Chapter 14 National Unity and Freedom Movements

Chapter 8: The Worlds of North and South Geography Geography refers to the seasons, climate, soil, and physical features of a region (mountains, rivers, etc.) The differences in geography b/t the N and S is one of the major reasons slavery b/c entrenched in the S while it died out in the N. Geography of the North The N has diverse geography and experiences four distinct seasons including long, harsh winters. The Great Plains region has some of the best farmland in the country. New England has rocky, hilly wilderness, not well suited for farming. It has hundreds of bays and harbors along its coastline. States farther S had rich soil and coastal access through rivers. The N also experienced mass deforestation b/c of the need for lumber and to make room for farms. Geography of the South Climate: the S had mild winters, and a long, hot, humid growing season. It has fertile lowlands, marshes and swamps. It's ideal for growing tobacco, sugar, rice, indigo, and cotton (cash crops). B/c of the geography of the S, their whole way of life was based on agriculture and geography is one of the major reasons why slavery took off in the S. Economies Economy basically refers to the way people make and spend money. The Northern economy was far more diversified than the Southern. Economy of the North The North experienced the Industrial Revolution—the shift from handmade goods to machine-made goods. This resulted in new jobs, increased production, and improved efficiency in agriculture. IOW, you can make things faster, easier, and cheaper. More ppl get more stuff. Factories were almost always located next to rivers. The Reaper The Indust. Rev. changed northern agriculture with Cyrus McCormick’s reaper. It could cut 28xs more grain than a single man. The Sewing Machine Elias Howe's sewing machine; At 250 stitches a minute, Howe's lockstitch mechanism out-stitched the output of five hand seamstresses with a reputation for speed, completing in one hour what took the sewers 14.5 hours. The Textile Mill Francis Cabot Lowell's textile mill: essentially the first factory in the US, Lowell set the model for all future factories. Interchangeable Parts Eli Whitney's interchangeable parts; considered the "dawning of a new age" of machinery. This concept was applied to pretty much all manufacturing. Economy of the South The South's economy was based on AGRICULTURE. Most southerners were agrarians. Most had small farms, some owned plantations. Slavery beginning to decline in late 1700s; prices went down (tobacco, indigo) and cotton was difficult. King Cotton Cotton was South’s most important crop. Earned more money than all other exports combined. The S would go on to supply 75% of the world's cotton demand. Cotton Gin Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1794 and forever changed the US. The gin made cotton incredibly profitable. We start to see the effects of the cotton gin around 1820. Slavery and Cotton Southerners put all their money into slaves and land, and almost none into building factories. With the spread of cotton, demand for slaves increased. 1790 to 1850, number of slaves rose 600%. Transportation Again, the N was far more inventive in their approach to transportation than the S. Transportation in the North National Road National Road stretched from the East (the Potomac), over the Appalachians, to the West (Illinois), over 620 miles. Steamboat In 1807, Robert Fulton invented the steamboat. It traveled 150 miles UP the Hudson River at a speed of 5 mph. Erie Canal Built b/t 1817 and 1825, the canal spanned 363 miles and connected Lake Erie to the Hudson River. This connected farms in the W to cities in the E and the Atlantic Ocean. Clipper Ship Clippers were narrow w massive sails that were built for speed. They cut the time it took to cross the Atlantic in half. Locomotive The fastest and cheapest way to move goods was by steam-powered trains. The first RR was the B&O which was built in 1827. Transportation in the South Most people and goods in the South traveled by rivers in steamboats. The South had trains, but less than half the amount of railroad track than the North had. Society (The People) The people who made up the N and S could not have been more different. The S was primarily agrarian while the N was b/c urbanized. The S was holding on to the past, while the N was embracing change. Society in the South Society was organized into 3 distinct classes of people: rich plantation owners at the top; then white farmers and workers; slaves on the bottom. This rigid social class system was the result of a slave-based agricultural system. Power Structure Only 1 in 4 whites owned a slave. Plantation owners, who owned more than 20 slaves, dominated politics and the economy. Society in the North 7 of 10 Northerners still lived on farms by the 1840s (6 of 10 by 1860), but urbanization was growing fast in the N. The N relied on wage labor as opposed to slave labor, so most blacks in the N were free. N blacks were not treated equally and the N was about as racist as the S. Immigration Compared to the S, the N population was exploding, in large part bc of immigration. Between 1845 and 1860, 4 million immigrants came to the North. Most were German and Irish. Irish--a potato famine; German--a failed revolution. Ethnic neighborhoods developed as a result.

When it was his turn to speak, Adam Malik, Presidium Minister for Political Affairs and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, recalled that about a year before, in Bangkok, at the conclusion of the peace talks between Indonesia and Malaysia, he had explored the idea of an organization such as ASEAN with his Malaysian and Thai counterparts. One of the “angry young men” in his country’s struggle for independence two decades earlier, Adam Malik was then 50 years old and one of a Presidium of five led by then General Soeharto that was steering Indonesia from the verge of economic and political chaos. He was the Presidium’s point man in Indonesia’s efforts to mend fences with its neighbors in the wake of an unfortunate policy of confrontation. During the past year, he said, the Ministers had all worked together toward the realization of the ASEAN idea, “making haste slowly, in order to build a new association for regional cooperation.” Adam Malik went on to describe Indonesia’s vision of a Southeast Asia developing into “a region which can stand on its own feet, strong enough to defend itself against any negative influence from outside the region.” Such a vision, he stressed, was not wishful thinking, if the countries of the region effectively cooperated with each other, considering their combined natural resources and manpower. He referred to differences of outlook among the member countries, but those differences, he said, would be overcome through a maximum of goodwill and understanding, faith and realism. Hard work, patience and perseverance, he added, would also be necessary. The countries of Southeast Asia should also be willing to take responsibility for whatever happens to them, according to Tun Abdul Razak, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, who spoke next. In his speech, he conjured a vision of an ASEAN that would include all the countries of Southeast Asia. Tun Abdul Razak was then concurrently his country’s Minister of Defence and Minister of National Development. It was a time when national survival was the overriding thrust of Malaysia’s relations with other nations and so as Minister of Defence, he was in charge of his country’s foreign affairs. He stressed that the countries of the region should recognize that unless they assumed their common responsibility to shape their own destiny and to prevent external intervention and interference, Southeast Asia would remain fraught with danger and tension. And unless they took decisive and collective action to prevent the eruption of intra-regional conflicts, the nations of Southeast Asia would remain susceptible to manipulation, one against another. “We the nations and peoples of Southeast Asia,” Tun Abdul Razak said, “must get together and form by ourselves a new perspective and a new framework for our region. It is important that individually and jointly we should create a deep awareness that we cannot survive for long as independent but isolated peoples unless we also think and act together and unless we prove by deeds that we belong to a family of Southeast Asian nations bound together by ties of friendship and goodwill and imbued with our own ideals and aspirations and determined to shape our own destiny”. He added that, “with the establishment of ASEAN, we have taken a firm and a bold step on that road”. For his part, S. Rajaratnam, a former Minister of Culture of multi-cultural Singapore who, at that time, served as its first Foreign Minister, noted that two decades of nationalist fervor had not fulfilled the expectations of the people of Southeast Asia for better living standards. If ASEAN would succeed, he said, then its members would have to marry national thinking with regional thinking. “We must now think at two levels,” Rajaratnam said. “We must think not only of our national interests but posit them against regional interests: that is a new way of thinking about our problems. And these are two different things and sometimes they can conflict. Secondly, we must also accept the fact, if we are really serious about it, that regional existence means painful adjustments to those practices and thinking in our respective countries. We must make these painful and difficult adjustments. If we are not going to do that, then regionalism remains a utopia.” S. Rajaratnam expressed the fear, however, that ASEAN would be misunderstood. “We are not against anything”, he said, “not against anybody”. And here he used a term that would have an ominous ring even today: balkanization. In Southeast Asia, as in Europe and any part of the world, he said, outside powers had a vested interest in the balkanization of the region. “We want to ensure,” he said, “a stable Southeast Asia, not a balkanized Southeast Asia. And those countries who are interested, genuinely interested, in the stability of Southeast Asia, the prosperity of Southeast Asia, and better economic and social conditions, will welcome small countries getting together to pool their collective resources and their collective wisdom to contribute to the peace of the world.” The goal of ASEAN, then, is to create, not to destroy. This, the Foreign Minister of Thailand, Thanat Khoman, stressed when it was his turn to speak. At a time when the Vietnam conflict was raging and American forces seemed forever entrenched in Indochina, he had foreseen their eventual withdrawal from the area and had accordingly applied himself to adjusting Thailand’s foreign policy to a reality that would only become apparent more than half a decade later. He must have had that in mind when, on that occasion, he said that the countries of Southeast Asia had no choice but to adjust to the exigencies of the time, to move toward closer cooperation and even integration. Elaborating on ASEAN objectives, he spoke of “building a new society that will be responsive to the needs of our time and efficiently equipped to bring about, for the enjoyment and the material as well as spiritual advancement of our peoples, conditions of stability and progress. Particularly what millions of men and women in our part of the world want is to erase the old and obsolete concept of domination and subjection of the past and replace it with the new spirit of give and take, of equality and partnership. More than anything else, they want to be master of their own house and to enjoy the inherent right to decide their own destiny …” While the nations of Southeast Asia prevent attempts to deprive them of their freedom and sovereignty, he said, they must first free themselves from the material impediments of ignorance, disease and hunger. Each of these nations cannot accomplish that alone, but by joining together and cooperating with those who have the same aspirations, these objectives become easier to attain. Then Thanat Khoman concluded: “What we have decided today is only a small beginning of what we hope will be a long and continuous sequence of accomplishments of which we ourselves, those who will join us later and the generations to come, can be proud. Let it be for Southeast Asia, a potentially rich region, rich in history, in spiritual as well as material resources and indeed for the whole ancient continent of Asia, the light of happiness and well-being that will shine over the uncounted millions of our struggling peoples.” The Foreign Minister of Thailand closed the inaugural session of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations by presenting each of his colleagues with a memento. Inscribed on the memento presented to the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, was the citation, “In recognition of services rendered by His Excellency Adam Malik to the ASEAN organization, the name of which was suggested by him.” And that was how ASEAN was conceived, given a name, and born. It had been barely 14 months since Thanat Khoman brought up the ASEAN idea in his conversations with his Malaysian and Indonesian colleagues. In about three more weeks, Indonesia would fully restore diplomatic relations with Malaysia, and soon after that with Singapore. That was by no means the end to intra-ASEAN disputes, for soon the Philippines and Malaysia would have a falling out on the issue of sovereignty over Sabah. Many disputes between ASEAN countries persist to this day. But all Member Countries are deeply committed to resolving their differences through peaceful means and in the spirit of mutual accommodation. Every dispute would have its proper season but it would not be allowed to get in the way of the task at hand. And at that time, the essential task was to lay the framework of regional dialogue and cooperation. The two-page Bangkok Declaration not only contains the rationale for the establishment of ASEAN and its specific objectives. It represents the organization’s modus operandi of building on small steps, voluntary, and informal arrangements towards more binding and institutionalized agreements. All the founding member states and the newer members have stood fast to the spirit of the Bangkok Declaration. Over the years, ASEAN has progressively entered into several formal and legally-binding instruments, such as the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the 1995 Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. Against the backdrop of conflict in the then Indochina, the Founding Fathers had the foresight of building a community of and for all Southeast Asian states. Thus the Bangkok Declaration promulgated that “the Association is open for participation to all States in the Southeast Asian region subscribing to the aforementioned aims, principles and purposes.” ASEAN’s inclusive outlook has paved the way for community-building not only in Southeast Asia, but also in the broader Asia Pacific region where several other inter-governmental organizations now co-exist. The original ASEAN logo presented five brown sheaves of rice stalks, one for each founding member. Beneath the sheaves is the legend “ASEAN” in blue. These are set on a field of yellow encircled by a blue border. Brown stands for strength and stability, yellow for prosperity and blue for the spirit of cordiality in which ASEAN affairs are conducted. When ASEAN celebrated its 30th Anniversary in 1997, the sheaves on the logo had increased to ten – representing all ten countries of Southeast Asia and reflecting the colors of the flags of all of them. In a very real sense, ASEAN and Southeast Asia would then be one and the same, just as the Founding Fathers had envisioned. This article is based on the first chapter of ASEAN at 30, a publication of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in commemoration of its 30th Anniversary on 8 August 1997, written by Jamil Maidan Flores and Jun Abad.

Chapter 14

Chapter 14 Quiz - 4.11.19

Chapter 14 Lesson 1 Cells from Preexisting Cells

Chapter 14 IT Professional

Chapter 14 World History

Related quizzes

Related quizzes