Libya has been formed by parts of various empires that have remodeled its entire society. As a result, Libyans were unable to achieve a common national identity. Many of the foreigners who dominated Libya include the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans, Italians, British and French. All of these external powers were able to rule over Libya’s provinces by conducting unfair policies that forced people to avoid looking inward for support in political, social, and economic matters. For instance, Tripoli Tania depended on its neighbors to the north, in Europe when it came to dilemmas dealing with salvation, trade, or culture. The Cyrenaica province received much support from its Egyptian neighbors to the east within the Arab world for trade and cultural situations. The African province of Fezzan looked south to African countries for any economical, political, and military links. These examples from Libya’s past help explain the current mindset of its people. Libyans have historic experience with external domination that to this day has left citizens fearful of being overpowered once again.
Libya underwent continuous changes because different empires invaded the land before fading away. It began with the Phoenician sailors who were amongst the first to visit Libya and trade with the entire fellow Africans while establishing permanent trading centers in Carthage and Tripoli. Carthage therefore was able to become a large, prosperous city where many people found economic stability. Prosperity continued in Carthage until the Phoenicians fought a series of wars against the Romans and were eventually destroyed.
The Romans however had power over only the western coast of Libya, while the Greeks were in charge of the eastern ...
... middle of paper ...
...pt a philosophy called Pan-Arabism, which is a movement in recent years by countries with Arabic populations that wish to become united. It is ironic however that with all the advancements in Libya made possible by foreign interests; it was the recent oppression by Col. Qadhafi against his own people that has thrown the country into turmoil while leaving its future in doubt.
Works Cited
Browne, Dallas L.. "Libya." World Education Encyclopedia. 2001. Encyclopedia.com. 1 Feb. 2012 .
"Libya." Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations. 2007. Encyclopedia.com. 2 Feb. 2012 .
Peimani, Dr. Hooman. "Libya." Worldmark Encyclopedia of National Economies. 2002. Encyclopedia.com. 2 Feb.2012
.
"Libya." Cities of the World. 2002. Encyclopedia.com. 2 Feb. 2012 .
Similarly, the Fanti people of Africa recognized their need for the British authorities by stating, “we do not for one single moment pretend to be able to carry on a Government in the interior without such recognition and assistance” (Document 4).
In his account of the Punic Wars, Polybius declares “it is my contention that by far the most important part of historical writing lies in the consideration of the consequences of events, their accompanying circumstances, and above all their causes.” Polybius recognized the intricate relationship between circumstances, causes, and their consequences, and in his account of the Punic Wars he seeks to explain the reasons for Rome’s victory over Carthage. For centuries, Rome and Carthage lived at peace with one another, their spheres of influence separate enough to avoid conflict. Rome’s wealth and interests lay in farming and acquiring more land throughout Italy, while Carthage’s economy was naval based, and so keeping trade routes open in the western Mediterranean was most important to them. As late as 279 B.C., Rome and Carthage were allied against Pyrrhus of Epirus, and had signed two other treaties in earlier years. However, as the two powers increased in power and controlled progressively larger geographies, their interests were bound to conflict at some point, and that conflict came in the contest for control of Sicily. The result was a twenty-three year war, the beginning of a series of wars which would last over a century. The end of the first war, and the actions of Rome towards Carthage in the latter’s defeat, laid the foundation for the second war, and it was only after the third and final Punic War that Rome, after coming close to defeat in the second, annihilated Carthage and burned it to the ground, effectively ending the age of Carthaginian power. However, the question must be asked, what were the causes of these wars, and more specifically, which power was more responsible for the conflict? No Punic accounts exist...
Europe, in the late 1800’s, was starting for a land grab in the African continent. Around 1878, most of Africa was unexplored, but by 1914, most of Africa, with the lucky exception of Liberia and Ethiopia, was carved up between European powers. There were countless motivations that spurred the European powers to carve Africa, like economical, political, and socio–cultural, and there were countless attitudes towards this expansion into Africa, some of approval and some of condemnation.
In the mid-1800’s Africa south of the Sahara contained more than seven hundred different ethnic groups. Most were organized into communities based on ties of tradition and family. Occasionally, a powerful group formed a state that was strong enough to conquer neighboring groups and form an empire. Europeans had already moved into North Africa. The once-powerful Ottoman Empire had become too weak to prevent local rulers from taking control in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt. These countries were no match for the Europeans bent on conquest.
The country I decided to research is Egypt. Egypt is located in northern Africa along the Mediterranean and Red Seas. The majority of the country however is located in northeastern Africa, but its Sinai Peninsula extends out into Southwest Asia, connecting the two continents. European nations wanted to colonize Egypt because it was considered to be a treasure, due to its fertile land and production of crops, such as: wheat, fruits, vegetables, corn, and cotton. Also because of its strategic location at the head of the Red Sea, that appeared valuable to countries such as Britain and France. Another reason was because they wanted to control Egypt in order to secure the main route to India, Malaya, Australia, New Zealand and to Hong Kong.This route was known as the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was viewed as the “Lifeline of the Empire” because it allowed quicker access to its colonies in Asia and Africa. It also connected the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, built mainly with French money from private interest groups using Egyptian labor. Egypt was also targeted due to its weak economy and government, making it an easy target to imperialize. Egypt was colonized three times each by different civilizations. It was colonized by the Ottomans in 1517, by the French in 1799, and by the British in 1882. A key person involved in Egypts colonization was Muhammad Ali. After taking power in 1805, he strengthened the army and focused on cultivating the land. He also increased trade with Europe and sent officials to Britain to be educated.
In the second half of the twentieth century, started a process of decolonization, first in Asia and then in Africa. In 1949, India was one of the first country to gain its independence, followed by Burma, Malaysia, and Ceylon. In Africa the decolonization started a few years later, first in Libya and Egypt, and in the rest of the continent afterwards. The main colonists were the Great Britain and France. The history has shown that Great Britain succeeded to decolonize generally in peace while France had much more problems to give up its colonies, which led to numerous conflicts opposing the colonists and the colonized. It has been the case especially in Algeria where a murderous war lasted almost eight years. The philosopher Frantz Fanon has studied the outbreak of this conflict as he was working in Algeria and he spent some time working on the question of colonialism, drawing the conclusion that violence was the only way to get rid of colonists. This essay will analyse who was Fanon and why he came to such a conclusion along with the reasons why it could be said that he is right ,and finally, the arguments against his statement. Finally, it will aim to prove that even though Fanon had valid points, diplomacy could have been for efficient and less tragic rather than his support to violence.
“One Arab nation from Gulf to the Ocean,” gives meaning to the term “Pan-Arabism” in the Middle East. A notion where Arab nations transcend their state boundaries to form political mergers with other states and achieve an ‘Arab unity.’ The existence of Arab states had been tumultuous throughout the decline of the Muslim order, the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian defeat, Six Day War and Arab-Israeli war in 1973. This essay will critically examine Foud Ajami’s case for a raison d’état in the Middle East and his claim that there were six broad trends leading to the alteration of the balance of power away from Pan-Arabism and towards the state. It will be argued that Pan-Arabism was a romantic ideology that Arab states found convenient to support, all in advancement of their nationalistic state agendas. It was never a realistic endeavor that was physically undertaken by the Arab states and was thus never alive in a tangible sense. However, Pan-Arabism as an ideology had a place in the Middle East and was thus alive in an ideological sense.
In 2010 the Middle East experienced a disturbing series of protests and riots against the government. The term Arab Spring was coined as an allusion for the 1848 revolutions that rocked the Arab world. This devastating revolution saw its inception in a chain of small scale protests for the democratization of the Arabian governments. With its start in Egypt and Tunisia it has not failed in affecting every Arab country from Libya, Sudan and Morocco in the West to Yemen and Saudi Arabia in the East. A branch of the same revolution has successfully managed to become the cause for a civil war outbreak in Syria and even stretched its influence outside the Arab world to affect Iran and Mali.
The fate of the island of Sicily hangs in balance. The Romans hunger for power and land, while Carthage wants the same. Both are powerful and rich traders and planned to stay that way. They were both the most powerful forces in the Mediterranean. Romans held military glory in the highest regard, and made military service a required part of political advancement. Carthage also held military glory highly but their military mainly consisted of mercenary soldiers rather than citizen soldiers
Europe and Africa have been linked together in evaluating the state formation process. Both regions have similarities, strengths, weaknesses, and room for improvement. To this day both regions are far from perfect. Some light can be shed on this subject, by evaluating Europe and Africa’s state formation process, evaluating what party benefits, and briefly explaining two economic consequences of European colonialism in Africa.
Political uprisings in the Middle East, especially in Muslim nation states have placed Arabian politics back on the focus point of international politics. Political events in certain Arab countries had an excessive impact on the political development of other neighboring states. Resistances and anxieties within different Arab countries triggered unpredictable actions, sometimes sorely to observe and believe. The authoritarian governments of Arabian countries led from various dictators have created a precarious situation for their people, especially in providing national security and maintaining peace in the region. Jack Goldstone argues that the degree of a sultan’s weakness has been often only visible in retrospect; due in part to the nature of the military-security complex common across Middle East states (Goldstone 1). In addition, the existence of various statesmen with political affiliation is concerned in faithfulness of its armed forces. Usually, the armed national forces of several states, mainly those in Arab countries are loyal and closely affiliated to their leaders, which have a major role in state regimes. Arab uprisings in their early spreading appeared legally responsible and with concrete demands from representatives’ peoples, calling for a more open democratic system and reasonable governance. Even though, the system in which popular frustration with government imposes alters considerably from one state to another. These public revolts against different authoritative governments didn’t halt just in Arab states, but they sustained also in the Far East and in the Eastern Europe. Can we say that the popular uprisings in Arab countries could be attributed to the term of globalization? In fact, globalization is a multi...
Algeria started as independent groups of natives under Ottoman control located in North Africa, East of Morocco. The people lived for years operating well under their own rules, culture, and pirating ways. The French were attracted by the Algerians' control of the Mediterranean Sea and the trading opportunities it had. Expanding on their empire, the French wanted to gain this influential power and ease of trading in the Mediterranean. After their successful conquest, France considered their newly obtained colony as an extension of their own country, and without consideration of the natives, they proceeded to change the daily lives of native Algerians forever. Through the process of colonization, the French drastically influenced the social, political and economic structures of Algeria by assimilating the native population.
Carthage was founded about 100years earlier than Rome and had very fertile lands and an excellent harbor. It grew economically and politically through trading Gold from Spain, Ivory, Linen, precious stones, and other valuable minerals from different states. They had a very large number of trading vessels to load these products and carry them from pot to pot. They also had a powerful navy of warships. Like the Roman empire the Carthagean empire acquired dominion over the native races of Africa, the Lydians and the Numidians. These two great states had controls over the small states they made their allies, or members of their confederations. They were almost equal in many ways, and even their economies
Africa’s struggle to maintain their sovereignty amidst the encroaching Europeans is as much a psychological battle as it is an economic and political one. The spillover effects the system of racial superiority had on the African continent fractured ...
While the Etruscan culture was developing on the western side of the Apennines, Phoenicians had begun to move across the Mediterranean Sea. Thei...