Consequently, much of the agriculturaladvances of the nineteenth century would not have oc-curred without glass. As for astronomy, there wouldhave been no way of demonstrating the structure of thesolar system, no measurement of stellar parallax, no wayof substantiating the conjectures of Copernicus and Gal-ileo.These ﬁndings initiated a line of inquiry that, throughtheapplicationof glass instruments,hasrevolutionized theunderstanding of the universe and deep space. And inbiology, without glass we would have no understandingof cell division (or of cells), no detailed understanding ofgenetics, and certainly no discovery of DNA. Withouteyeglasses, a majority of the population in the Westernworld over the age of ﬁfty would not be able to readthis article.The role of glass in history goes far beyond science.Without mirrors, lenses, and panes of glass the artisticdevelopments of the Renaissance would not haveoccurred. The new understanding of the laws of optics,along with the new accuracy and precision in paintingwere largely dependent on glass instruments of variouskinds.The divergence of world art systems in the periodbetween 1350 and 1500 is impossible to conceive ofwithout the development of ﬁne glass, which onlyoccurred at that time in Venice.Glass is not just a tool to aid in understanding theworld, but also a tool to enhance comfort, efﬁciency, andhealth. Glass lets light into interiors and is a hard andcleanable surface. This was one of its attractions to thefastidious Romans as a raw material for vessels, and like-wise for the Dutch—in whose country the use of glassdeveloped most.Transparent glass lets in light so housedirt becomes more visible.The glass itself must be cleanto be effective. So glass, both from its nature and theeffects it has, makes hygiene easier to achieve. And, glassnot only altered the private house, but in due coursetransformed shops, which began to arrange their mer-chandise behind glass windows.Glass also helped transform agriculture and knowl-edge about plants. The use of glass in horticulture wasnot an invention of the early modern Europeans. TheRomans had used forcing houses and protected theirgrapes with glass. This Roman idea was revived in thelater Middle Ages, when glass pavilions for growingﬂowers and later fruit and vegetables begin to appear.As glass became cheaper and ﬂat window glass im-proved in quality, greenhouses improved the cultivationof fruit and vegetables, bringing a healthier diet to thepopulation. In the nineteenth century, glass containersmade it possible for seeds and plants to be carried safelyon long sea journeys from all over the world to add vari-ety to European farms and gardens.Among other innovations that altered daily life werestormproof lanterns, enclosed coaches, lighthouses, andstreet lighting.Thus travel and navigation were safer andeasier.The sextant requires glass and the precision chro-nometer cannot be used at sea without glass. Glass bot-tles created a revolution in drinking habits by allowingwine and beers to be more easily stored and transported.Glass even affected what humans believed (stained glass)and how they perceived themselves (mirrors).Thus, at ﬁrst through drinking vessels and windows,then through lanterns, lighthouses, greenhouses, tele-scopes, and microscopes, and later through cameras, tel-evisions, and computer screens, the modern world builtround glass emerged.Alan Macfarlane and Gerry MartinSee also Scientiﬁc InstrumentsFurther ReadingBlair, D. (1973). History of glass in Japan. New York: HarperCollins.Dikshit, M. G. (1969). History of Indian glass. Mumbai, India: Univer-sity of Bombay.Gottlieb, C. (1981). The window in art. New York: Abaris Books.Honey, W. B. (1987). English glass. London: Bracken Books.Klein, D., & Lloyd, W. (2002). (Eds.). The history of glass. Boston: Lit-tle, Brown.Liefkes, R. (1997). (Ed.). Glass. London: Victoria & Albert Museum.MacFarlane, A., & Martin, G. (2002). The glass bathyscaphe: How glasschanged the world. London: Proﬁle Books.McGrath, R., & Frost, A. C. (1961). Glass in architecture and decoration.London: Architectural Press.Phillips, P. (1987). (Ed.). The encyclopedia of glass. London: PeerageBooks.Tait, H. (2004). (Ed.). Five thousand years of glass. Philadelphia: PennPress.Zerwick, C. (1990). A short history of glass. Corning, NY: CorningMuseum of Glass.834 berkshire encyclopedia of world historyPainting is the grandchild of nature. It is relatedto God.•Rembrandt (1606–1669)
Global CommonsThe global commons are domains that lie beyond theexclusive jurisdiction of any state, but which may beused by all states and their nationals.Among areas tradi-tionally considered as global commons are the world’soceans, the Antarctic, the atmosphere, and outer space,all of which today are governed by international regula-tory regimes.OceansThe oldest recognized commons are the world’s oceans.Ocean space covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface,touches 150 states, and serves as a main conduit for in-ternational trade and commerce, as well as a vast store-house of food, mineral, and energy resources.The 1982United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is theframework instrument for managing the ocean com-mons. Its 440 provisions incorporate generally acceptedprinciples relating to activities on, over, and under theworld’s oceans.With respect to offshore delimitation, theconvention adopts a 12-mile territorial sea, over whichthe coastal state enjoys all rights of sovereignty.The con-vention creates a new delimitation, the exclusive eco-nomic zone (EEZ), which establishes offshore state jur-isdiction over the exploration for and exploitation ofnatural resources. It provides objective criteria for delin-eating the outer limits of the continental shelf and thehigh seas, and it articulates certain freedoms for use ofthe high seas, including vessel navigation, aircraft over-ﬂight, and the rights to ﬁsh, lay pipelines and cables, andconduct marine scientiﬁc research. The convention alsoestablishes the right of vessels (and aircraft) to passunimpeded through international straits, as well as obli-gations for all states to protect the marine environmentand to regulate scientiﬁc marine research. The most dif-ﬁcult issue negotiated in the convention concerned deepseabed mining and who has the right to mine manganesenodules from the deep seabed—states with the technol-ogy to do so or an international regulatory body? Theconvention establishes an international organizationalstructure to regulate future deep seabed exploitation.The AntarcticThe Antarctic commons encompasses the massive ice-covered continent surrounded by the Southern Ocean.Antarctica approximates the size of the United States andMexico combined (14 million square kilometers), and isthe highest, windiest, most desolate continent. It is alsothe world’s largest desert (in terms of precipitation), yetparadoxically contains 70 percent of the world’s freshwater frozen in its massive ice cap. Argentina, Australia,Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the UnitedKingdom claim territory in the Antarctic. Following thesuccessful International Geophysical Year during 1957–1958, these seven states, along with Belgium, Japan,South Africa, the Soviet Union, and the United States,agreed that preserving international cooperation in theAntarctic was essential. In 1959, the governments of alltwelve nations negotiated the Antarctic Treaty, which in2004 has forty-ﬁve parties.This agreement totally demil-itarizes the continent, freezes the claims, and ensures free-dom of scientiﬁc investigation. Additional agreements forthe Antarctic have been negotiated, including the 1964Agreed Measures for the Conservation of the AntarcticFauna and Flora, the 1972 Convention for the Conser-vation of Antarctic Seals, the 1980 Convention for theConservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, a1988 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic MineralResource Activities (which never entered into force), andthe 1991 Environmental Protection Protocol to theAntarctic Treaty. Serious problems still confront theAntarctic commons, among them increasing shipbornetourism to the region, the accelerating depletion of ﬁsh-eries in circumpolar seas, and the effects of global warm-ing resulting in disintegration of Antarctic ice shelves.The AtmosphereThe atmosphere includes the troposphere (where weatherpatterns begin), as well as the stratosphere (where theozone layer is located), the mesosphere, and beyond.Theatmosphere provides virtually limitless sources of oxy-gen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen essential for all life, aswell as the water needed for living resources. At the sametime it shields the earth from ultraviolet radiation, cosmicrays, and meteors.global commons 835We must become the change we want to see.• Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948)
Three manmade threats to the atmosphere requiredcreation of special regimes.The ﬁrst of these occurs in thestratosphere and relates to human-released chloroﬂuoro-carbons (CFCs) that react photochemically, thereby erod-ing the ozone layer. This process permits more intenseultraviolet radiation and greatly ampliﬁes the risk ofskin cancer for larger numbers of people in the SouthernHemisphere. Reaction to this threat in 1985 producedthe Vienna Convention for the Protection of the OzoneLayer, but this instrument does not contain speciﬁcs onhow to arrest ozone depletion; it merely calls for action.Consequently in September 1987, governments negoti-ated the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Depletethe Ozone Layer, which sets out a schedule for progres-sively phasing out CFCs.A second atmospheric threat concerns global climatechange. Human activities—most importantly deforesta-tion and the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, andnatural gas—are known to be altering the atmosphere’scomposition and contributing to global warming, althoughuncertainty still surrounds its severity or future effects.These changes cause glaciers and polar ice caps to melt,thereby raising sea levels and threatening islands andlow-lying coastal areas.The international response to theclimate change threat came in the U.N. Framework Con-vention on Climate Change, adopted at the Rio Summitin 1992. This instrument establishes a process for vol-untary reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In Decem-ber 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated to legallycommit industrialized states to reduce greenhouse gasemissions. Final negotiations on the protocol in 2001require industrialized states to reduce their combinedannual greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 to 5.2 percentbelow the levels measured in 1990.A third threat to the atmospheric commons is airbornetransnational pollution. The air serves as a medium for836 berkshire encyclopedia of world historyTreaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States …During the competitive halcyon days of space explo-ration, the United Nations, with the support of the for-mer Soviet Union and the United States, passed theTreaty on Governing the Activities of States in theExploration and Use of Outer Space, including theMoon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1967. Alongwith the U.N.’s myriad treaties related to the law gov-erning exploration of the sea, these principles providean example of nations working together to ensure thefuture of global commons such as outer space.The States Parties to this Treaty,Inspired by the great prospects opening up beforemankind as a result of man’s entry into outer space,Recognizing the common interest of all mankindin the progress of the exploration and use of outerspace for peaceful purposes,Believing that the exploration and use of outerspace should be carried on for the beneﬁt of all peo-ples irrespective of the degree of their economic orscientiﬁc development,Desiring to contribute to broad international co-operation in the scientiﬁc as well as the legal aspectsof the exploration and use of outer space for peace-ful purposes,Believing that such co-operation will contribute tothe development of mutual understanding and to thestrengthening of friendly relations between Statesand peoples,…Have agreed on the following:Article IThe exploration and use of outer space, including themoon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried outfor the beneﬁt and in the interests of all countries,irrespective of their degree of economic or scientiﬁcdevelopment, and shall be the province of allmankind.Outer space, including the moon and other celes-tial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by allStates without discrimination of any kind, on a basisof equality and in accordance with international law,and there shall be free access to all areas of celestialbodies.There shall be freedom of scientiﬁc investigation inouter space, including the moon and other celestialbodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage inter-national co-operation in such investigation.
pollutants, most notably transnational acid precipitationfrom the United Kingdom over Scandinavia and fromthe United States over Canada. In 1979 the InternationalTreaty on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution(LRTAP) was negotiated, which remains the preeminentattempt to regulate transboundary air pollution. At leasteight protocols have been negotiated to curb speciﬁc pol-lutants, such as sulfur emissions and nitrous oxide.Outer SpaceThe ﬁnal global commons is outer space, which extendsbeyond the earth’s atmosphere. As humans seek to usethis region, the need for regulating it grows. Special inter-national agreements now comprise a legal regime formanaging the outer space commons.The main agreementis the1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activitiesof States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space.Thisagreement sets out core duties for states using outerspace. Among these are the stipulation that explorationand use of outer space shall be carried out in the interestsof all countries; outer space shall be free for explorationand use by all states; outer space is not subject to nationalappropriation by claim of sovereignty; no weapons ofmass destruction may be placed in orbit or on celestialbodies; the moon and other celestial bodies shall be usedexclusively for peaceful purposes; and states shall beliable for damage caused by their space objects.Other major space law instruments include the 1968Convention on the Rescue and Return of Astronauts andthe Return of Objects Launched into Space, the 1972Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects Conven-tion, and the 1975 Convention on Registration ofObjects Launched into Outer Space. A ﬁfth accord, the1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States onthe Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the Moon Treaty),has attracted few parties and no space-faring state.global commons 837Article IIOuter space, including the moon and other celestialbodies, is not subject to national appropriation byclaim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation,or by any other means.Article IIIStates Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities inthe exploration and use of outer space, including themoon and other celestial bodies, in accordance withinternational law, including the Charter of the UnitedNations, in the interest of maintaining internationalpeace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.Article IVStates Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place inorbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclearweapons or any other kinds of weapons of massdestruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies,or station such weapons in outer space in any othermanner.The moon and other celestial bodies shall be usedby all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively forpeaceful purposes. The establishment of militarybases, installations and fortiﬁcations, the testing ofany type of weapons and the conduct of militarymanoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.The use of military personnel for scientiﬁc research orfor any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohib-ited. The use of any equipment or facility necessaryfor peaceful exploration of the moon and other celes-tial bodies shall also not be prohibited….Article XIIAll stations, installations, equipment and space vehi-cles on the moon and other celestial bodies shall beopen to representatives of other States Parties to theTreaty on a basis of reciprocity. Such representativesshall give reasonable advance notice of a projectedvisit, in order that appropriate consultations may beheld and that maximum precautions may betaken toassure safety and to avoid interference with normaloperations in the facility to be visited.Source: United Nations Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Explo-ration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967).Retrieved from http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/outersptxt.htm
The industrial revolution profoundly changed how theglobal commons are used, particularly in terms ofresource exploitation and environmental degradation. Ifthe oceans, Antarctica, the atmosphere, and outer spaceare to provide future beneﬁts for all humankind, gov-ernments will have to cooperate more closely to regulateand enforce the legal regimes created for their protectionand conservation.Christopher C. JoynerFurther ReadingIndependent World Commission on the Oceans. (1998). The ocean ourfuture: Report of the Independent World Commission on the Oceans.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Joyner, C. C. (1998). Governing the frozen commons: The Antarcticregime and environmental protection. Columbia: University of SouthCarolina Press.Joyner, C. C. (2001). Global commons: The oceans, Antarctica, theatmosphere, and outer space. In P. J. Simmons & C. D. Oudraat(Eds.), Managing global issues: Lessons learned (pp 354-391). Wash-ington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace..Oceans and Law of the Sea. (2004). Retrieved April 29, 2004, fromhttp://www.un.org/Depts/los/Soroos, M. S. (1997). The changing atmosphere: The quest for environ-mental security. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.GlobalImperialism and GenderFrom the late nineteenth century until the end ofWorld War II, all of the most powerful nations onEarth (along with others that aspired to great power)pursued the strategy of imperialism in an attempt toachieve national political and economic goals. Althoughimperialism was not new (Great Britain is a notable ex-ample of a country whose pursuit of empire began twocenturies earlier), this period is historically unique be-cause so many nations became involved in imperial ven-tures and because the territories they claimed were soextensive. Between 1885 and 1914 alone Europeancountries added 2.8 billion hectares to their imperial ter-ritories, the United States and Japan joined Europeancountries in the pursuit of empire, nearly all of Africacame under colonial domination, and the British empiregrew to include one-quarter of the world’s population.Societies and systems established by imperial nationsvaried greatly across time and space. Some became set-tler colonies, where colonizers would establish large,permanent communities. Others were created becauseof the resources that could be extracted or because oftheir strategic location and were ruled by small num-bers of administrators backed by military force, or evenby indigenous groups overseen by colonial administra-tors. Whatever form imperial societies took, they allprofoundly affected both rulers and ruled economi-cally, socially, culturally, and politically. Moreover, dur-ing the last two decades scholars have begun tounderstand that imperial systems around the worldwere maintained and legitimized, at least in part,through the use of language and policies based on gen-der ideals. These ideals included beliefs about theappropriate behaviors and sexualities of both men andwomen and were frequently used to mark distinctionsbetween colonizing and indigenous cultures.They werealso frequently inseparable from beliefs and attitudesabout racial difference and were often used to shore upnotions about the inherent inequality of colonized peo-ples. In addition, colonial encounters between rulersand ruled—varied though they were—changed localgender relationships and ideals in ways that deeplyaffected culture in the colonies as well as in imperialmetropolises. These changes were not uniform in allcolonies, or even within the various “national” empires.Rather, they depended on existing indigenous cultures,the presence or absence of natural resources, the pres-ence or absence of colonial settlers, the degree of incor-poration into the global economy, access to land, andmany other factors.When examined from a global per-spective, then, the relationship between imperialismand gender emerges as a complex phenomenon. At the838 berkshire encyclopedia of world historyA woman needs a man like a ﬁsh needs a bicycle.•Irina Dunn (usuallyattributed to Gloria Steinem, twentieth century)
same time, we can also detect several broad similaritiesthat elucidate global connections and patterns.Gender as a Meansof Marking HierarchyBeliefs about gender, sexuality, and gender roles werecentral to imperial endeavors around the world becausesuch beliefs provided legitimation for preserving dis-tinctions between rulers and the ruled and because theyhelped colonizers categorize—and hence divide—indi-genous peoples into distinct and knowable groups.Although the precise form that such beliefs took variedacross time and space, the need to clearly mark theboundaries between colonizer and colonized throughlanguage and practices associated with gender and gen-der difference was widely shared across many imperialsystems.Nearly every imperial system sought to justify theunequal distribution of power between rulers and ruled—and even the existence of colonies themselves—byconcerning itself with the sexual behaviors, appetites,and attitudes of colonized men and women. One recur-ring theme in French Indochina, British India, the DutchEast Indies, and British South Africa—to name only afew—was the idea that white women were in constantdanger from the voracious and perverse sexual appetitesof colonized men.The fear of rape, and the need to pro-tect white women from it, hence came to justify the strictseparation between colonizers and colonized as well asthe careful control of both colonized men and whitewomen. As a result, white women often found their livesin colonies paradoxically quite comfortable (because ofservants, privilege, and leisure time) as well as quiterestricted. Colonized men, for their part, were routinelyexcluded from positions in which they might have evena remote chance of exercising power over white women.They also found themselves at risk of severe punishmentif they transgressed the boundary between themselvesand colonizing women. Perhaps not surprisingly, rheto-ric about the need to control colonized men and to pro-tect white women grew more intense during times ofhigh colonial tension.One example of the ways in which gender could beemployed to maintain distinctions between rulers andruled was the 1883–1884 Ilbert Bill controversy inBritish India. The bill had been designed to concede asmall amount of power to Indian civil servants by allow-ing Indian judges jurisdiction over some European cases.However, Britons in India vehemently opposed even theslightest suggestion that Indians might be able to pro-nounce judgment over Europeans and openly attackedthe bill on the grounds that it threatened the safety ofwhite women. Although the bill itself said nothing aboutwomen, opponents argued that it opened the door forIndian civil servants—whose ultimate fantasy, theyasserted, was the possession of a white woman—to usetheir new power to take sexual advantage of Britishwomen. Moreover, opponents claimed that Indian mencould not be expected to treat British women withdecency because they were said to treat their own womenso poorly. In the end opposition to the bill among theBritish community in India was so strong that it had tobe dropped. Indian men had been kept ﬁrmly in a subor-dinate role through rhetorical claims about the genderedconsequences of conceding power to colonized men.Anxieties about racial mixing—miscegenation—alsoechoed widely across imperial systems during the lasthalf of the nineteenth century, and here again beliefsabout gender and sexuality played critical roles in main-taining the separation between rulers and ruled. Mostimperial systems were predicated on the belief that col-onizing men needed sex in order to be satisﬁed. Theproblem, however, was a shortage of colonizing womenin many colonial societies—even those that encouragedsettler families. As a result, colonizing men frequentlyestablished sexual relations with indigenous womenthrough prostitution, concubinage, or, less commonly,marriage. Such relationships were rarely based on truepartnership: Even when colonized women entered intothem of their own choice (abundant evidence suggeststhat the use of force and manipulation was quite com-mon), they enjoyed few rights or privileges and could bediscarded at will. Moreover, these sexual relationshipsproduced a whole set of new problems. Chief amongglobal imperialism and gender 839
these was how to maintain distinctions between colo-nizers and colonized given the existence of such intimaterelationships. Even more problematic was how to classifyand treat the mixed-race children who resulted fromthese relationships.In the East Indies Dutch efforts to confront theseissues illustrate both the centrality of sex management toimperial projects as well as the ways state policies aboutthe regulation of sex could change over time. Prior to thetwentieth century the Dutch East Indies Companysharply restricted the immigration of Dutch women tothe East Indies. The company reasoned that Dutch menwould be more likely to remain in the East Indies if theyestablished long-term relationships with indigenouswomen. Moreover, indigenous women were less expen-sive to maintain than European women and could beexpected to perform domestic labor in addition to theirsexual functions. For these reasons the company advo-cated that Dutch men keep concubines—women whoshared all of the duties of wives without the legal pro-tections and entitlements of marriage. By the 1880sconcubinage was the most common domestic arrange-ment for European men in the Indies, a situation thatproduced tens of thousands of mixed-race children.Yet,by the turn of the twentieth century, the existence of thislarge mixed-race population had begun to worry theDutch East Indies Company and the Dutch governmentbecause it threatened to blur the divide between the col-onizers and the colonized.To which group did these chil-dren belong? Were they Dutch or Indonesian? Wouldthey support Dutch rule, or would they try to subvert it?As part of these worries, Dutch ofﬁcials increasinglybegan to argue that Indonesian concubines had neitherthe skills nor the morals to raise their mixed-race childrento be adults worthy of Dutch citizenship. As a result, dur-ing the early twentieth century the Dutch governmentreversed earlier policy by seeking to ban the practice ofconcubinage and to encourage instead the immigrationof Dutch women to the Indies. These women, the gov-ernment now believed, would provide a civilizing inﬂu-ence on Dutch men and would have the cultural skills toraise their children to be proper Dutch citizens. ForEuropean men who could not afford Dutch wives, thegovernment now encouraged prostitution as a means ofside-stepping long-term, family-style liaisons with indige-nous women. In both the pre- and post-twentieth-centuryEast Indies, government concerns with the sexuality andsexual behaviors of both men and women, colonizersand colonized, highlight the central importance of sexmanagement—and the gender relationships such man-agement depended upon—to the imperial state.Beliefs about gender also contributed to imperial poli-cies of divide and rule—that is, policies that emphasizeddifferences between subgroups of colonized peoples as away of minimizing uniﬁed opposition to imperial rule. Inplaces as far-ﬂung as India, Indonesia, South Africa, andFrench West Africa, to mention only a few, such policiesencouraged preferential treatment of certain groups,which tended to pit these groups against less-preferredgroups. Moreover, colonizing powers often bestowedfavor on groups who seemed to embody colonizers’ ownnotions of ideal masculinity. In French Algeria, for exam-840 berkshire encyclopedia of world historyThis drawing from the London Magazine(May 1774) uses a female ﬁgure tosymbolize the English-American situation in1774. Lord North is shown forcing teadown the throat of a partially clothed femalerepresenting America whose arms are heldby Lord Mansﬁeld. Lord Sandwich holds herlegs and peeks up her skirt. Britannia standsbehind America and turns away whileshielding her face with her hand.
ple, French colonial administrators articulated stark divi-sions between the two major ethnic groups in the region:Kabyles and Arabs. Kabyles, the administrators argued,were superior to Arabs in nearly every way. Kabyles weresedentary rather than nomadic; they lived in mountainsrather than the plains; they spoke an Aryan languagerather than a Semitic one; and they were secular ratherthan religious. Gender ideals were also central to Kabylesuperiority. The French, for instance, perceived Kabylemen as tall and athletic and likened their bodies to Frenchideals of the male physique. Kabyles were also said to bebrave and ﬁerce warriors who had proven themselvesworthy foes of the French. Finally, despite their ferocity,Kabyles were said to treat their women with respect,which again resonated with French notions about them-selves.Arabs, on the other hand, were perceived as phys-ically small, lazy, slovenly, and cowardly people whobrutally oppressed their women. These perceptions ofgendered difference were neither trivial nor matters ofsimple representation. Rather, they encouraged prefer-ential treatment for Kabyles, imposed a strict divisionbetween two indigenous groups, and deeply inﬂuencedFrench-Arab interactions in Algeria. Indeed, the languageof gender difference in imperial situations served notonly to maintain distinctions between rulers and ruled,but also to maintain distinctions between differentgroups of colonized people.Gender and the ColonialEncounterColonial encounters between rulers and ruled had pro-found social, cultural, political, and economic effects allover the world. In terms of gender, such encounters fre-quently disrupted local ideologies, relations, and tradi-tions and often led to changes in all three. In virtuallyevery colonial encounter, the gender ideals of the colo-nizing powers helped to shape colonial practice, law, andculture. However, the way such ideals were translatedinto policy depended upon the response of colonizedpeoples, and thus the effect of such ideals was neitheruniform nor predictable. Moreover, the disruptive effectsof the colonial encounter on gender ideals were not aone-way street because they inﬂuenced gender ideals inimperial home countries as well.Nineteenth-century Hawaii illustrates the ways colo-nial gender ideals could interact with indigenous genderideals in unexpected ways. Prior to contact with western-ers during the eighteenth century, Hawaiian culture hadimposed sexual separation between men and womenand had mandated that women follow certain eatingtaboos. In other respects, however, Hawaiian womenplayed important social, economic, political, and spiritualroles and maintained a large degree of personal auton-omy. As Western—especially U.S.—inﬂuence increasedinHawaiiduring the nineteenthcentury,Hawaiianwomenwere criticized as being sexually immoral, were consis-tently written out of U.S.-dominated politics, and wereincreasingly deﬁned as legally subordinate to Hawaiianand U.S. men. Thus, as a result of U.S. intervention intoHawaiian society, Hawaiian women’s legal and socialpositions deteriorated.Yet, these same interventions alsoled to an improvement in Hawaiian women’s position aslandholders during the last half of the nineteenth century.This unexpected improvement was the result of the GreatMahele of 1848, when the Hawaiian government—underduress by U.S. interests—divided Hawaiian land into sal-ablepieces.TheoverallresultforHawaiiansin generalwasmassive dispossession from the land. For Hawaiianwomen, however, the results were much more ambiguousbecause the number of women who inherited land in thepost-Great Mahele period dramatically increased. In partthis increase was a result of indigenous choices and beliefsabout women as effective guardians of Hawaiian land.The net effect was the preservation of Hawaiian women’seconomic and social importance even as their legal sta-tus diminished as a result of discriminatory U.S. policies.Further cases illustrating the interaction of colonialand indigenous gender ideals abound in colonial Africa.In northern Ghana, for example, the implementation ofthe British judicial system brought about a deteriorationin indigenous women’s legal status. In particular, colo-nial rule sought to introduce and enforce the notion thatwives werethe propertyoftheir husbands—a notion that,althoughforeignto Ghanaian gender ideals,allowedmenglobal imperialism and gender 841But history, real solemn history, I cannot be interested in…I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all—it is very tiresome.• Jane Austen as Catherine Morland in Northanger Abbey(1775–1817)
to claim increasing legal control of their wives.In colonialTanganyika European authorities instituted policies—such as taxation and the conversion of cattle sales to cash—that increasingly deﬁned Masai men as heads of house-holds and allowed them privileged access to the politicaldomain. Masai women, who had long played vital eco-nomic and social roles within their communities, werethus increasingly marginalized by colonial policies thatclearly favored men as political and economic actors. Atthe same time African women were not merely passive vic-tims of a patriarchal partnership between colonizers andindigenous males. Rather, African women in many colo-nial states manipulated colonial court systems for theirown beneﬁt, ventured into independent economic enter-prises, and moved into new occupations—as teachers ormidwives—opened up to them by the colonial encounter.Colonial encounters could also shape gender relationsin imperial home countries. In Britain imperialism in-formed the gender identities of both women and men andoften provided the context within which claims aboutappropriate gender roles were made. A case in point wastheBritishfeminist movement,whichdevelopedandgrewduring the last half of the nineteenth century—and thuscoincided with the massive expansion of the Britishempire. British feminists advocated equal legal rightswith British men, but they justiﬁed their claims to equal-ity by arguing for the need to represent and civilize colo-nized—especially Indian—women. Indeed, feministsargued that the oppressed condition of Indian womennecessitated their own political participation so theycould utilize their superior moral authority to“uplift” theirIndian “sisters.” In this context British feminists’ sense ofthemselves as women depended heavily on their percep-tion of gender relations in the wider imperial world.Gender and the NationalistResponse to ImperialismGiven the centrality of gender ideologies to imperial proj-ects around the world, we should not be surprised thatthey were similarly central to a variety of nationalist re-sponses to imperialism.Yet, gendered responses to impe-rialism did not follow set patterns across time or spaceand varied widely in relation to both the colonial powerand local culture. One pattern that did emerge in placesas diverse as post-1945 India and Indonesia, 1960s and1970s Zimbabwe, and 1950s and 1960s Algeria was theformulation of an aggressive, hypermasculine nationalistrhetoric.Where this pattern emerged, colonized womensometimes became targets of nationalist violence. Inother cases they were idealized and made to stand assymbols of purity and tradition. Both strategies tended tomarginalize women’s roles in nationalist struggles andtended to complicate postimperial gender relations. Asecond, paradoxical, pattern was the active participationof women in most nationalist movements all over theworld. Indeed, women from French Indochina toJamaica to Angola served in critical roles as messengers,providers, and even as soldiers.The case of Zimbabwe in Africa illustrates the com-plex ways gender could help constitute the language andpractices of anti-imperial nationalist movements. Undercolonial rule Zimbabwean men felt increasingly emas-culated as they lost status to white Europeans, weretreated as children, and were unable to protect Zimbab-wean women from the sexual advances of colonizingmen. Emasculation took more material forms as wellbecause colonial rule had made it progressively moredifﬁcult for Zimbabwean men to achieve those goals thatwere thought to mark ideal masculinity—including espe-cially taking a wife, buying land, and providing for a fam-ily.As a result, Zimbabwean nationalism during the 1960sand 1970s took on an aggressively masculine posture(the two main parties styled themselves after the cockand the bull) that emphasized the importance of beingmanly, virile, and heterosexual. Incidents of violenceagainst womenincreased dramatically during this period,evidencedbyaspikeinthenumberofrapesandattemptedrapes. At the same time, women’s actual participation inthe Zimbabwean nationalist movement was crucial toits eventual success. They provided information tonationalist guerrillas, gave food and shelter to nation-alist ﬁghters, and, after 1975, were trained as guerrillaﬁghters themselves.Yet, in spite of such active women’sparticipation, Zimbabwean independence in 1980 didnot lead to equality for Zimbabwean women. Instead,like many other states that emerged in the wake of842 berkshire encyclopedia of world historyThe power I exert on the court depends on the power of my arguments, not on my gender.•Sandra Day O’Connor (b. 1930)
successful anti-imperial movements, patriarchy was sim-ply reconﬁgured in new ways—boosted and encour-aged by the aggressively masculine ways that manycolonized men responded to their colonial overlords.The Indonesian nationalist movement during theimmediate post-World War II period shared the hyper-masculine tone of the Zimbabwean nationalist move-ment. As in Zimbabwe, Indonesian men had long en-dured denigration by Dutch colonizers, who consistentlyreferred to Indonesian—and especially Javanese—menas weak and effeminate. Moreover, Dutch men had gainedprivileged access to Indonesian women.To combat thissense of emasculation, Indonesian nationalists in theanticolonial war of 1945–1949 consciously adopted anaggressively masculine ethos by celebrating toughness,virility, and militarism and broke with established (Java-nese) cultural traditions of courtesy and gentleness. Inthis revolutionary movement, women and female sexu-ality were seen as dangerous and even traitorous.Women’scolonial roles as concubines (nyais) had made them sus-pect as potential spies, and weakness associated withwomen was viewed as a potential drain on, and distrac-tion from, the cause of revolution. Indeed, because somany Indonesian nationalists felt it necessary to ﬁghtEuropean imperialism with a new, hypermasculine gen-der identity, the movement turned against its female sup-porters in a bid to create a new sense of masculinity onthe European model.ImplicationsThe relationship between global imperialism and gen-der was complex. It was not uniform across space andtime, and its precise form varied widely according tolocal conditions, the colonial culture being imposed,and the speciﬁc issues involved. Moreover, the conse-quences of gender ideals in imperial situations oftenworked themselves out in unintended, ambiguous, andunexpected ways. What is clear, however, is that beliefsabout gender were central to imperial projects aroundthe world and that they had real, observable effects inthe material world as well as in the realm of represen-tation, discourse, and psychology. In addition, gen-dered responses to imperial control played a role inshaping gender relations in many newly independentnations, with effects that can still be felt in the present.Heather StreetsSee also ImperialismFurther ReadingAllman, J., & Burton, A. (2003). Destination globalization? Women,gender and comparative histories in the new millennium. Journal ofColonialism and Colonial History, 4(2), 1–10.Allman, J., Geiger, S., & Musisi, N. (2002). Women in African colonialhistories. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Ballhatchet, K. (1980). Race, sex, and class under the Raj: Imperial atti-tudes and policies and their critics. London: Weidenﬁeld andNicolson.Burton, A. (1994). Burdens of history: British feminists, Indian women,and imperial culture, 1865–1915. Chapel Hill: University of NorthCarolina Press.Chaudhuri, N., & Strobel, M. (1992). Western women and imperialism:Complicity and resistance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Clancy-Smith, J., & Gouda, F. (1998). Domesticating the empire: Race,gender, and family life in French and Dutch colonialism. Char-lottesville: University Press of Virginia.Cooper, F., & Stoler, A. L. (1997). Tensions of empire: Colonial culturesin a bourgeois world. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali-fornia Press.Dawson, G. (1994). Soldier heroes: British adventure, empire, and theimagining of masculinities. London: Routledge.Epprecht, M. (1998). The “unsaying” of indigenous homosexualities inZimbabwe: Mapping a blindspot in an African masculinity. Journal ofSouthern African Studies, 24(4), 631–651.Hodgson, D. (1999). “Once intrepid warriors”: Modernity and the pro-duction of Maasai masculinities. Ethnology, 38(2), 121–150.Holden, P., & Ruppel, J. (2003). Imperial desire: Dissident sexualitiesand colonial literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Kleeman, F.Y. (2003). Under an imperial sun: Japanese colonial literatureof Taiwan and the South. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Levine, P. (2003). Prostitution, race, and politics: Policing venereal dis-ease in the British empire. New York: Routledge.Linnekin, J. (1990). Sacred queens and women of consequence: Rank, gen-der, and colonialism in the Hawaiian Islands. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press.Lorcin, P. (1999). Imperial identities: Stereotyping, prejudice, and race incolonial Algeria. London: I. B.Tauris.Midgley, C. (1998). Gender and imperialism. Manchester, UK: Man-chester University Press.Sangari, K., & Vaid, S. (1990). Recasting women: Essays in Indian colo-nial history. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Sinha, M. (1995). Colonial masculinity:The “manly Englishman” and the“effeminate Bengali” in the late nineteenth century. Manchester, UK:Manchester University Press.Stoler, A. L. (2002). Carnal knowledge and imperial power: Race and theintimate in colonial rule. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cal-ifornia Press.Streets, H. (2004). Martial races: The military, masculinity, and race inBritish imperial culture, 1857–1914. Manchester, UK: ManchesterUniversity Press.global imperialism and gender 843