Protectorate Cyprus: British Imperial Power before World War I

2015 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-108
Author(s):  
Antigone Heraclidou
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
World War ◽  
Imperial Power

Vladislav Khodasevich's "on Your New, Joyous Path" (1914–1915): The Russian Literary Empire Interferes in Polish-Jewish Relations

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 246-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Waysband
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Self Awareness ◽  
Power Struggle ◽  
World War ◽  
Russian Culture ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Imperial Power ◽  
Russian Literary ◽  
Humanitarian Values ◽  
Poetic Response

This paper contextualizes Khodasevich’s unfinished poem “On Your New, Joyous Path” (1914–1915) as his poetic response to his precarious Russian-Polish-Jewish self-awareness as well as to contemporary Polish-Jewish tensions. I argue that for both predicaments, Khodasevich proposes an identical solution: the redemptive assimilation into Russian imperial, supranational culture. This vision crystallized during World War I. At that time, the key dichotomy underlying Khodasevich’s imperial project – between the national and the imperial – took the form of opposition between Polish particularism and the universalism of Russian culture. Yet an attempt to realize this vision in the poem discussed underscores its inner ambiguity, since it reinforces clear-cut imperial narratives of Russia as the epitome of humanitarian values while leaving the logic of imperial power struggle untouched. Conflicting Jewish and Polish identities and the historical circumstances of the Polish-Jewish tensions are considered as a context for the poem’s vision of Russian messianic superiority. In conclusion, I discuss the reception of Khodasevich’s assimilatory project by his target audience.

The French Mandate in Lebanon

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1689-1693
Author(s):  
Carol Hakim
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
French Mandate ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

Islands for an Anxious Empire: Japan’s Pacific Island Mandate

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1699-1703
Author(s):  
Tze M. Loo
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of AHR “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

Railways and Resistance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eileen Ryan
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Direct Relationship ◽  
Political Authority ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial State ◽  
Trade Routes ◽  
Railway Construction ◽  
Imperial Power ◽  
Railway Networks ◽  
Trading Routes

Idris al-Sanusi’s claims to political authority grew in direct relationship to the spread of the colonial state after World War I. One of the primary objectives of negotiations for both parties was the expansion of railway networks in the Cyrenaican interior. Railways symbolized Italy’s arrival as a modern imperial power. For Idris, railways also promised to secure a Sanusi monopoly over trading routes as a source of political authority. The emphasis on railways, however, led to a loss of support from Idris’s political base. Railway construction threatened to undermine the dominance of Sanusi-affiliated tribes over trans-Saharan trade routes based on their access to camels and water supplies. Facing the dissolution of support for his position as a colonial intermediary, Idris al-Sanusi left for self-imposed exile in Egypt in early 1923, months after the rise of a fascist movement in Italy that embraced a virulent form of nationalist expansion.

The British Cameroons Mandate Regime: The Roots of the Twenty-First-Century Political Crisis in Cameroon

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1715-1722
Author(s):  
George N. Njung
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
First Century ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

Betwixt and Between Colony and Nation-State: Liminality, Decolonization, and the South West Africa Mandate

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1704-1708
Author(s):  
Molly McCullers
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
South West ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power ◽  
South West Africa

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

“Sons of the Soil”: Cause Lawyers, the Togo-Cameroun Mandates, and the Origins of Decolonization

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1709-1714
Author(s):  
Meredith Terretta ◽  
Benjamin N. Lawrance
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

The Ottoman Empire: The Mandate That Never Was

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1694-1698
Author(s):  
Yiğit Akın
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

A League to Preserve Empires: Understanding the Mandates System and Avenues for Further Scholarly Inquiry

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1723-1731
Author(s):  
Sean Andrew Wempe
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power ◽  
Scholarly Inquiry

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

An International Regime in an Age of Empire

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1676-1680
Author(s):  
Susan Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document