It's interesting to see how here, under this proposed Zimbabwe system, all other states and nations would be respected and allowed to exist regardless of their social system. It seems to me to be a direct contradiction to the system of imperialism in which larger nations would invade and exploit smaller and weaker ones who's social systems were deemed to be "uncivilized" in need of their "assistance".

I find this simple breakdown of the social foundations of ZAPU to be interesting. Clearly appealing to and being made up of the common people, rural farmers and lower class workers, it would appear to be a relatively standard proletariat socialist movement. It interests me to see they are also made up of "progressive intellectuals", perhaps people who have been educated in western society and politics who they would likely need to run the nation in the event of self-determination. We've seen this in other struggles against colonialism, such as with Ho Chi Minh, who was educated in France and traveled the world to learn about communism.

Here, we see an explicit mention of the false nature of the civilizing mission imperialist nations were claiming to engage in. Considering that this document is clearly in support of socialist and communist ideals, it makes sense that their opening statement would be to undeniably renounce any form of capitalism and to attribute capitalism for all of the issues in Zimbabwe (which is unlikely to be the case)

The class forces behind the struggle which ZAPU, as a revolutionary national liberation movement is leading are the workers and peasants supported by progressive intellectuals.

I find this simple breakdown of the social foundations of ZAPU to be interesting. Clearly appealing to and being made up of the common people, rural farmers and lower class workers, it would appear to be a relatively standard proletariat socialist movement. It interests me to see they are also made up of "progressive intellectuals", perhaps people who have been educated in western society and politics who they would likely need to run the nation in the event of self-determination. We've seen this in other struggles against colonialism, such as with Ho Chi Minh, who was educated in France and traveled the world to learn about communism.

The Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU) is convinced that the fundamental causes of colonialism, racism, and brutal exploitation in Zimbabwe are due to the capitalist system established by British imperialism in our country.

Here, we see an explicit mention of the false nature of the civilizing mission imperialist nations were claiming to engage in. Considering that this document is clearly in support of socialist and communist ideals, it makes sense that their opening statement would be to undeniably renounce any form of capitalism and to attribute capitalism for all of the issues in Zimbabwe (which is unlikely to be the case)

I find this statement here to be quite dishonorable of him. He certainly has no plans on repairing the nation after the war, what I deduce is that he simple wishes to keep his control over the nation at any means necessary. By misleading the people and appealing to their emotions, he's getting what he wants. As we saw with World War II and the massive destruction in both Europe and Russia, repairing a nation and recovering after such destruction is no easy task, especially if one plans to do it as a single independent nation.

All that Ho Chi Minh says here appears to be greatly exaggerated and stigmatized. It reminds me of the kind of fear mongering an propaganda that occurred in Nazi Germany in which the truth was stretched on order to illicit a strong emotional response among the masses. By demonizing the French, it makes it all the more easier for the people to blindly follow what the leader is saying and fight against a wholly evil enemy

If I recall correctly, Ho Chi Minh was the leader of North Vietnam, the communist Vietnam. I'm wondering if this Declaration of Independence was for a communist independent Vietnam or if things began democratic, as the title would suggest?

I find the wording of this statement to be interesting. The way they demean the French here by portraying them as if they groveled in front of the Japanese and quickly handed over their colony goes to show the strict , polarized perspective this document is conveying. This would lead me to question the objective truths of their claims.

Bringing up the concept of mutually assured destruction. No longer is war based on the power of the conflicting nations; both have bombs able to destroy the other, to such an extent that there is no point at all in fighting, the whole world would suffer from such an event (nuclear winter). Idea that the conflict between 1st world and 2nd world is utterly pointless because in the end, neither could win. There is no point in choosing a side.

I see this as a support for self determination rather than being under the guidance or rule of a greater power. Although in certain circumstances, guidance and support from powerful nations can aid in the development of another independent country, as seen through the lasting impacts of colonization and imperialism, the rule of metropoles on their periphery have most commonly led to turmoil and internal conflict within the periphery once the metropole leaves. We discussed this conflict in India, and how this conflict and turmoil still persists today.

It is interesting to see Gandhi saying things like this, it appears that he support the traditional values of women staying at the household and not being given political rights. For us, we consider this to be backwards, old, or uncivilized, but to Gandhi he believes that it is these developing customs of female independence and political involvement that is a fault of western civilization. It is interesting to see how environments and upbringing has an impact on ones interpretation of civilization and proper customs.

Gandhi brings up an interesting philosophy in this "editor" paragraph here. He is bringing into question the legitimacy of the modern state of society, stating that all people will support it simply because it is all they know; one is not going to question all that they believe. It seems that Gandhi is trying to push against modern interpretations of societal norms and customs in an attempt to bring about different forms of thinking, perhaps.

Here Stalin is clearly outlining his plan of facilitating revolutions in imperialist colonies to aid his own agenda. He states how he wonders if he can take the revolutionary desires of the colonies and mold them to be a revolution of the proletariat to create nations loyal to him. As Jana discussed in the previous annotation, this goes along with the 1st world idea of the domino effect where weaker nations fall prey to communist ideologies and bring about the spread of communism to other nations.

It appears to me here that Stalin is equating imperialism to oppression in which the people under imperialist rule are unable to exert their right to self-rule. What seems sorta hypocritical to me is that Stalin advocates for their support of these oppressed nations and aiding them in their struggle against imperialism, but it sounds to me like Stalin is using this as an excuse to use his own power and influence to take over these peoples in place of the imperialist powers.

This is interesting to me, as he discusses how certain propaganda has to be at different intellectual levels depending on who it is aimed at. It makes sense that things aimed towards a wider audience would be easier to digest that something meant for a more specific, likely more knowledgeable group. In the subsequent sentence Hitler discusses how War propaganda is aimed at a nation as a whole, where he claims a high degree of intelligence among the population as a whole. Hitler clearly holds his view of ethnic Germans very highly, and it would be interesting to know exactly what he considers the intelligent public to be.

Hitler here is essentially saying that propaganda works best on people who do not think. If one is already knowledgeable on the subject being portrayed, the impact would be moot. Propaganda is meant to illicit a guttural, emotional response for the common person in order to bring forth an opinion or idea. An intellectual would think logically upon the legitimacy portrayed in the propaganda, but an uneducated individual will take it in face value. As we have seen in modern times with our recent 2016 election, Trump appealed to the masses and the common folk through the use of polarized statements and advertisements, which to many wold be ridiculous upon further thought. Without this "uneducated masses", I do not believe Hitler, or similarly with Trump, would have gotten elected.

They acknowledged here that many Turkish states are able to govern themselves and be self sufficient, but also consider them to require administrative advise and guidance. They were basically saying that their way of running things, their own political identity and methodology was wrong, and they needed to follow what the victors deemed fit. In a way this was a method in which the victors could have spread their power and influence over their former enemies, holding them back or nudging things in the direction they desired.

This covenant appears to be yet another justification for the acquisition of territories. After the war, the colonies of the losers are forfeit, which leaves them open to be retaken by the victors. Under this doctrine, they paint this reconquest as a just duty of the Covenant to help and aid these peoples until they are able to run themselves. This is basically saying they had a right to take these lands until they deemed the colony was self sufficient, which, honestly, they likely had no intention of releasing them.

This appears to be a response to the changing policies and practices of other European powers. Other nations are seizing control of colonies and ports across the globe, extending their power and influence. Here, Ferry is arguing that in order for France to maintain its influence within the sphere of other European powers it to must acquire colonies and ports, it too must extend its reach and power over the globe. He uses this too almost as a justification, that they need to do this in order to survive.

This brings to attention that one of the only things that resonated with these people, the only thing that would ring through the silence was the thought of ivory, the thought of making a profit, of becoming rich. This in a way puts to scrutiny the "civilizing mission" of colonizers, where they would come to help the natives, even if they got no thanks in return. Clearly, as portrayed here, this man did not care much for bettering the natives around him, he only wished to make it to his destination in order to profit from the ivory trade.

This section here conflicts with the common notion that the native peoples were lesser and inhuman, that the colonizers and the natives were different. But as Joseph Conrad wrote here, being in this environment allowed one to compare oneself to these people, that even a "superior" white man can be driven to this savage state. Just the notion of this would imply that the natives and the colonizers are not so different from one another.