Book review: Upheaval, by Jared Diamond
To be honest, I am not a a fan of the framework, as I found it was being force fit to each of the situations. And it got a bit repetitive too, when every situation was being discussed within the same structure. But I loved reading about how all these different countries dealt with these crisis, based on their own unique experiences, Reading about these events also enhanced my knowledge of global history, but from a different perspective. And I found it more interesting than the framework 😉.
Some of the historical events he analysed are:
Finland's response to and after the Russian attack in the second world war
Finland fought WW2 against Russia, trying to avoid occupation by the Russians. They fought guerrilla wars in the Finnish forests over winter, with very few soldiers but much better success rate given their comfort with the terrain and weather. They were successful in making it extremely painful for the Russians to win and so were never occupied.
But this incident made them realise, that given their geopolitical situation of being so close to Russia, without any natural barriers to defend them, they always had to cater to Russia and maintain friendly relations with them to protect themselves. And they had to do it themselves, as no other country could be depended on. So for years after WW2, they maintained a close and trust based relationship with Russia as it was in their own interest. Even though they continued to progress, brought in democracy and maintained strong relationships with the Western countries, they made sure they gave preferential treatment to Russia all the time and kept them happy. For their own good...
Japan's response to their country being opened up to trade by the Western powers
Japan was a closed culture up until the time of the Shoguns when they first had to open themselves up for trade because of the greater powers (militarily and industrially) of the West. But as the western powers started taking increasing control over them, the Japanese decided to learn from those powers themselves. They visited those countries and learnt from them how to grow and develop. And they used this learning to make themselves stronger so they could negotiate with the West as an equal.
However, they brought about this development in such a way that they did not change their country's basic fabric. They just took the best of what they wanted and evolved themselves slowly to become a mix of both Western and Japanese cultures and values. And today, they showcase the best of both these opposites in how they live.
Today though, Japan has another crisis coming up and they need to figure out how to deal with it. They have a huge national debt and an aging population with the number of babies going down. They will need to learn and evolve again, will their history let them do that? Can they become open to immigration from other parts of the world? Will they finally accept their WW misdeeds towards China and Korea? Only time will tell.
Chile's brush with military dictatorship
Chile as a country had a long history of democracy. However, one leader’s wrong decision led to a military dictator, Pinochet coming into power. He initially was perceived to be a soft leader but he ended up committing atrocities in the country for 17 long years. However, even after he was removed, he wasn't persecuted for a long time and lived comfortably along with the new leaders. But learning from history, the new leaders were more tolerant of each other and their differences. And they worked together to not allow a situation to be created when another military dictator could or would take up power.
Indonesia's brush with military dictatorship
Indonesia always had a fractured history as it was made up of many different islands and very late became one nation. Sukarno took over the country and made them one but he messed up the economy, plus the communist coup gave the army a reason to overthrow him. They were unable to do that but slowly, Suharto, the general took over from Sukarno and stayed on for 30 years as a dictator.
He did bring economic reform to the country but also gave it years of torture and killings. And his family was very corrupt and increased corruption to huge proportions across the nation. It’s debatable whether he was good or not good for his country, as he did give it economic growth though at the expense of corruption. And so till today, the country doesn’t really acknowledge his wrongs, at least in public.
Germany's dealing with its historical mistakes
Germany after the WW2 accepted the mistakes it made during the war. It happened slowly, as they started accepting and teaching to their students what their country did wrong, slowly persecuting some of the Nazis, the chancellor publicly apologising for their mistakes when in Poland and so on. It wasn't smooth though, as during all this they also had a students uprising which brought about a speed in this process.
And so it was able to slowly but surely, come out of its past, by being humble, and accepting as well as being open to both the East and the West together. They continued to have positive relations with both Russia and the West as it was in their own interests, specially when they wanted to reunite Germany. On the way to accepting their mistakes, they also slowly but surely got rid of the authoritarianism that was a big part of their culture and part of the problem too. All these slow and steady steps have got them where they are now, a successful industrial nation, with a humanitarian conscience.
Australia's giving up on their British identity and opening up to Asia
Australia had a white British only immigration policy for years. It identified with the British and wanted to feel a part of Britain forever. Until the fall of Singapore during WW2 which gave them a shock. They realised that Britain won't always be there to protect them. And Britain would put their own interests ahead of Australia when it suited them.
They then turned more towards Asia, accelerated immigration and also allowed non white people to come to their country. This change in stance occurred slowly when they finally realised that they need to change their relationship with both the British and Asia, and started to become more open after the 1970s.
US's current crises
US had had many advantages historically which helped its rise as a nation - its long navigable rivers and long coast, the great fertile plains in the middle providing adequate agricultural independence, the limited susceptibility to invasions because of its isolation and of course, a long history of democracy.
It faces a few crisis topics now though including, polarisation of its citizens as well as politicians, reducing social capital, and smaller issues like voter registration fraud, inequality and less importance given to education. All of which create a potential risk to them more from internal politics (rather than China which is found more often in the press). Lets see how they will respond to this...
Comments
Post a Comment