The Age of Empire, written but Eric Hobsbawn, displays a variety of very intriguing views and thoughts about many different nations and societies. He talks about third world countries as "Dependent" Nations and thriving nations as "Developed". Many different factors going into account when differing from a developed nations and a dependent nation. If one nation had the money and technology to build various structures they were considered a developed nation. The industrial Era was starting to begin at this time and many advances were being made such as the automobile. This also helped developed nation in their process to excel. Dependent nations were usually located in cities and did not have as much money as many of the other nations, so in turn they were unable to advance as much.
In the first few chapters, Hobsbawn talks about the advancements made in technology and other ares which led to Europe being a very strong nation. Although Europe was thriving, America was too. Immigration was becoming a big thing in America and many of the Europeans migrated here causing a massive population growth. This cause more industry to start creating more jobs and allowing more people the opportunity to live here. Industry was a big part in the move towards advancement and so was education. Education was much more popular in the developed nations and not in others such as Russia. This drew a gap between many nations and caused others to lag behind.
I'm curious to know if there is anything the underdeveloped nations could have done to help themselves advance. Also why didn't many of the developed nations of the time assist the dependent nations, similar to what goes on today.
I really enjoyed reading your post because you talked about how the technological advances helped the nations. These technological advances really helped the economy as well because of the money being out into it. In the underdeveloped world there is a marked tendency towards increased monetarization of the village economy. I think that the developed nations didn't really have time to help the underdeveloped ones because they were just starting these technological advances and it was such shock to the economy because all of the sudden there are so many new inventions that contribute to society. I think that with time, the developed nations would learn to help the underdeveloped nations if they wanted the support of more people.
ReplyDeleteI think you brought up a great question about the lack of assistance provided for the dependent countries from the developed countries. One thing that I specifically remember Hobsbawn mentioning, which seems to me rather relevant, is that during this time there is a significant increase in the amount of competition going on between these countries. Industrialization is a perfect example of something that would cause the development of these rival nations. You mentioned all of the technological advances that were being made during this time period, and I think that was definitely a reason countries didn't want to help others because with all of these new inventions, they wanted to be the very best and focus mainly on their own growth as opposed to anyone else's. This kind of goes along with what Gabby was saying, they were just dealing with something brand new, just a thought, there's probably quite a few other factors that influenced the developed countries to be so separated.
ReplyDeleteI thought you addressed some very interesting points in regard to the relationship between developing and developed nations. At the beginning of this world system, Hobsbawm mentioned that all the countries were trading for mutual benefit but eventually the Western developed nations pulled ahead and imperialized and dominated the other nations. But one thing I found interesting was his theory of relativity. Wealth was relative to your surroundings, which he alluded to with a businessman who's rich in his own company but a mere common man in another. It's hard to determine what riches are really worth and I think it's a sort of contradiction that he actually defines developed nations and dependent nations. He can't really call them dependent, the more agricultural "poorer" nations when they had many relative riches like art, food, music, culture, and so on.
ReplyDeleteI find your questioning very interesting and also find myself wondering the same things. Was there anything that the underdeveloped nations could have done to advance their civilizations and if there is any hope for them to become more advanced now. I think that many nations have organizations that do have the good of the underdeveloped nations in mind, but honestly when it comes to it- a country cares more about its advances and welfare than others, and some people may bash me for saying so but you see that mentality among even individuals let alone groups.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone that has posted so far. I also feel that you have brought up very thought provoking points and raised similar questions that I had. But in my opinion I'm not sure if there was anything the dependent countries could have done to advance themselves because they are poorer countries they didn't have the resources that more developed countries had to make technological advances.
ReplyDelete