In a research paper argue for the importance of two factors leading to the decline of the Ottoman Empire. What Awaits you: On-time delivery guarantee Masters and PhD-level writers Automatic plagiarism check 100% Privacy and Confidentiality High Quality custom-written papers
The experiential versus the systemic is a false dichotomy that some of the best Marxian work soundly deconstructs--Thompson being a notable example. It is a close relative of the culture/class split this essay critiques. Plus, the whole point of politics as I see it is to achieve or realize common interests that are nevertheless rooted in somewhat disparate experience.
Type of Paper: PowerPoint Presentation
Create a PowerPoint presentation with 8-10 slides about Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. It should be created as if you were going to teach someone about the subject.
In East Asia tensions arose as Japan attempted to take over China.
The Ottoman Empire's land was split between many new countries
Japan expanded and took control of Manchuria and Korea
Lack of Work Force/ Military:
Labor and army men came out of both
Both Japan and the Ottoman Empire were great contributors of manpower and resources to their allies
Why so Serious?
Although both the Middle East and East Asia both had racial tensions, border changes and a lack of work force and military as a result of WWI, they differed in changes of imperial powers, industrialization, and their motives for expansion.
2. The point of my essay, quite bluntly, is to show that Robinson is wrong about Marxism and that Robinson is not alone, the errors he makes being fundamental not only to current theorizing about race and class, my two principal concerns, but also to current theorizing about gender, culture, "relative autonomy" and causal explanations of oppression and exploitation. So while this essay focuses on , it will, by way of contextualizing it for the present, discuss as well and in some detail the work of Kelley--especially his foreword--and labor historian David Roediger. In my conclusion, I will suggest further affinities between Robinson's work and a wide range of contemporary theorists who in their various ways recapitulate many of Robinson's premises.
In the 19th century, Ottoman history became dominated by European expansion and wars, as Europeans at that time were violently fighting for territories, which were some Europeans, but mostly non-European. It was the most rapid and frenetic annexation of the territories the human history had ever seen. The result of those events was constant weakening of the Ottoman Empire and subsequent loss of the Empire and dynasty itself.
“The Ottoman Empire was… vulnerable to many pressures. Spread over a vast area stretching from the borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the west to the Russian Empire, Persia and the Arabian peninsula in the north and east and, to the south, Egypt and north Africa, it contained many subject peoples and many diverse regions. Fighting a rear-guard battle against nationalist independence movements within its borders and European imperial ambition from without them, the Empire had, by the turn of the century, one trump card. This was the general desire of the European Powers for it to survive as a political entity, for its total disintegration was a worse alternative.” (Kent, 1996)
There were several serious wars and rebellions which contributed to the weakness of the Ottoman Empire, bu the most crucial for Ottoman history appeared the Crimean Was in the middle of the 19th century along with Balkan wars and rebellions.
So, this war was the unique in the history of the Ottoman Empire, as it was not influenced by Ottomans itself. When France and Britain joined the war on the side of Ottomans, the war became European. Britain had the following interests in Ottoman Empire that they were willing to protect: “From the British standpoint, the preservation of the integrity of the empire served to help maintain the balance of power in Europe. It also afforded significant opportunities for the marketing of British manufactured goods because of the preferential customs duties provided for under the Capitulations agreement.” 2Finally the war ended not for the benefit of Russians and the Paris peace of 1856 was unfavorable to them. But primarily it had important consequences for the Ottoman Empire, as it realized itself being tightly controlled by European powers. The Crimean War can be called the war that initiated the decline of Ottoman helplessness and moral. And from the other side, Europeans were no longer envisioning Ottomans as equal rivals, but as the tool in reaching their objectives.
The British and the Ottomans were states that succeeded in this process, but becoming an empire such as theirs required vast amounts of political and social maneuvering to expand their boundaries, called imperialism.
Even though many European countries were in some way contributing to the weakness of Ottomans, Russia was the most successful force. Russians were interested in several key territories of the Empire, and the only thing that making them constrain their interests, was balance European countries. Russia feared Germany and Austria, which were against Russia controlling Eastern Europe. The main target of Russian was Constantinople (Istanbul), because the control of the city would mean the control over the whole trade between Europe and Asia though the Black Sea. On the other side, Ottomans were strangle discouraged by dependency on European powers, old military state and overall situation in the Empire.
So, it becomes clear that in 16-17th centuries, the Ottoman Empire was losing its power and laid the foundation to the further decline and consequent fall.