What is the difference between heavy and light industry?

What is meant by reactionary settlerism?

It seems as if one of the main motivations for the revolution and overthrow of British colonialism is patriotism. The devotion and support for their country seems to be a driving force in this cause. It is how ZAPU is rallying supporters to fight in this revolution under a common cause. This is their homeland, and it is their duty to defend it.

I was confused about what was meant by a "scientific socialism," therefore, I did some research and discovered this kind of socialism implies rule by a scientific government. It means that the power/sovereignty of the government is based off of reason which, in my opinion, sounds a lot like Enlightenment thinking.

Here ZAPU is mimicking the language of Ho Chi Minh as the organization is pushing for a revolution to happen. The African people of Zimbabwe have endured too many hardships under the imperial rule of the British and believe the only solution is a kind of violent decolonization. They want to take up arms and fight for the freedom of their country in order to make Zimbabwe a socialist country.

In this statement, Ho Chi Minh is using a kind of emotional appeal to convince the Vietnamese that if you love your country, you will do anything to protect it. It seems as if he is trying to guilt them into supporting the Resistance efforts against the French.

This highlights the idea of "kill, or be killed." In his eyes, Ho Chi Minh believes the only solution is destruction. He is willing to sacrifice the homes, the lands, and other property of the Vietnamese to prevent the French from overtaking it. That being said, I am curious and wonder if that worked out for him? Or was there another possible solution?

This phrase stood out to me in particular because although Ho Chi Minh just quoted the United States Declaration of Independence, he is saying that "all the peoples on earth are equal from birth." He says "peoples" instead of specifically "men." I have a feeling that he still means to exclude women and people of color, but in his eyes, everyone has the right to live free and enjoy their natural rights.

Here the term "yoke" appears again. Correct me if I am wrong that it is not being used in the same way that Stalin did, but the Japanese and French had such a stronghold over Vietnam. The Vietnamese were facing starvation, not receiving the protection they were promised, forced into poverty, and exploited their land, along with their workers.

I believe this statement highlights the difference between Nehru's and Gandhi's views of what a post colonial India should look like. While Gandhi was arguing against modernization and a kind of societal progress, Nehru seemed to believe that was necessary. As he stated, military, peace, and politics are constantly changing and people have to change and adapt along with it. He saw no use of being stuck in the past because it is a new era and they are different circumstances.

What is Nehru referring to when he says "moral force?" Is he referring to ethical treatment in the way countries at war treat one other and their people?

Upon reading Gandhi's thoughts on civilization, it seemed as if he was more in support of sticking to simple rather than lavish living as brought about by modernization. Gandhi believed that the more people gained, the more they wanted and, therefore, compromised their own happiness. He would rather live in a world where people live more simply and are on equal playing fields, none more superior than the other, rather than constantly competing to be on top.

From my perspective, it seems as if Stalin's "national question" was focused on figuring out how to support nations considered "uncivilized" or oppressed and prepare them for revolt against imperialism. Instead of isolation of cultures, Stalin seemed to want to bring them together. He wanted nations to unify into one higher culture with imperialism out of the picture.

In my opinion, this statement definitely hints towards the Domino Effect / Theory that we discussed earlier in the week. The basis of this theory was that communist countries, such as the Soviet Union, were spreading revolution. In this case, it Stalin was encouraging a kind of liberation from an imperialistic ruling body which exploited and took advantage of its citizens. However, I did have a question regarding how Stalin implied to this? Yes, he is suggesting revolution, but does that mean he is supporting a violent overthrow or protest against imperialism?

This statement reminds me of our last class lecture, in which we discussed how the French believed they were superior to the Spanish because they were "above" slavery. The French also believed it was in inferior races best interests to be civilized by those who thought themselves superior.

I don't like this at all because by the sounds of it, Hitler is basically stating that you should only promote and disseminate information that is favorable to you, politically, even if it is subjective and not based on fact. He wants to influence and attract an audience regardless of how he achieves that.

Coming from the perspective of a Communication major, it is very interesting reading about the intense focus Hitler had on the way he used propaganda. To have any successful advertisement, you have to know who your target audience is and how to reach them best. It is not only about the art and form, but about the words you chose, and Hitler seemed to be very conscious of all these aspects on running a successful ad to the general population.

What is being referred to when it states that the people of Central Africa "are at such a stage" that the Mandatory has to take responsibility over the territory? Is it an effort to ensure disputes are settled and move on peacefully?

Amongst colonizers there existed a superior complex. Even if they do not blatantly refer to the Natives as barbaric or savages, it is still evident that the White men view Natives as lesser beings who exist to serve their needs. In the beginning of the piece, I really thought Conrad was a man who, upon arriving in already chartered territories by the Natives, would acknowledge them and respect them as humans, but by the end, he is no better.

In the beginning of the text, Conrad describes the island as deserted and lifeless, therefore, I was surprised to read further in the text that he acknowledges the existence of a Native peoples on the land before their arrival.