Globalization & Progress

As a result of how rulers looked upon their subjects, there is a large difference between the modern era and the pre-modern era. There is a vital change between the pre-modern and modern era not only in how rulers look upon their subjects but in how subjects look at foreigners, something essential in creating the difference in the impact of global connectivity in the two eras. While with modern imperialism we see the commodification of people where they are exploited, no such exploitation takes place in the pre-modern era and people benefit from the economic globalisation of this time.

The Mongol empire used a very tolerant and pragmatic approach to non-Mongols which was able to lead to progress since the various people in the empire could interact in a safe way, leading to stability within the empire, allowing for economic and cultural globalisation (more progress). The Mongols achieved progress through their global connectivity by “appear”ing “indifferent to religion” (“Empires[1]”, 108), as is also evidenced by the “Great Yasa of Genghis Khan,[2]” which states that “He ordered that all religions were to be respected and that no preference was to be shown to any of them.” By treating non-Mongols as Mongols and giving them the same rights (except the right to help in the military), the Mongols were able to create a society in which globalisation equated with progress. The tolerance practiced by the Mongols allowed for a heightened stability in the empire, since there were not constant rebellions against Mongol rule. This allowed for more trade to happen, thereby again resulting in progress in the form of economic and cultural globalisation.

The tolerance practiced by the Mongols also allowed for cultural globalisation, and therefore also progress since the cultural mixing allowed for different cultures to adapt good parts of a variety of cultures, resulting in progress. The Mongols didn’t only achieve these levels of cultural globalisation through tolerance, but also through an ingenious system of imperial intermediaries in order to not only keep control of their vast empire but in order to bring progress culturally and economically. Since “the Mongol way of managing imperial intermediaries included moving them around the empire” (“Empires[3]”, 108), the imperial intermediaries brought with them a completely different culture from the one in the place in which they were stationed. In turn, the mix of different cultures in the government to a completely different one in the actual public created globalisation since both adapted parts of the other’s culture. In turn, this cultural globalisation can be seen as a way in which the Mongol society was propelled forwards and is definitely a sign of progress. Each took helpful parts of the other’s culture, and the worse aspects of each culture could be modified to better ones, again showing the idea that globalisation in the pre-modern era equates to progress.

There is no question about the brutality of Mongol conquest, but once the Mongols settled down, they showed relative benevolence towards the subjects in their empire which brought progress in the form of stability within their empire and humane processes. Once the Mongols had control of a place, they wouldn’t first exploit the people – instead, they showed not only tolerance but benevolence towards them. Ögodei Khan is an excellent example of the Mongol benevolence shown towards not only non-Mongols but also to other Mongols. As can be seen from the “Compendium of Chronicles[4],” Ögodei Khan shows many acts of great generosity such as when he “pardoned him [a man who had been illegally bathing in water and was helped by Ögodei] and commanded that he should be given 10 more balish from the treasure.” Even though bathing illegally in water was punishable by death in the Mongol world, Ögodei is an example of the Mongol’s benevolence to people who are non-Mongols, since the man who Ögodei helped in the example was actually an Arab. In the conquest of China, as can be seen from “Empires[5],” the Mongols also showed benevolence and understanding. They adapted their ruling strategies including the fact that “the khan had to be remade into an emperor.” This benevolence from the side of the Mongols led to lower likelihoods of rebellion within the empire and maintained stability, both of which allowed for progress in the form of cultural and economic globalisation.

Although Mongols made large profits through economic globalisation, it is important to note that their economic globalisation resulted in progress because they did not exploit the people. With the use of paper currency, Kublai Khan and other Mongol officials could easily pay people for goods, since the paper money was (for them) in unlimited supply. As can be seen from Marco Polo’s “Description of the World[6],” “many times a year the merchants come together from Indie or from other parts with pearls and with precious stones… and these merchants give all of these things… to the great lord. And the great lord calls… men who are chosen to be over those things [look over the products offered]… and those… men look at these things and when they have valued them… they have them paid immediately… with those sheets of which I have told you.” In this case, Kublai does get a large amount of profit since he is able to have many precious items for no cost to him. However, at the same time, this is not exploitation of the merchants since the merchants are knowingly making the choice to come and sell their goods and “take them very gladly because they know well they would not have so much from any other, and secondly because they are paid for them at once, and also because they can change them afterwards… for all the things which they buy both there and through all the lands of the great lord” (“The Description of the World[7]”) In this sense, the merchants also benefit largely from the selling of their goods to Kublai. However, the main reason as to why the merchants are keen to accept money from Kublai is that the paper money has worth throughout the Mongol empire due to economic globalisation on the part of the Mongols, by which they have united such a vast amount of land under a single currency. In turn, the economic globalisation on the part of the Mongols has led to progress, since even though the Mongols do benefit from the deals, the merchants do too, furthering the sense that in the pre-modern world, globalisation equates to progress.

The security offered through cultural globalisation as well as that offered through economic globalisation due to the fact that many merchants use the roads through the Mongol empire leads to progress in the Mongol empire in the form of stability. As can be seen from “Cathay and the Way Thither[8]” where Pegolotti states that “the road you travel from Tana to Cathay is perfectly safe, whether by day or by night,” the globalisation which was done by the Mongols resulted in progress in the form of never before seen achievements, such as stability within such a vast realm, again strengthening the point that globalisation in the pre-modern era was marked by progress.

Like in the Mongol empire, although possibly even to a greater extent, King Leopold II’s Congo involved large amounts of global connectivity, but tolerance towards the Congolese from the side of the Belgians was non-existent. “Leopold’s will treated thee Congo as if it were just a piece of uninhabited real estate to be disposed of by its owner… To see Africa instead as a continent if coherent societies, each with its own culture and history, took a leap of empathy, a leap that few… European or American visitors to the Congo were able to make. To do so would have meant seeing Leopold’s regime not as progress, not as civilization, but as a theft of land and freedom” (“King Leopold’s Ghost[9]”). While the Mongols showed tolerance towards all religions and people from all backgrounds, the Belgians (and in general the colonial powers) saw the religions and people of the colonies as primitive beings who were not to be tolerated and were an “out group.” Throughout modern colonial history, the people who were being colonised were treated like barbarians who couldn’t make the right choices, and therefore the European powers believed that they needed to be “civilised.” As Hochschild states in the book, the Congolese were so discriminated against that they were treated as property and pas part of the land: no longer were they humans, instead, they were commodities which could be used. The commodification of people in modern imperialism marks an important switch from the progress brought through tolerance in the pre-modern era, to the alienation of the people in the European colonies, which were marked by instability with constant revolts from the citizens and were marked by torture of the colonies’ people by the colonial powers simply to keep them under control, which clearly shows that the globalisation in modern imperialism did not equate to progress, and in fact shows signs of progress in a backwards direction.

In King Leopold II’s Congo, we see that through high levels of global connectivity (paired with great advances in technology), the colonial powers use their large resources gathered thanks to globalisation not for purposes of benevolence, but instead for further exploitation of the Congolese, thereby showing a backward progress in humane treatment and stability of the colonies. While the Mongols used their resources either for themselves or for benevolence (like Ögodei), the colonial powers in the Congo used the wealth which they gathered from the Congo to further exploit the Congolese. As more money came in from the trade of products like ivory, the Belgians started building railways, which allowed them to, instead of having to use the Congolese to carry the raw materials, make more raw materials since there were more Congolese people who could do this job. In turn, even though it was the Congolese who had made the initial money needed to build the railway, it was the Belgians who saw the benefit – even though “Congo peoples had been hunting elephants for centuries,… now they were forbidden to sell or deliver ivory to anyone other than an agent of Leopold” (“King Leopold’s Ghost[10]”) This again shows the terrors of the treatment of the Congolese by Leopold II, and the fact that the global connectivity in the modern era brought with it progress in a backward direction due to the commodification of people and the loss of basic rights.

Unlike the Mongols, the economic globalisation in modern imperialism was characterised by exploitation, again showing a backward progress, especially in Leopold II’s Congo. For the justification of the fact that colonialism was required for “civilising” primitive people, colonial powers argued that these primitive people were not able to make the right choice: which, in order to exploit the people, was always colonisation of the place. This shows that, unlike the Mongols, the people within the colony didn’t have a choice: instead of consciously choosing it, they were forced into it. Often the system was that in turn for help with building new projects or converting the natives to Christianity, the people had to work for the colonial powers. In the case of Leopold’s Congo, however, the industrialisation of the Congo with new railroads and steamboats was in fact extremely unhelpful for the natives. Although Leopold II claimed this was benevolent, in reality the railroad allowed Leopold II to make much more profit, since the raw materials could be transported out much more quickly and the hands which had been used to transport them could now be used to extract more raw materials. Compared to the pre-modern globalisation marked by progress, the modern globalisation, as can be seen from this example, powered exploitation, again a sign of backward progress.

In conclusion, as a result of how rulers looked upon their subjects, there is a large difference between the modern era and the pre-modern era. While pre-modern globalisation was marked by progress in the form of stability and further cultural and economic globalisation, modern globalisation has a more negative side. Modern globalisation was instead marked by the commodification and exploitation of people.

[1] Burbank, F. and Cooper, J., Empires, 93-114 [2] Genghis Khan, "Great Yasa of Genghis Kahn," in Unknown, ed. Unknown editor (Unknown publisher, unknown publishing date), 1-2. [3] Burbank, F. and Cooper, J., Empires, 93-114 [4] Rashid al-Din, "Compendium of Chronicles," in Unknown, ed. Unknown editor (Unknown publisher, unknown publishing date), 123-127. [5] Burbank, F. and Cooper, J., Empires, 93-114 [6] Marco Polo, "The Description of the World," in Unknown, ed. Unknown editor (Unknown publisher, unknown publishing date), 128-129. [7] Marco Polo, "The Description of the World," in Unknown, ed. Unknown editor (Unknown publisher, unknown publishing date), 128-129. [8] Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, "Cathay and the Way Thither," in Unknown, ed. Unknown editor (Unknown publisher, unknown publishing date), 149-152. [9] Hochschild, A., King Leopold’s Ghost, 18-208 [10] Hochschild, A., King Leopold’s Ghost, 18-208