism in Japan Amartya Sen says about Tagore's nationalism that “Tagore's dual attitude towards nationalism, supporting its emphasis on self-respect but rejecting its patriotism was not an easy one to get across.” Tagore didn’t believe in the ideals of nationalism that was prevalent in his times. He thought that fighting with other nations and destroying them for the sake of our own cannot be termed as nationalism. It didn’t match with his definition of the word. According to him, the word nationalism, in its true sense, meant working for the prosperity of one’s nation, for the betterment of it, but in harmony with the rest of the world. For Tagore, it meant feeling for the whole world and not just for one’s own country.
Although creating this dichotomy seems a gross generalization and oversimplification of the colonial African experience, it more importantly allows for a different perspective- one that exposes the overwhelming success of the typically peaceful or pacifist reaction in contrast to the little gain and large losses of the violent response. Throughout history, European powers have tried and succeeded in imperializing lesser developed countries, countries that did not fall under or follow the European standards. This was the case with China and Japan. Both China and Japan were self-sufficient countries that only trade with neighboring countries. They had the necessities they needed to live and did not want trifle gadgets.
May-Lee Hoshi Modern World History 2B Bapi DBQ 17: Imperialism in India: An Evaluation European Imperialism in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries converted areas of Africa and Asia into a colonial empire that had really benefited the British. The Imperialism in India allowed the British to improve socially and economically without any negative consequences, while India, the colony, made great strides, but paid the price through lack of independence and the inability to develop as an industrial state. Both the colony and colonizers had a different point of view on what was happening to the countries. The British, the colonizers, believed that they were doing the countries a favor by helping India. British had introduced to the colony many new manufactured goods, technology, education, means or transportation and most importantly, better and quicker ways of communication (Document 1).
Japanese textbook states that the Japan’s domination over Korea from 1910 till 1945 was beneficial to both countries. According to the claim, not only 1) was the domination of Japan a legitimate unification but also Korea enjoyed some advantages from the period since 2) the economy was developed with expending its market system and infrastructure built by Japan and 3) Koreans became enlightened with the modernized custom offered by a new educational system. In other words, he implies that Japan positively influenced on shaping the modernization of Korea. Yet, describing the situation as a beneficial unification is unreasonable. If it had been a just unification, there must have not been the Korean uprising in 1919 even at the risk of their lives which Elizabeth Keith described in her book, Old Korea.