Indonesian National RevolutionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indonesian National Revolution

A defiant Sutomo (also known as Bung Tomo), one of the most revered

revolutionary leaders. This famous photo represents for many who took

part the very soul of the revolutionary struggle.[1]

Date 17 August 1945 – 27 December 1949Location Indonesia

Result The Netherlands recognises Indonesian Independence

Belligerents

 Indonesia  Netherlands

KNIL

 United Kingdom (Until

1946)

Commanders and leaders

 Sukarno

 Gen. Sudirman

 Let.Gen. Sri Sultan

Hamengkubuwana IX

 Simon Spoor

 Hubertus van Mook

 Willem Franken

 Sir Philip Christison,

 Mohammad Hatta

 Syafruddin Prawiranegara

Strength

Possibly 243,000 Dutch:

20,000(initial)-150,000(peak)

British:30,000+(peak)[1]

Casualties and losses

150,000 3000 military and civilian

casualties[2]

[show]

V

T

E

Indonesian National Revolution

Part of a series on the

History of Indonesia

Prehistory

Early kingdoms

Kutai 4th century

Tarumanagara 358–669

Kalingga 6th–7th

Srivijaya 7th–13th

Sunda Kingdom 669–1579

Medang Kingdom 752–1006

Kahuripan 1006–1045

Kediri 1045–1221

Singhasari 1222–1292

Majapahit 1293–1500

Rise of Muslim states

Spread of Islam 1200–1600

Samudera Pasai Sultanate 1267–1521

Ternate Sultanate 1257–present

Malacca Sultanate 1400–1511

Cirebon Sultanate 1445–1677

Demak Sultanate 1475–1548

Aceh Sultanate 1496–1903

Pagaruyung Kingdom 1500–1825

Banten Sultanate 1526–1813

Mataram Sultanate 1500s–1700s

European colonisation

Portuguese 1512–1850

Dutch East India Co. 1602–1800

Dutch East Indies 1800–1942

Emergence of Indonesia

National Awakening 1908–1942

Japanese occupation 1942–1945

National Revolution 1945–1950

Independence

Liberal democracy 1950–1957

Guided Democracy 1957–1965

Transition 1965–1966

New Order 1966–1998

Reformasi 1998–present

Timeline

 Indonesia portal

V

T

E

The Indonesian National Revolution or Indonesian War of Independence was an armed conflict and

diplomatic struggle between Indonesia and the Dutch Empire, and an internal social revolution. It took place

between Indonesia's declaration of independence in 1945 and the Netherlands' recognition of Indonesia's

independence at the end of 1949.

The struggle lasted for over four years and involved sporadic but bloody armed conflict, internal Indonesian

political and communal upheavals, and two major international diplomatic interventions. Dutch forces were not

able to prevail over the Indonesians, but were strong enough to resist being expelled.[3] Although Dutch forces

could control the towns and cities in Republican heartlands on Java and Sumatra, they could not control

villages and the countryside. Thus, the Republic of Indonesia ultimately prevailed as much through international

diplomacy as it did through Indonesian determination in the armed conflicts on Java and other islands.[3]

The revolution destroyed the colonial administration of the Dutch East Indies which had ruled from the other

side of the world. It also significantly changed racial castes, as well as reducing the power of many of the local

rulers (raja). It did not significantly improve the economic or political fortune of the majority of the population,

though a few Indonesians were able to gain a larger role in commerce.

Contents

  [hide]

1 Background

2 Independence declared

o 2.1 Euphoria of revolution

o 2.2 Formation of the Republican government

3 Allied counter revolution

o 3.1 Allied occupation

o 3.2 Battle of Surabaya

o 3.3 Return of the Dutch

4 Diplomacy and military offensives

o 4.1 Linggadjati Agreement

o 4.2 Operation Product

o 4.3 Renville Agreement

o 4.4 Operation Crow and Serangan Oemoem (General Offensive)

5 Internal turmoil

o 5.1 Social revolutions

o 5.2 Communist and Islamist insurgencies

6 Transfer of sovereignty

7 Impacts

8 See also

9 Notes

10 References

11 Further reading

12 External links

[edit]Background

See also: Indonesian National Awakening and Japanese occupation of Indonesia

Indonesian nationalism and movements supporting independence from Dutch colonialism, such as Budi

Utomo, the Indonesian National Party (PNI), Sarekat Islam, and the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), grew

rapidly in the first half of the twentieth century. Budi Utomo, Sarekat Islam and others pursued strategies of co-

operation by joining the Dutch initiated Volksraad("People's Council") in the hope that Indonesia would be

granted self-rule.[4] Others chose a non-cooperative strategy demanding the freedom of self-government from

the Dutch East Indies colony.[5] The most notable of these leaders were Sukarno andMohammad Hatta, two

students and nationalist leaders who had benefited from the educational reforms of the Dutch Ethical Policy.

The occupation of Indonesia by Japan for three and a half years during World War II was a crucial factor in the

subsequent revolution. The Netherlands, under German occupation, had little ability to defend its colony

against the Japanese army, and within only three months of their initial attacks, the Japanese had occupied the

Dutch East Indies. In Java, and to a lesser extent in Sumatra (Indonesia's two dominant islands), the Japanese

spread and encouraged nationalist sentiment. Although this was done more for Japanese political advantage

than from altruistic support of Indonesian independence, this support created new Indonesian institutions

(including local neighbourhood organisations) and elevated political leaders such as Sukarno. Just as

significantly for the subsequent revolution, the Japanese destroyed and replaced much of the Dutch-created

economic, administrative, and political infrastructure.[6]

With Japan on the brink of losing the war, the Dutch sought to re-establish their authority in Indonesia and

asked that the Japanese Army "preserve law and order" in Indonesia.[7] The Japanese, however, were in favour

of helping Indonesian nationalists prepare for self-government. On 7 September 1944, with the war going badly

for the Japanese, Prime Minister Koiso promised independence for Indonesia, but no date was set.[8]For

supporters of Sukarno, this announcement was seen as vindication for his collaboration with the Japanese.[9]

[edit]Independence declared

Under pressure from radical and politicised pemuda ('youth') groups, Sukarno and Hatta proclaimed Indonesian

independence, on 17 August 1945, two days after the Japanese Emperor’s surrender in the Pacific. The

following day, the Central Indonesian National Committee (KNIP) elected Sukarno as President, and Hatta

as Vice President.[10]

[edit]Euphoria of revolution

PROCLAMATION

We, the people of Indonesia, hereby declare the independence of Indonesia.

Matters which concern the transfer of power and other things will be executed by careful means and in the shortest

possible time.

Djakarta, 17 August 1945

In the name of the people of Indonesia,

[signed] Soekarno—Hatta

(Translation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, October 1948)[11]

Bendera Pusaka, the first Indonesian flag, is raised on 17 August 1945.

It was mid-September before news of the declaration of independence spread to the outer islands, and many

Indonesians far from the capitalJakarta did not believe it. As the news spread, most Indonesians came to

regard themselves as pro-Republican, and a mood of revolution swept across the country.[12] External power

had shifted; it would be weeks before Allied Forces entered Indonesia, and the Dutch were too weakened by

World War II. The Japanese, on the other hand, were required by the terms of the surrender to both lay down

their arms and maintain order; a contradiction that some resolved by handing weapons to Japanese-trained

Indonesians.[13]

The resulting power vacuums in the weeks following the Japanese surrender, created an atmosphere of

uncertainty, but also one of opportunity for the Republicans.[14] Many pemuda joined pro-Republic struggle

groups (badan perjuangan). The most disciplined were soldiers from the Japanese-formed but disbanded

Giyugun (PETA) and Heiho groups. Many groups were undisciplined, due to both the circumstances of their

formation and what they perceived as revolutionary spirit. In the first weeks, Japanese troops often withdrew

from urban areas to avoid confrontations.[15]

By September 1945, control of major infrastructure installations, including railway stations and trams in Java's

largest cities, had been taken over by Republican pemuda who encountered little Japanese resistance.[15] To

spread the revolutionary message, pemuda set up their own radio stations and newspapers, and graffiti

proclaimed the nationalist sentiment. On most islands, struggle committees and militia were set up.

[16] Republican newspapers and journals were common in Jakarta, Yogyakarta, and Surakarta, which fostered a

generation of writers known as angkatan 45('generation of 45') many of whom believed their work could be part

of the revolution.[15]

Republican leaders struggled to come to terms with popular sentiment; some wanted passionate armed

struggle; others a more reasoned approach. Some leaders, such as the leftist Tan Malaka, spread the idea that

this was a revolutionary struggle to be led and won by the Indonesianpemuda. Sukarno and Hatta, in contrast,

were more interested in planning out a government and institutions to achieve independence through

diplomacy.[16] Pro-revolution demonstrations took place in large cities, including one led by Tan Malaka in

Jakarta with over 200,000 people, which Sukarno and Hatta, fearing violence, successfully quelled.

By September 1945, many of the self-proclaimed pemuda, who were ready to die for '100% freedom', were

getting impatient. It was common for ethnic 'out-groups' – Dutch internees, Eurasian, Ambonese and Chinese –

and anyone considered to be a spy, to be subjected to intimidation, kidnap, robbery, and sometimes murder,

even organised massacres. Such attacks would continue to some extent for the course of the revolution.[17] As

the level of violence increased across the country, the Sukarno- and Hatta-led Republican government in

Jakarta urged calm. However, pemuda in favour of armed struggle saw the older leadership as dithering and

betraying the revolution, which often led to conflict amongst Indonesians.

[edit]Formation of the Republican government

By the end of August, a central Republican government had been established in Jakarta. It adopted a

constitution drafted during the Japanese occupation by the Preparatory Committee for Indonesian

Independence. With general elections yet to be held, a Central Indonesian National Committee (KINP) was

appointed to assist the President. Similar committees were established at provincial and regency levels.

Questions of allegiance immediately arose amongst indigenous rulers. Central Javanese principalities, for

example, immediately declared themselves Republican, while many raja ('rulers') of the outer islands, who had

been enriched from their support of the Dutch, were less enthusiastic. Such reluctance among many outer

islands was sharpened by the radical, non-aristocratic, and sometimes Islamic nature of the Java-centric

Republican leadership. Support did, however, come from South Sulawesi (including the King of Bone, who still

recalled battles against the Dutch from early in the century), and from Makassarese and Bugis raja, who

supported the Republican Governor of Jakarta, a Menadonese Christian. Many Balinese rajaaccepted

Republican authority.[18]

Fearing the Dutch would attempt to re-establish their authority over Indonesia, the new Republican

Government and its leaders moved quickly to strengthen the fledgling administration. Within Indonesia, the

newly formed government, although enthusiastic, was fragile and focused in Java (where focused at all). It was

rarely and loosely in contact with the outer islands,[19]which had more Japanese troops (particularly in Japanese

naval areas), less sympathetic Japanese commanders, and fewer Republican leaders and activists.[20] In

November 1945, aparliamentary form of government was established and Sjahrir was appointed Prime

Minister.

In the week following the Japanese surrender, the Giyugun (PETA) and Heiho groups were disbanded by the

Japanese.[21] Command structures and membership vital for a national army were consequently dismantled.

Thus, rather than being formed from a trained, armed, and organised army, the Republican armed forces

began to grow in September from usually younger, less trained groups built around charismatic leaders.

[18] Creating a rational military structure that was obedient to central authority from such disorganisation, was

one of the major problems of the revolution, a problem that remains through to contemporary times.[3] In the

self-created Indonesian army, Japanese-trained Indonesian officers prevailed over those trained by the

Dutch[citation needed]. A thirty year-old former school teacher, Sudirman, was elected 'commander-in-chief' at the first

meeting of Division Commanders in Yogyakarta on 12 November 1945.[22]

[edit]Allied counter revolution

The Dutch accused Sukarno and Hatta of collaborating with the Japanese, and denounced the Republic as a

creation of Japanese fascism.[9] The Dutch East Indies administration had just received a ten million dollar loan

from the United States to finance its return to Indonesia.[7]

[edit]Allied occupation

A soldier of an Indian armoured regiment examines a light tank used by Indonesian nationalists and captured by British

forces during the fighting in Surabaya.

The Netherlands, however, was critically weakened from World War II in Europe and did not return as a

significant military force until early 1946. The Japanese and members of the Allied forces reluctantly agreed to

act as caretakers.[16] As US forces were focusing on the Japanese home islands, the archipelago was put under

the jurisdiction of British Admiral Earl Louis Mountbatten, the Supreme Allied Commander, South East Asia

Command. Allied enclaves already existed in Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo), Morotai (Maluku) and parts

ofIrian Jaya; Dutch administrators had already returned to these areas.[20] In the Japanese navy areas, the

arrival of Allied troops quickly prevented revolutionary activities where Australian troops, followed by Dutch

troops and administrators, took the Japanese surrender (except for Bali and Lombok).[23] Due to the lack of

strong resistance, two Australian Army divisions succeeded in occupying eastern Indonesia.[24]

The British were charged with restoring order and civilian government in Java. The Dutch took this to mean

pre-war colonial administration and continued to claim sovereignty over Indonesia.[16] British

Commonwealth troops did not, however, land on Java to accept the Japanese surrender until late September

1945. Lord Mountbatten’s immediate tasks included the repatriation of some 300,000 Japanese, and freeing

prisoners of war. He did not want, nor did he have the resources, to commit his troops to a long struggle to

regain Indonesia for the Dutch.[25]The first British troops reached Jakarta in late September 1945, and arrived in

the cities of Medan (North Sumatra), Padang (West Sumatra),Palembang (South Sumatra), Semarang (Central

Java) and Surabaya (East Java) in October. In an attempt to avoid clashes with Indonesians, the British

commander Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison, diverted soldiers of the former Dutch colonial army to

eastern Indonesia, where Dutch reoccupation was proceeding smoothly.[23] Tensions mounted as Allied troops

entered Java and Sumatra; clashes broke out between Republicans and their perceived enemies, namely

Dutch prisoners, Dutch colonial troops (KNIL), Chinese, Indo-Europeans and Japanese.[23]

The first stages of warfare were initiated in October 1945 when, in accordance with the terms of their surrender,

the Japanese tried to re-establish the authority they relinquished to Indonesians in the towns and cities.

Japanese military police killed Republican pemuda in Pekalongan (Central Java) on 3 October, and Japanese

troops drove Republican pemuda out of Bandung in West Java and handed the city to the British, but the

fiercest fighting involving the Japanese was in Semarang. On 14 October, British forces began to occupy the

city. Retreating Republican forces retaliated by killing between 130 and 300 Japanese prisoners they were

holding. Five hundred Japanese and 2,000 Indonesians had been killed and the Japanese had almost captured

the city six days later when British forces arrived.[23] The Allies repatriated the remaining Japanese troops and

civilians to Japan, although about 1,000 elected to remain behind and later assisted Republican forces in

fighting for independence.[26]

Destruction in Bandung's Chinese quarter

The British subsequently decided to evacuate the 10,000 Indo-Europeans and European internees in the

volatile Central Java interior. British detachments sent to the towns of Ambarawa and Magelang encountered

strong Republican resistance and used air attacks against the Indonesians. Sukarno arranged a ceasefire on 2

November, but by late November fighting had resumed and the British withdrew to the coast.[27] Republican

attacks against Allied and alleged pro-Dutch civilians reached a peak in November and December, with 1,200

killed in Bandung as the pemuda returned to the offensive.[28] In March 1946, departing Republicans responded

to a British ultimatum for them to leave the city of Bandung by deliberately burning down much of the southern

half of the city in what is popularly known in Indonesia as the "Bandung Sea of Fire". The last British troops left

Indonesia in November 1946, but by this time 55,000 Dutch troops had landed in Java.

[edit]Battle of Surabaya

Main article: Battle of Surabaya

The Battle of Surabaya was the heaviest single battle of the revolution and became a national symbol of

Indonesian resistance.[29] Pemudagroups in Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia,

seized arms and ammunition from the Japanese and set up two new organisations; the Indonesia National

Committee (KNI) and the People's Security Council (BKR). By the time the Allied forces arrived at the end of

October 1945, the pemuda foothold in Surabaya city was described as "a strong unified fortress".[30]

The city itself was in pandemonium. There was bloody hand-to-hand fighting on every street corner. Bodies were

strewn everywhere. Decapitated, dismembered trunks lay piled one on top of the other...Indonesians were shooting

and stabbing and murdering wildly

—Sukarno[31]

In September and October 1945 Europeans and pro-Dutch Eurasians were attacked and killed by Indonesian

mobs.[32] Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the

city. Sukarno and Hattanegotiated a ceasefire between the Republicans and the British forces led by Brigadier

Mallaby. Following the killing of Mallaby on 30 October,[30] the British sent more troops into the city from 10

November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days,

the poorly armed Republicans fought on until November 29[33] and thousands died as the population fled to the

countryside.

Despite the military defeat suffered by the Republicans and a loss of manpower and weaponry that would

severely hamper Republican forces for the rest of the revolution, the battle and defence mounted by the

Indonesians galvanised the nation in support of independence and helped garner international attention. For

the Dutch, it removed any doubt that the Republic was a well-organized resistance with popular support.[29] It

also convinced Britain to lie on the side of neutrality in the revolution;[29] and within a few years, Britain would

support the Republican cause in the United Nations.

[edit]Return of the Dutch

Javanese revolutionaries armed with bamboo spears and a few Japanese rifles. 1946.

With British assistance, the Dutch landed their Netherlands Indies Civil Administration (NICA) forces in Jakarta

and other key centres. Republican sources reported 8,000 deaths up to January 1946 in the defence of

Jakarta, but they could not hold the city.[25] The Republican leadership thus established themselves in the city

of Yogyakarta with the crucial support of the new sultan, Sri Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX. Yogyakarta went on

to play a leading role in the revolution, which would result in the city being granted its own Special Territory

status.[34] InBogor, near Jakarta, and in Balikpapan in Kalimantan, Republican officials were imprisoned. In

preparation for Dutch occupation of Sumatra, its largest cities, Palembang and Medan, were bombed. In

December 1946, Special Forces Depot (DST), led by commando and counter-insurgency expert Captain

Raymond "Turk" Westerling, were accused of pacifying the southern Sulawesi region using arbitrary terror

techniques, which were copied by other anti-Republicans. As many as 3,000 Republican militia and their

supporters were killed in a few weeks.[35]

On Java and Sumatra, the Dutch found military success in cities and major towns, but they were unable to

subdue the villages and countryside. On the outer islands (including Bali), Republican sentiment was not as

strong, at least among the elite. They were consequently occupied by the Dutch with comparative ease, and

autonomous states were set up by the Dutch. The largest, the State of East Indonesia (NIT), encompassed

most of eastern Indonesia, and was established in December 1946, with its administrative capital in Makassar.

[edit]Diplomacy and military offensives

[edit]Linggadjati Agreement

The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands

recognise the Republic as the de facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the

formation of the United States of Indonesia by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with

the monarch of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its

states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and

the "Great East", which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.

The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and

neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it.[3] On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch

parliament ratified a stripped down version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic.[36] Both sides

soon accused the other of violating the agreement.

...[the Republic] became increasingly disorganised internally; party leaders fought with party leaders; governments

were over thrown and replaced by others; armed groups acted on their own in local conflicts; certain parts of the

Republic never had contact with the centre-they just drifted along in their own way.

The whole situation deteriorated to such an extent that the Dutch Government was obliged to decide that no progress

could be made before law and order were restored sufficiently to make intercourse between the different parts of

Indonesia possible, and to guarantee the safety of people of different political opinions.

—former East Indies Governor H. J. van Mook's justification for the first Dutch "police action".[37]

[edit]Operation Product

Main article: Operatie Product

At midnight on 20 July 1947, the Dutch launched a major military offensive called Operatie Product, with the

intent of conquering the Republic. Claiming violations of the Linggajati Agreement, the Dutch described the

campaign as politionele acties ("police actions") to restore law and order. This used to be the task of the KNIL.

However, at the time the majority of the Dutch troops in Indonesia belonged to the Royal Netherlands Army.

Soon after the end of World War II, 25,000 volunteers (among them 5,000 marines) had been sent overseas.

They were later followed by larger numbers of conscripts from the Netherlands. In the offensive, Dutch forces

drove Republican troops out of parts of Sumatra, and East and West Java. The Republicans were confined to

the Yogyakarta region of Java. To maintain their force in Java, now numbering 100,000 troops, the Dutch

gained control of lucrative Sumatran plantations, and oil and coal installations, and in Java, control of all deep

water ports.

A Dutch military column during Operation Product

International reaction to the Dutch actions was negative. Neighbouring Australia and newly independent India

were particularly active in supporting the Republic's cause in the UN, as was the Soviet Union and, most

significantly, the United States. Dutch ships continued to be boycotted from loading and unloading by

Australian waterside workers, a blockade that began in September 1945. The United Nations Security

Council became directly involved in the conflict, establishing a Good Offices Committee to sponsor further

negotiations, making the Dutch diplomatic position particularly difficult. A ceasefire, called for by UN resolution,

was ordered by the Dutch and Sukarno on 4 August 1947.[38] During the military action, on 9 December 1947

Dutch troops killed many civilians in the village of Rawagede (now Balongsari in Karawang, West Java).

[edit]Renville Agreement

The Van Mook line in Java. Areas in red were under Republican control.[39]

Main article: Renville Agreement

The United Nations Security Council brokered the Renville Agreement in an attempt to rectify the collapsed

Linggarjati Agreement. The agreement was ratified in January 1948 and recognised a cease-fire along the so-

called 'Van Mook line'; an artificial line which connected the most advanced Dutch positions.[40] Many

Republican positions, however, were still held behind the Dutch lines. The agreement also required referenda

to be held on the political future of the Dutch held areas. The apparent reasonableness of Republicans

garnered much important American goodwill.[38]

Diplomatic efforts between the Netherlands and the Republic continued throughout 1948 and 1949. Political

pressures, both domestic and international, hindered Dutch attempts at goal formulation. Similarly Republican

leaders faced great difficulty in persuading their people to accept diplomatic concessions. By July 1948

negotiations were in deadlock and the Netherlands pushed unilaterally towards Van Mook’s federal Indonesia

concept. The new federal states of South Sumatra and East Java were created, although neither had a viable

support base.[41] The Netherlands set up the Bijeenkomst voor Federaal Overleg (BFO) (or Federal

Consultative Assembly), a body comprising the leadership of the federal states, and charged with the formation

of a United States of Indonesia and an interim government by the end of 1948. The Dutch plans, however, had

no place for the Republic unless it accepted a minor role already defined for it. Later plans included Java and

Sumatra but dropped all mention of the Republic. The main sticking point in the negotiations was the balance of

power between the Netherlands High Representative and the Republican forces.[42]

Mutual distrust between the Netherlands and the Republic hindered negotiations. The Republic feared a

second major Dutch offensive, while the Dutch objected to continued Republican activity on the Dutch side of

the Renville line. In February 1948 the Siliwangi Battalion of the Republican Army, led by Nasution, marched

from West Java to Central Java; the relocation was intended to ease internal Republican tensions involving the

Battalion in the Surakarta area. The Battalion, however, clashed with Dutch troops while crossing Mount

Slamet, and the Dutch believed it was part of a systematic troop movement across the Renville Line. The fear

of such incursions actually succeeding, along with apparent Republican undermining of the Dutch-established

Pasundan state and negative reports, led to the Dutch leadership increasingly seeing itself as losing control.[43]

[edit]Operation Crow and Serangan Oemoem (General Offensive)

We have been attacked.... The Dutch government have betrayed the cease-fire agreement. All the Armed Forces will

carry out the plans which have been decided on to confront the Dutch attack

—General Sudirman, broadcast from his sickbed.[44]

Main article: Operatie Kraai

Frustrated at negotiations with the Republic and believing it weakened by both the Darul

Islam and Madiun insurgencies, the Dutch launched a military offensive on 19 December 1948 which it termed

'Operatie Kraai' (Operation Crow). By the following day it had conquered the city of Yogyakarta, the location of

the temporary Republican capital. By the end of December, all major Republican held cities in Java and

Sumatra were in Dutch hands.[45] The Republican President, Vice President, and all but six Republic of

Indonesia ministers were captured by Dutch troops and exiled on Bangka Island off the east coast of Sumatra.

In areas surrounding Yogyakarta and Surakarta, Republican forces refused to surrender and continued to wage

a guerrilla war under the leadership of Republican military chief of staff General Sudirman who had escaped

the Dutch offensives. An emergency Republican government, the Pemerintahan Darurat Republik

Indonesia(PDRI), was established in West Sumatra.

Although Dutch forces conquered the towns and cities in Republican heartlands on Java and Sumatra, they

could not control villages and the countryside.[45] Republican troops and militia led by Lt. Colonel (later

President) Suharto attacked Dutch positions in Yogyakarta at dawn on 1 March 1949. The Dutch were expelled

from the city for six hours but reinforcements were brought in from the nearby cities of Ambarawa and

Semarang that afternoon.[46] Indonesian fighters retreated at 12:00 pm and the Dutch re-entered the city. The

Indonesian attack, later known in Indonesia as Serangan Oemoem (new spelling: Serangan Umum '1 March

General Offensive'), is commemorated by a large monument in Yogyakarta. A similar attack against Dutch

troops in Surakarta was led by Lt. Col. Slamet Riyadi on 7 August the same year.[46]

Once again, international opinion of the Dutch military campaigns was one of outrage, significantly in both the

United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a

resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government.[9] United States aid specifically

earmarked for the Netherlands' Indonesia efforts was immediately cancelled and pressure mounted within

the U.S. Congress for all United States aid to be cut off. This included Marshall Plan funds vital for Dutch post-

World War II rebuilding that had so far totalled $US 1 billion.[47] The Netherlands Government had spent an

amount equivalent to almost half of this funding their campaigns in Indonesia. That United States aid could be

used to fund "a senile and ineffectual imperialism" encouraged many key voices in the United States –

including those amongst the U.S. Republican Party – and from within American churches and NGOs to speak

out in support of Indonesian independence.[48]

[edit]Internal turmoil

[edit]Social revolutions

The so-called 'social revolutions' following the independence proclamation were challenges to the Dutch-

established Indonesian social order, and to some extent a result of the resentment against Japanese-imposed

policies. Across the country, people rose up against traditional aristocrats and village heads and attempted to

exert popular ownership of land and other resources.[49] The majority of the social revolutions ended quickly; in

most cases the challenges to the social order were quashed.[50]

A culture of violence rooted in the deep conflicts that split the countryside under Dutch rule would repeatedly

erupt throughout the whole second half of the twentieth century.[50] The term 'social revolution' has been applied

to a range of mostly violent activities of the left that included both altruistic attempts to organise real revolution

and simple expressions of revenge, resentment and assertions of power. Violence was one of the many

lessons learned during the Japanese occupation, and figures identified as 'feudal', including kings, regents, or

simply the wealthy, were often attacked, sometimes beheaded, and rape became a weapon against 'feudal'

women.[49] In the coastal sultanates of Sumatra and Kalimantan, for example, sultansand others whose

authority had been shored-up by the Dutch, were attacked as soon as Japanese authority left. The secular

local lords of Aceh, who had been the foundation of Dutch rule, were executed, although most of Indonesia's

sultanates fell back into Dutch hands.

Most Indonesians lived in fear and uncertainty, particularly a significant proportion of the population who

supported the Dutch or who remained under Dutch control. The popular revolutionary cry 'Freedom or Death'

was often interpreted to justify killings under claimed Republican authority. Traders were often in particularly

difficult positions. On the one hand, they were pressured by Republicans to boycott all sales to the Dutch; on

the other hand, Dutch police could be merciless in their efforts to stamp out smugglers on which the Republican

economy depended. In some areas, the term kedaulatan rakyat ('exercising the sovereignty of the people') –

which is mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution and used by pemudato demand pro-active policies from

leaders – came to be used not only in the demanding of free goods, but also to justify extortion and robbery.

Chinese merchants, in particular, were often forced to keep their goods at artificially low prices under threat of

death.[49][51]

[edit]Communist and Islamist insurgencies

Main articles: Madiun Affair and Darul Islam (Indonesia)

On 18 September 1948 an 'Indonesian Soviet Republic' was declared in Madiun, east of Yogyakarta, by

members of the PKI and the Indonesian Socialist Party (PSI). Judging the times as right for

a proletarian uprising, they intended it to be a rallying centre for revolt against "Sukarno-Hatta, the slaves of the

Japanese and America".[14] Madiun however was won back by Republican forces within a few weeks and the

insurgency leader, Musso, killed. RM Suryo, the governor of East Java, several police officers and religious

leaders were killed by the rebels. This ended a distraction for the revolution,[14] and it turned vague American

sympathies based on anti-colonial sentiments into diplomatic support. Internationally, the Republic was now

seen as being staunchly anti-communist and a potential ally in the emerging global Cold War between the

American-led 'free world' and the Soviet-led bloc.[52]

Members of the Republican Army who had come from Indonesian Hizbullah felt betrayed by Indonesian

Government. In May 1948, they declared a break-away regime, the Negara Islam Indonesia (Indonesian

Islamic State), better known as Darul Islam. Led by an Islamic mystic, Sekarmadji Maridjan Kartosuwirjo, Darul

Islam sought to establish Indonesia as an Islamic theocracy. At the time, the Republican Government did not

respond as they were focused on the threat from the Dutch. Some leaders of Masjumi sympathised with the

rebellion. After the Republic regained all territories in 1950, the government took the Darul Islam threat

seriously, especially after some provinces declared their joining of Darul Islam. The rebellion was put down in

1962.

[edit]Transfer of sovereignty

Millions upon millions flooded the sidewalks, the roads. They were crying, cheering, screaming "...Long live Bung

Karno..." They clung to the sides of the car, the hood, the running boards. They grabbed at me to kiss my fingers.

Soldiers beat a path for me to the topmost step of the big white palace. There I raised both hands high. A stillness

swept over the millions. "Alhamdulillah – Thank God," I cried. "We are free"

—Sukarno's recollections of independence achieved.[53]

The resilience of Indonesian Republican resistance and active international diplomacy set world opinion against

the Dutch efforts to re-establish their colony.[48] The second 'police action' was a diplomatic disaster for the

Dutch cause. The newly appointed United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson pushed the Netherlands

government into negotiations earlier recommended by the United Nations but until then defied by the

Netherlands. TheDutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference was held in The Hague from 23 August 1949 to 2

November 1949 between the Republic, the Netherlands, and the Dutch-created federal states. The

Netherlands agreed to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over a new federal state known as the 'United States

of Indonesia' (RUSI). It would include all the territory of the former Dutch East Indies with the exception

of Netherlands New Guinea; sovereignty over which it was agreed would be retained by the Netherlands until

further negotiations with Indonesia. The other difficult issue to which Indonesia gave concessions was

Netherlands East Indies debt. Indonesia agreed to responsibility for this sum of £4.3 billion, much of which was

directly attributable to Dutch attempts to crush the revolution. Sovereignty was formally transferred on 27

December 1949, and the new state was immediately recognised by the United States of America.

The United States of Indonesia, December 1949 – the Republic of Indonesia is shown in red

Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra together formed a single state in the sixteen-state RUSI federation,

but accounted for almost half its population. The other fifteen 'federal' states had been created by the

Netherlands since 1945. These states were dissolved into the Republic over the first half of 1950. An abortive

anti-Republic coup in Bandung and Jakarta by Westerling's Legion of Ratu Adil (APRA) on 23 January 1950

resulted in the dissolution of the populous Pasundan state in West Java, thus quickening the dissolution of the

federal structure. Colonial soldiers, who were largely Ambonese, clashed with Republican troops

in Makassar during the Makassar Uprising in April 1950. The predominantly Christian Ambonese were from

one of the few regions with pro-Dutch sentiments and they were suspicious of the Javanese Muslim-dominated

Republic, whom they unfavourably regarded as leftists. On 25 April 1950, an independent Republic of South

Maluku (RMS) was proclaimed in Ambon but this was suppressed by Republican troops during a campaign

from July to November. With the state of East Sumatra now being the only federal state remaining, it too folded

and fell in line with the unitary Republic. On 17 August 1950, the fifth anniversary of his declaration of

Indonesian independence, Sukarno proclaimed the Republic of Indonesia as a unitary state.[54]

[edit]Impacts

Indonesian Vice-president Hatta and Dutch Queen Juliana at the signing ceremony in The Hague at which the Dutch

recognised Indonesian sovereignty

Although there is no accurate account of how many Indonesians died, they died in far greater numbers than

their enemies, and many died at the hands of other Indonesians. Estimates of Indonesian deaths in fighting

range from 45,000 to 100,000 and civilian casualties exceeded 25,000 and may have been as high as 100,000.

[55] A total of 1,200 British soldiers were killed or went missing in Java and Sumatra in 1945 and 1946, most of

them Indian soldiers.[56] More than 5,000 Dutch soldiers lost their lives in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949.

Many more Japanese died; in Bandung alone, 1,057 died, only half of whom died in actual combat, the rest

killed in rampages by Indonesians. Tens of thousands of Chinese and Eurasians were killed or left homeless,

despite the fact that many Chinese supported the revolution. Seven million people were displaced on Java and

Sumatra.[55][57]

The revolution had direct effects on economic conditions; shortages were common, particularly food, clothing

and fuel. There were in effect two economies – the Dutch and the Republican – both of which had to

simultaneously rebuild after World War II and survive the disruptions of the revolution. The Republic had to set

up all necessities of life, ranging from 'postage stamps, army badges, and train tickets' whilst subject to Dutch

trade blockades. Confusion and ruinous inflationary surges resulted from competing currencies; Japanese, new

Dutch money, and Republican currencies were all used, often concurrently.[58]

Indonesian independence was secured through a blend of both diplomacy and force. Despite their ill-discipline

raising the prospect of anarchy, without pemuda confronting foreign and Indonesian colonial forces, Republican

diplomatic efforts would have been futile. The revolution is the turning point of modern Indonesian history, and

it has provided the reference point and validation for the country’s major political trends that continue to the

present day. It gave impetus to communism in the country, to militant nationalism, to Sukarno's 'guided

democracy', to political Islam, the origins of the Indonesian army and its role in Indonesian power, the country's

constitutional arrangements, and the centralism of power in Indonesia.[59]

The revolution destroyed a colonial administration ruled from the other side of the world, and dismantled with it

the raja, seen by many as obsolete and powerless. Also, it relaxed the rigid racial and social categorisations of

colonial Indonesia. Tremendous energies and aspirations were created amongst Indonesians; a new creative

surge was seen in writing and art, as was a great demand for education and modernisation. It did not, however,

significantly improve the economic or political fortune of the population’s poverty-stricken peasant majority; only

a few Indonesians were able to gain a larger role in commerce, and hopes for democracy were dashed within a

decade

Fall of the Socialist Bloc – I. By: Mobeen Chughtaileave a comment »The last two decades have seen a dramatic rise in the US-led ‘pre-emptive’ strikes against enemy nations. The disdain with which the White House treats certain countries and the manner in which it marginalises and threatens them on a global scale is evident today. However, this was not the case when the USSR existed. One must, in all honesty, accept that the political scenario that pervades today is vastly different from the one that was present only three or four decades ago. It is my opinion that the objectives of liberation must include that the world has indeed failed to be decolonised, rather has moved into a new era of oppression: neo-colonialism. I will also attempt to show how the world order has changed in the last years and how this change is linked directly to the disintegration of the USSR. Furthermore, it will be shown that most of the nationalist liberation/decolonisation movements (many of which have been inappropriately and criminally dubbed “terrorist” movements by the world’s only superpower, i.e. the US) operating in the world today have suffered greatly from the transition to a unipolar world order. The author will, therefore, attempt to show that the world liberation movements have suffered terribly after the fall of USSR.

“They [the socialist bloc] undertook to consult together on all international questions involving their common interests, and to set up a unified military command, with its headquarters in Moscow. Two formal alliances – Nato and the Warsaw Pact – now confronted one another in Europe” (Bell, 122).

With the creation of the USSR and the subsequent rise of communist parties within the world at large and in Central and Eastern Europe in particular the world entered a new era in the early 20th century. With the creation of the Nato alliance in 1949 it became necessary to take steps by the socialist republics to consolidate their power. For this reason the Warsaw Pact was drafted and implemented in 1955. The member countries that later comprised part of the larger Socialist Bloc were:

1) The Soviet Union,2) Albania,

3) Bulgaria,4) Czechoslovakia,5) East Germany,6) Hungary,7) Poland, and8) Romania.These countries were later reinforced with the inclusion of other important nations such as China, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. It is an unfortunate fact, however, that due to many reasons the USSR started to decline. The author shall attempt to outline these reasons since they are of direct relevance to the subsequent world order.

Many critics have ostensibly alleged that the USSR broke down as a result of a breakdown in communist ideology. I shall use this opportunity to refute this argument. The USSR, by any stretch of the imagination, was not a communist country – it was a socialist country where the communist party was in power. There is a difference. Indeed there has never been any country on the face of the earth that has experienced communism. Socialism, therefore, defines a transitional stage from capitalism to communism. While it must be admitted that the communist party was in power in the USSR at the time of its disintegration, it must also be explained that the quality of the leadership in power at the time was extremely different (utterly opposite) to that at the time of the great success of the Soviet Union. Events after the 20th congress and the revisionist policies of Brezhnev, Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin explain sufficiently. An account of how these individuals wanted to be called communists during their reign in spite of their revisionist policies is testament to their hypocrisy.

“Gorbachev cranked out a slew of slogans, including glasnost, perestroika and ‘new thinking’ in an effort to rescues socialism in the Soviet Union. Despite these shocking similarities of his policies to Khrushchev’s revisionism (Gorbachev was actually more revisionist than Khrushchev), Gorbachev was adamant in declaring himself to be a true Communist” (Shih & Shi, 89).

Comparing this to the later interview given by Gorbachev after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in which in his own words he admits that it was his “ambition was to liquidate Communism”, clearly shows that Gorbachev (and by implication all revisionists before him) was working within the USSR to deter it from its original Marxist-Leninist path. How can one then, in all honesty, deny their role in the disintegration of this superpower?

The world, as it existed in the Cold War era, had attained a begrudging stability due to the existence of two opposing monoliths, i.e. the US and the USSR (and therefore Nato and Warsaw Pact countries). It is thus not without basis to say that both sides had to consider a far greater set of implications for pursuing their interests than is the case now. Let us consider two cases that occurred during the Cold War era and hold special significance: 1) the Cuban Missile crisis, and 2) the Afghan crisis.

In the Cuban Missile crisis the US did not send its forces directly into Cuba to initiate violent retaliation to the Soviet Union’s missile installations. This was due to the fact that the US was fully aware of the military might it would unleash upon itself and its allies should it pursue a foreign policy based on the disregard for Cuba’s sovereignty. In the Afghan crisis the US chose to wage an indirect war against the Soviet Union by training and arming local militias against the Soviet forces, rather than risk open conflict. This too can be attributed to the above mentioned rationale.

The transformation of the third world into the neo-colonial appendage of the US could only be intensified if the strongest anti-neo-liberal force was dismembered. Let us look at the case of the World Bank and the IMF’s structural adjustment programmes as they have been

propagated after the Cold War. One would find that there is a great increase in the sheer number of cases of structural adjustment within the third world and as a consequence there has been a drastic rise in inequality within the same.

Let us now compare this to the recent foreign policy of the US which, openly and without consideration to the UN’s own resolutions, targets all sovereign states that constitute a potential threat to itself or its allies (especially Israel). One can clearly see that if the USSR was still present then at least the absurd ‘David and Goliath’ situation, as it exists within Iraq at this time, would not be so. Needless to say, the world as a whole and its constituting countries (particularly the third world) has lost a great equalising force with the dismembering of the USSR.

The civil rights movement was a series of worldwide political movements for equality before the law that

peaked in the 1960s. In many situations it took the form of campaigns of civil resistance aimed at achieving

change by nonviolent forms of resistance. In some situations it was accompanied, or followed, by civil

unrest and armed rebellion. The process was long and tenuous in many countries, and many of these

movements did not fully achieve their goals although, the efforts of these movements did lead to improvements

in the legal rights of previously oppressed groups of people.

The main aim of the civil rights movement included, and include, ensuring that the rights of all people are

equally protected by the law, including the rights of minorities. Civil rights movements ranging from the

global LGBT rights movement to the global Women's rightsmovement to various racial minority rights

movements around the world continue.

Civil rights movement in Northern Ireland

Further information: Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association

Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom which has witnessed violence over many decades, known

as the Troubles, arising from tensions between the British (Unionist, Protestant) majority and the Irish

(Nationalist, Catholic) minority following the Partition of Ireland in 1920.

The civil rights struggle in Northern Ireland can be traced to activists in Dungannon, led by Austin Currie, who

were fighting for equal access to public housing for the members of the Catholic community. This domestic

issue would not have led to a fight for civil rights were it not for the fact that being a registered householder was

a qualification for local governmentfranchise in Northern Ireland.[citation needed]

In January 1964, the Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was launched in Belfast.[1] This organisation joined the

struggle for better housing and committed itself to ending discrimination in employment. The CSJ promised the

Catholic community that their cries would be heard. They challenged the government and promised that they

would take their case to the Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg and to the United Nations.[2]

Having started with basic domestic issues, the civil rights struggle in Northern Ireland escalated to a full scale

movement that found its embodiment in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. NICRA campaigned in

the late sixties and early seventies, consciously modelling itself on the American civil rights movement and

using similar methods of civil resistance. NICRA organised marches and protests to demand equal rights and

an end to discrimination.

NICRA originally had five main demands:

one man, one vote

an end to discrimination in housing

an end to discrimination in local government

an end to the gerrymandering of district boundaries, which limited the effect of Catholic voting

the disbandment of the B-Specials, an entirely Protestant Police reserve, perceived as sectarian.

All of these specific demands were aimed at an ultimate goal that had been the one of women at the very

beginning: the end of discrimination.

Civil rights activists all over Northern Ireland soon launched a campaign of civil resistance. There was

opposition from Loyalists, who were aided by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Northern Ireland's police

force.[citation needed] At this point, the RUC was over 90% Protestant. Violence escalated, resulting in the rise of

the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) from the Catholic community, a group reminiscent of those from

the War of Independence and the Civil War that occurred in the 1920s that had launched a campaign of

violence to end British rule in Northern Ireland. Loyalist paramilitaries countered this with a defensive campaign

of violence and the British government responded with a policy of internment without trial of suspected IRA

members. For more than 300 people, the internment lasted several years. The huge majority of those interned

by the British forces were Catholic. In 1978, in a case brought by the government of the Republic of

Ireland against the government of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that

the interrogation techniques approved for use by the British army on internees in 1971 amounted to "inhuman

and degrading" treatment.

The IRA encouraged Republicans to join in the civil rights movement but never controlled NICRA. The Northern

Ireland Civil Rights Association fought for the end of discrimination toward Catholics and did not take a position

on the legitimacy of the state.[3] Republican leader Gerry Adams explained subsequently that Catholics saw that

it was possible for them to have their demands heard. He wrote that "we were able to see an example of the

fact that you didn't just have to take it, you could fight back".[2] For an account and critique of the civil rights

movement in Northern Ireland, reflecting on the ambiguous link between the causes of civil rights and

opposition to the union with the United Kingdom, see the work of Richard English.[4]

One of the most important events in the era of civil rights in Northern Ireland took place in Derry, which

escalated the conflict from peaceful civil disobedience to armed conflict. The Battle of the Bogside started on

12 August when an Apprentice Boys, a Protestant order, parade passed through Waterloo Place, where a large

crowd was gathered at the mouth of William Street, on the edge of the Bogside. Different accounts describe the

first outbreak of violence, with reports stating that it was either an attack by youth from the Bogside on the

RUC, or fighting broke out between Protestants and Catholics. The violence escalated and barricades were

erected. Proclaiming this district to be the Free Derry, Bogsiders carried on fights with the RUC for days using

stones and petrol bombs. The government finally withdrew the RUC and replaced it with the army, which

disbanded the crowds of Catholics who were barricaded in the Bogside.[5]

Bloody Sunday, 30 January 1972, in Derry is seen by some as a turning point in the civil rights movement.

Fourteen unarmed Catholic civil rights marchers protesting against internmentwere shot dead by the British

army and many were left wounded on the streets.

The peace process has made significant gains in recent years. Through open dialogue from all parties, a state

of ceasefire by all major paramilitary groups has lasted. A stronger economy improved Northern Ireland's

standard of living. Civil rights issues have become far less of a concern for many in Northern Ireland over the

past 20 years as laws and policies protecting their rights and forms of affirmative action have been

implemented for all government offices and many private businesses. Tensions still exist, but the vast majority

of citizens are no longer affected by violence.

Independence movements in Africa

Main article: African independence movements

A wave of independence movements in Africa crested in the 1960s, which included the Angolan War of

Independence, the Guinea-Bissauan Revolution, the war of liberation inMozambique and the struggle

against apartheid in South Africa. This wave of struggles re-energised pan-Africanism and led to the founding

of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963.

Canada's Quiet Revolution

Main article: Quiet Revolution

Main article: October Crisis

The 1960s brought intense political and social change to the Canadian province of Quebec, with the election of

Liberal Premier Jean Lesage after the death of Maurice Duplessis, whose government was widely viewed as

corrupt.[6] These changes included secularization of the education and health care systems, which were both

heavily controlled by the Roman Catholic Church, whose support for Duplessis and his perceived

corruption had angered many Québécois. Policies of the Liberal government also sought to give Quebec more

economic autonomy, such as the nationalization of Hydro-Québec and the creation of public companies for the

mining, forestry, iron/steel and petroleum industries of the province. Other changes included the creation of

the Régie des Rentes du Québec (Quebec Pension Plan) and new labour codes that made unionizing easier

and gave workers the right to strike.

The social and economic changes of the Quiet Revolution gave life to the Quebec sovereignty movement, as

more and more Québécois saw themselves as a distinctly culturally different from the rest of Canada. The

segregationist Parti Québécois was created in 1968 and won the 1976 Quebec general election. They

enacted legislation meant to enshrine French as the language of business in the province, while also

controversially restricting the usage of English on signs and restricting the eligibility of students to be taught in

English.

A radical strand of French Canadian nationalism produced the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), which

since 1963 has been using terrorism to make Quebec a sovereign nation. In October 1970, in response to the

arrest of some of its members earlier in the year, the FLQ kidnapped British diplomat James Cross and

Quebec's Minister of Labour Pierre Laporte, whom they later killed. The then Canadian Prime Minister Pierre

Elliott Trudeau, himself a French Canadian, invoked the War Measures Act, declared martial law in Quebec,

and arrested the kidnappers by the end of the year.

Civil rights movement in the United States

Main articles: African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954), African-American Civil Rights Movement

(1955–1968), and Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement

The civil rights movement in the United States includes noted legislation and organized efforts to abolish public

and private acts of racial discrimination African Americans and other disadvantaged groups between 1954 to

1968, particularly in the southern United States. It is sometimes referred to as the Second Reconstruction era,

echoing the unresolved issues of the Reconstruction era in the United States (1863–1877).

Ethnicity equity issues

Integrationism

See also: Racial integration and Jim Crow laws

After 1890 the system of Jim Crow, disenfranchisement, and second class citizenship degraded the citizenship

rights of African Americans, especially in the South. It was the nadir of American race relations. There were

three main aspects: racial segregation – upheld by the United States Supreme Court decision in Plessy v.

Ferguson in 1896 –, legally mandated by southern governments—voter suppression or disfranchisement in the

southern states, and private acts of violence and mass racial violence aimed at African Americans, unhindered

or encouraged by government authorities. Although racial discrimination was present nationwide, the

combination of law, public and private acts of discrimination, marginal economic opportunity, and violence

directed toward African Americans in the southern states became known as Jim Crow.

March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

Noted strategies employed prior to 1955 included litigation and lobbying attempts by the National Association

for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). These efforts were a hallmark of the American Civil Rights

Movement from 1896 to 1954. However, by 1955, blacks became frustrated by gradual approaches to

implement desegregation by federal and state governments and the "massive resistance" by whites. The black

leadership adopted a combined strategy of direct action withnonviolent resistance known as civil disobedience.

The acts of civil disobedience produced crisis situations between practitioners and government authorities. The

authorities of federal, state, and local governments often had to act with an immediate response to end crisis

situations – sometimes in the practitioners' favor. Some of the different forms of protests and/or civil

disobedience employed included boycotts, as successfully practiced by the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–

1956) in Alabama which gave the movement one of its more famous icons in Rosa Parks; "sit-ins", as

demonstrated by the influentialGreensboro sit-in (1960) in North Carolina; and marches, as exhibited by

the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama. The evidence of changing attitudes could also be seen

around the country, where small businesses sprang up supporting the civil rights movement, such as New

Jersey's notable Everybody's Luncheonette.[7]

Jesse Jackson has fought for civil rights as his life's work.

The most illustrious march is probably the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. It is best remembered

for the glorious speech Martin Luther King, Jr. gave, in which the "I have a dream" part turned into a national

text and eclipsed the troubles the organizers had to bring to march forward. It had been a fairly complicated

affair to bring together various leaders of civil rights, religious and labor groups. As the name of the march tells

us, many compromises had to be made in order to unite the followers of so many different causes. The "March

on Washington for Jobs and Freedom" emphasized the combined purposes of the march and the goals that

each of the leaders aimed at. These leaders, informally named the Big Six, were A. Philip Randolph, Roy

Wilkins, Martin Luther King Jr., Whitney Young, James Farmer and John Lewis. Although they came from

different political horizons, these leaders were intent on the peacefulness of the march, which even had its own

marshal to ensure that the event would be peaceful and respectful of the law.[8] The success of the march is still

being debated but one aspect has been raised in the last few years: the misrepresentation of women. A lot of

feminine civil rights groups had participated in the organization of the march but when it came to actual activity,

women were denied the right to speak and were relegated to figurative roles in the back of the stage. As some

female participants have noticed, the March can be remembered for the "I Have a Dream" speech but for most

female activists it was a new awakening, forcing black women not only to fight for civil rights but also to engage

in the Feminist movement.[9]

Noted achievements of the civil rights movement in this area include the judicial victory in the Brown v. Board of

Education case that nullified the legal article of "separate but equal" and made segregation legally

impermissible, passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[10] that banned discrimination in employment practices

and public accommodations, passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that restored voting rights, and passage

of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.

Black Power

Main article: Black Power

See also: Black Panther Party, Black nationalism, and pan-Africanism

By 1965, the emergence of the Black Power movement (1966–1975) began to gradually eclipse the original

"integrated power" aims of the civil rights movement that had been espoused by Martin Luther King, Jr..

Advocates of Black Power argued for black self-determination, and asserted that the assimilation inherent in

integration robs Africans of their common heritage and dignity; e.g., the theorist and activist Omali

Yeshitela argues that Africans have historically fought to protect their lands, cultures and freedoms from

European colonialists, and that any integration into the society which has stolen another people and their

wealth is actually an act of treason.

Today, most Black Power advocates have not changed their self-sufficiency argument. Racism still exists

worldwide and it is believed by some that blacks in the United States, on the whole, did not assimilate into U.S.

"mainstream" culture, either by King's integration measures or by the self-sufficiency measures of Black Power

—rather, blacks arguably became even more oppressed, this time partially by "their own" people in a new

black stratum of the middle class and the ruling class. Black Power's advocates generally argue that the reason

for thisstalemate and further oppression of the vast majority of U.S. blacks is because Black Power's objectives

have not had the opportunity to be fully carried through.

One of the most public manifestations of the Black Power movement took place in the 1968 Olympics, when

two African-Americans stood on the podium doing a Black Power salute. This act is still remembered today as

the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute.

Unipolarity

NATO and countries with which it is supposed to be at peace account for over 70% of global military expenditure,[1] with

the United States alone accounting for 43% of global military expenditure[2] in 2009 and more than the next 17 combined in

2010[3]with NATO then taking about half of the global $1.6 trillion.[4]

Unipolarity in international politics is a distribution of power in which one state exercises most of the cultural,

economic, and military influence.

Nuno P. Monteiro, assistant professor of political science at Yale University, argues that three features are

endemic to unipolar systems:[5]

Unipolarity is an interstate system and not an empire. Monteiro cites Robert Jervis of Columbia

University to support his claim, who argues that “unipolarity implies the existence of many juridically equal

non-states, something that an empire denies.”[6] Monteiro illustrates this point further through Daniel Nexon

and Thomas Wright, who state that “in empires, inter-societal divide-and-rule practices replace interstate

balance-of-power dynamics.”[7]

Unipolarity is anarchical. Anarchy results from the incomplete power preponderance of the

unipole. Columbia University's Kenneth Waltz, whom Monteiro cites, argues that a great power cannot

“exert a positive control everywhere in the world.”[8] Therefore, relatively weaker countries have the

freedom to pursue policy preferences independent of the unipole. The power projection limitations of the

unipole is a distinguishing characteristic between unipolar and hegemonic systems.

Unipolar systems possess only one great power and face no competition. If a competitor emerges, the

international system is no longer unipolar. Kenneth Waltz maintains that the United States is the only

“pole” to possess global interests.[8]

The post-Cold War international system is unipolar: The United States’ defense spending is “close to half of

global military expenditures; a blue-water navy superior to all others combined; a chance at a splendid nuclear

first strike over its erstwhile foe, Russia; a defense research and development budget that is 80 percent of the

total defense expenditures of its most obvious future competitor, China; and unmatched global power-

projection capabilities.”[5]

William Wohlforth, the Daniel Webster professor of government at Dartmouth College, believes unipolarity is

peaceful because it “favors the absence of war among great powers and comparatively low levels of

competition for prestige or security for two reasons: the leading state’s power advantage removes the problem

of hegemonic rivalry from world politics, and it reduces the salience and stakes of balance of power politics

among the major states."[9] This idea is based on hegemonic stability theory and balance of power theory.

Hegemonic stability theory stipulates that “powerful states foster international orders that are stable until

differential growth in power produces a dissatisfied state with the capability to challenge the dominant state for

leadership. The clearer and larger the concentration of power in the leading state, the more peaceful the

international order associated with it will be."[9] Balance of power theory stipulates that as long as the

international system remains unipolar, balance of power theory creates peace. “Therefore one pole is best, and

security competition among the great powers should be minimal.”[9] Unipolarity generates few incentives for

security and prestige competition among great powers.

Nuno P. Monteiro argues that international relations theorists have long debated the durability of unipolarity (i.e.

when it will end) but less on the relative peacefulness unipolarity brings among nations within an international

system. Rather than comparing the relative peacefulness of unipolarity, multipolarity, and bipolarity, he

identifies causal pathways to war that are endemic to a unipolar system. He does not question the impossibility

of great power war in a unipolar world, which is a central tenet of William C. Wohlforth in his book World Out of

Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Instead he believes “unipolar

systems provide incentives for two other types of war: those pitting the sole great power against a relatively

weaker state and those exclusively involving weaker states.”[5] Monteiro’s hypothesis is influenced by the first

two decades of the post-Cold War environment, one that is defined as unipolar and rife with wars. “The United

States has been at war for thirteen of the twenty-two years since the end of the Cold War. Put another way, the

first two decades of unipolarity, which make up less than 10 percent to U.S. history, account for more than 25

percent of the nation’s total time at war.”

A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability

to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. A

superpower is traditionally considered to be a step higher than agreat power.

Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a

superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the

world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of

global hegemony."[2]

It was a term first applied to the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States of America in 1944.

Following World War II, as the British Empire transformed itself into the Commonwealth and its territories

became independent, the Soviet Union and the United States generally came to be regarded as the only two

superpowers, and confronted each other in the Cold War.

After the Cold War, only the United States appeares to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world

superpower.[1] The term "second superpower" has been applied by scholars to the possibility that the People's

Republic of China could soon emerge as a superpower on par with the United States.[3][4][5][6] Additionally, it is

widely believed that the European Union, and India may too have the potential of achieving superpower

status within the 21st century.[7] A few heads of states,[8][9] politicians[10] and news analysts[11] have even

suggested that Russia may have already reclaimed that status.[12][13][14][15] According to various academics,

the European Union has revived a style of European imperialism, liking the union to an Empire (or superpower)

of sorts. The term commonly used isEurosphere.[16] However, currently the United States is the only nation for

which there is a broad consensus of its superpower status.

Some people doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's

complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept

of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar

Historians often hesitate to draw conclusions about the recent past. They assume that the significance of events becomes more discernible with the passage of time. It is, however, interesting to speculate about what historians in the middle of the next century will say about the period from the end of World War II to the end of the so-called Cold War. Perhaps the dominant view will highlight decades of relative stability and economic growth. No world wars have erupted since 1945, and many nations attained unprecedented affluence.

The Soviet Union and its satellites, of course, did not achieve as much affluence as their counterparts in the West. The USSR achieved superpower status through an impressive arms buildup, but in the long run the shortcomings of its centrally planned economy were aggravated by the diversion of resources from consumer industries to military purposes. Apparently Soviet communism had within it

the seeds of its own destruction. The satellite nations, which have long had an historic tendency to lag behind Western Europe economically, suffered serious handicaps under Soviet domination.

With the collapse of Communist regimes in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the reunification of Germany in 1990, and continued German membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (while the Warsaw Pact disintegrated), the allies could plausibly claim that they won the Cold War. The aftermath of this victory has, however, been characterized by so many problems of economic hardship, political instability, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and ethnic strife that many people have felt nostalgia for the Cold War years.

Marxist feminism is a sub-type of feminist theory which focuses on the social institutions of private

property and capitalism to explain and criticize gender inequality and oppression. According to Marxist

feminists, private property gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political and domestic struggle

between the sexes, and is the root of women's oppression in the current social context.

Contents

  [hide]

1 Basis in Marxist sociology

2 Engels and feminism

3 Wage labour

4 Activism

5 Critiques of Marxist feminism

6 See also

7 References

8 External links

[edit]Basis in Marxist sociology

Main article: Historical materialism

The theory and method of historical study developed by Marx, termed historical materialism, puts heavy

emphasis on the role of contingent economic and technological states of affairs in determining the base

structure of society, which in turn drives social revolutions to bring the cultural, educational, governmental and

legal systems, as well as political, religious, and social institutions into line with the demands of the base

structure. The Marxist theory is materialist. While it does see that ideas and culture play a role in history, it does

not attribute causal primacy to intellectual revolutions and the power of ideas to drive social change. Marx

argues that the range of legal and moral states of affairs are most of the time set by the current ruling class of

society in accordance with their interests and needs to maintain and increase their power against lower

classes. However, economic crises, brought on by the contradictions of the mode of production, will usher onto

the stage of history a new ruling class with new ideas. Thus ideas do play an important role. As Lenin argued,

the organization of socialist consciousness by a vanguard party is vital to the working class revolutionary

process.

In developing theoretical explanations for gender inequality, Engels would work within this framework following

Marx, tracing the history of the institution of the family and its substance in law and mores to, first, class

conflict, and, 2nd, gender conflict between men and women rooted in their competing economic interests.

[edit]Engels and feminism

Marxist feminism's foundation is laid by Friedrich Engels in his analysis of gender oppression in The Origin of

the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884). He argues that a woman's subordination is not a result of

her biological disposition but of social relations, and that men's efforts to achieve their demands for control of

women's labor and sexual faculties have gradually solidified and become institutionalized in the nuclear family.

Through a Marxist historical perspective, Engels analyzes the widespread social phenomena associated with

female sexual morality, such as fixation on virginity and sexual purity, incrimination and violent punishment of

women who commit adultery, and demands that women be submissive to their husbands. Ultimately, Engels

traces these phenomena to the recent development of exclusive control of private property by the patriarchs of

the rising slaveowner class in the ancient mode of production, and the attendant desire to ensure that their

inheritance is passed only to their own offspring: chastity and fidelity are rewarded, says Engels, because they

guarantee exclusive access to the sexual and reproductive faculty of women possessed by men from the

property-owning class.

As such, gender oppression is closely related to class oppression and the relationship between man and

woman in society is similar to the relations between proletariat and bourgeoise[citation needed]. On this account

women's subordination is a function of class oppression, maintained (like racism) because it serves the

interests of capital and the ruling class; it divides men against women, privileges working class men relatively

within the capitalist system in order to secure their support; and legitimates the capitalist class's refusal to pay

for the domestic labor assigned, unpaid, to women (childrearing, cleaning, etc.). Working class men are

encouraged by a sexist capitalist media to exploit the dominant social position afforded to them by existing

conditions to reinforce that position and to maintain the conditions underlying it.

[edit]Wage labour

Marxist feminists have extended traditional Marxist analysis by looking at domestic labour as well as wage

work. In Engels' analysis, the family is an institutional representation of male demands that women

perform domestic labor without pay.

[edit]Activism

Radical Women, a major Marxist-feminist organization, bases its theory on Marx' and Engels' analysis that the

enslavement of women was the first building block of an economic system based on private property. They

contend that elimination of the capitalist profit-driven economy will remove the motivation for sexism, racism,

homophobia, and other forms of oppression.[1]

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, both Clara Zetkin and Eleanor Marx were against

the demonization of men and supported a proletariat|proletarian revolution that would overcome as many

male–female inequalities as possible.[2] As their movement already had the most radical demands in women's

equality, most Marxist leaders, including Clara Zetkin[3][4]and Alexandra Kollontai,[5][6] counterposed Marxism

against bourgeois feminism, rather than trying to combine them.

[edit]Critiques of Marxist feminism

Gayle Rubin, who has written on a certain range of subjects including sadomasochism, prostitution,

pornography, and lesbian literature as well as anthropological studies and histories of sexual subcultures, first

rose to prominence through her 1975 essay "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' of Sex", in

which she coins the phrase "sex/gender system" and criticizes Marxism for what she claims is its incomplete

analysis of sexism under capitalism, without dismissing or dismantling Marxist fundamentals in the process.

Radical feminism, which emerged before the 1970s, also took issue with Marxist feminism. Radical feminist

theorists stated that modern society and its constructs (law, religion, politics, art, etc.) are the product of males

and therefore have a patriarchal character. According to those who subscribe to this view, the best solution for

women's oppression would be to treat patriarchy not as a subset of capitalism but as a problem in its own right

(see identity politics). Thus, eliminating women's oppression means eliminating male domination in all its forms.

Orthodox Marxists argue that most Marxist forerunners claimed by feminists or "marxist feminists" including

Clara Zetkin[7][8] and Alexandra Kollontai[9][10] were against capitalist forms of feminism. They agreed with the

main Marxist movement that feminism was a bourgeois ideology counterposed to Marxism and against the

working class. Instead of feminism, the Marxists supported the more radical political program of liberating

women through socialist revolution, with a special emphasis on work among women and in materially changing

their conditions after the revolution. Orthodox Marxists view the later attempt to combine Marxism and feminism

as a liberal creation of academics and reformist leftists who want to make alliances with bourgeois feminists.

For what reason, then, should the woman worker seek a union with the bourgeois feminists? Who, in actual

fact, would stand to gain in the event of such an alliance? Certainly not the woman worker. -Alexandra

Kollontai, 1909 [9]

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and

defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal

opportunities for women in education and employment.

The Utopian Socialist and French philosopher Charles Fourier is credited with having originated the word

"feminism" in 1837.[3] The words "feminism" and "feminist" first appeared in France and the Netherlands in

1872,[4] Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United States in 1910.,[5][6] and the Oxford English Dictionary lists

1894 as the year of the first appearance of "feminist" and 1895 for "feminism".[7]Today the Oxford English

Dictionary defines a feminist as "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women".[8]

Feminist theory, which emerged from these feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender

inequality by examining women's social roles and lived experience; it has developed theories in a variety of

disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of sex and gender.[9][10] Some of the

earlier forms of feminism have been criticized for taking into account only white, middle-class, educated

perspectives. This led to the creation of ethnically specific or multiculturalist forms of feminism.[11]

Feminist activists campaign for women's rights – such as in contract law, property, and voting – while also

promoting bodily integrity, autonomy, and reproductive rights for women. Feminist campaigns have changed

societies, particularly in the West, by achievingwomen's suffrage, gender neutrality in English, equal pay for

women, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptivesand abortion), and the right to enter

into contracts and own property.[12][13] Feminists have worked to protect women and girls fromdomestic

violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.[14][15][16] They have also advocated for workplace rights,

including maternity leave, and against forms of discrimination against women.[12][13][17] Feminism is mainly

focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, bell hooks and other feminists have

argued that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and

gender roles

Theory

Main article: Feminist theory

See also: Gynocriticism and écriture féminine

Feminist theory is the extension of feminism into theoretical or philosophical fields. It encompasses work in a

variety of disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, economics, women's studies, literary criticism,[19][20] art

history,[21] psychoanalysis[22] and philosophy.[23][24] Feminist theory aims to understand gender inequality and

focuses on gender politics, power relations, and sexuality. While providing a critique of these social and political

relations, much of feminist theory also focuses on the promotion of women's rights and interests. Themes

explored in feminist theory include discrimination, stereotyping, objectification (especially sexual

objectification), oppression, and patriarchy.[9][10]

In the field of literary criticism, Elaine Showalter describes the development of feminist theory as having three

phases. The first she calls "feminist critique", in which the feminist reader examines the ideologies behind

literary phenomena. The second Showalter calls "gynocriticism", in which the "woman is producer of textual

meaning". The last phase she calls "gender theory", in which the "ideological inscription and the literary effects

of the sex/gender system are explored".[25]

This was paralled in the 1970s by French feminists, who developed the concept of écriture féminine (which

translates as female, or feminine writing).[26] Helene Cixous argues that writing and philosophy

are phallocentric and along with other French feminists such as Luce Irigaray emphasize "writing from the

body" as a subversive exercise.[26] The work of the feminist psychoanalyst and philosopher, Julia Kristeva, has

influenced feminist theory in general and feminist literary criticism in particular. However, as the scholar

Elizabeth Wright points out, "none of these French feminists align themselves with the feminist movement as it

appeared in the Anglophone world".[26][27]

Movements and ideologies

For more details on the many feminist movements, see Feminist movements and ideologies.

Many overlapping feminist movements and ideologies have developed over the years.

Political movements

Some branches of feminism closely track the political leanings of the larger society, such as liberalism and

conservatism, or focus on the environment. Liberal feminism seeks individualistic equality of men and women

through political and legal reform without altering the structure of society. Radical feminism considers the male-

controlled capitalist hierarchy as the defining feature of women's oppression and the total uprooting and

reconstruction of society as necessary.[14] Conservative feminism is conservative relative to the society in which

it resides. Libertarian feminism conceives of people as self-owners and therefore as entitled to freedom from

coercive interference.[28] Separatist feminism does not support heterosexual relationships. Lesbian feminism is

thus closely related. Other feminists criticize separatist feminism as sexist.[18] Ecofeminists see men's control of

land as responsible for the oppression of women and destruction of the natural environment; ecofeminism has

been criticised for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature.[29]

Materialist ideologies

Rosemary Hennessy and Chrys Ingraham say that materialist feminisms grew out of western marxist thought

and have inspired a number of different (but overlapping) movements, all of which are involved in a critique of

capitalism and are focussed on ideology's relationship to women.[30] Marxist feminism argues that capitalism is

the root cause of women's oppression, and that discrimination against women in domestic life and employment

is an effect of capitalist ideologies.[31] Socialist feminism distinguishes itself from Marxist feminism by arguing

that women's liberation can only be achieved by working to end both the economic and cultural sources of

women's oppression.[32] Anarcha-feminists believe that class struggle and anarchyagainst the state[33] require

struggling against patriarchy, which comes from involuntary hierarchy.

Black and postcolonial ideologies

Sara Ahmed argues that Black and Postcolonial feminisms pose a challenge "to some of the organizing

premises of Western feminist thought."[34] During much of its history, feminist movements and theoretical

developments were led predominantly by middle-class white women from Western Europe and North America.[35][36][37] However women of other races have proposed alternative feminisms.[36] This trend accelerated in the

1960s with the civil rights movement in the United States and the collapse of European colonialism in Africa,

the Caribbean, parts of Latin America, and Southeast Asia. Since that time, women in developing

nations and former colonies and who are of colour or various ethnicities or living in poverty have proposed

additional feminisms.[37] Womanism[38][39] emerged after early feminist movements were largely white and

middle-class.[35] Postcolonial feminists argue that colonial oppression and Western feminism marginalized

postcolonial women but did not turn them passive or voiceless.[11] Third-world feminism is closely related to

postcolonial feminism.[37]These ideas also correspond with ideas in African feminism, motherism,[40] Stiwanism,[41] negofeminism,[42] femalism, transnational feminism, and Africana womanism.[43]

Social constructionist ideologies

In the late twentieth century various feminists began to argue that gender roles are socially constructed,[44]

[45] and that it is impossible to generalize women's experiences across cultures and histories.[46] Post-structural

feminism draws on the philosophies of post-structuralism and deconstruction in order to argue that the concept

of gender is created socially and culturally through discourse.[47] Postmodern feminists also emphasize the

social construction of gender and the discursive nature of reality,[44] however as Pamela Abbot et al. note, a

postmodern approach to feminism highlights "the existence of multiple truths (rather than simply men and

women's standpoints)."[48]

Cultural movements

Riot grrrl (or riot grrl) is an underground feminist punk movement that started in the 1990s and is often

associated with third-wave feminism. It was grounded in the DIY philosophy of punk values. Riot grrls took

an anti-corporate stance of self-sufficiency and self-reliance.[49] Riot grrrl's emphasis on universal female

identity and separatism often appears more closely allied with second-wave feminism than with the third wave.[50] The movement encouraged and made "adolescent girls' standpoints central," allowing them to express

themselves fully.[51] Lipstick feminism is a cultural feminist movement that attempts to respond to the backlash

of second-wave radical feminism of the 1960s and 1970s by reclaiming symbols of "feminine" identity such as

make-up, suggestive clothing and having a sexual allure as valid and empowering personal choices.[52][53] Dianic

Wicca is alsoa feminist-centred movement.

History

Feminist Suffrage Parade in New York City, 6 May 1912.

Main article: History of feminism

See also: Protofeminist

Depending on historical moment, culture and country, feminists around the world have had different causes

and goals. Most western feminist historians assert that all movements that work to obtain women's

rights should be considered feminist movements, even when they did not (or do not) apply the term to

themselves.[54][55][56][57][58][59] Other historians assert that the term should be limited to the modern feminist

movement and its descendants. Those historians use the label "protofeminist" to describe earlier movements.[60]

The history of the modern western feminist movements is divided into three "waves".[61][62] Each wave dealt with

different aspects of the same feminist issues. The first wave comprised women's suffrage movements of the

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, promoting women's right to vote. The second wave was associated

with the ideas and actions of the women's liberation movement beginning in the 1960s. The second wave

campaigned for legal and social equality for women. The third wave is a continuation of, and a reaction to, the

perceived failures of second-wave feminism, beginning in the 1990s.[63]

Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

First-wave feminism was a period of activity during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. In the

UK and US, it focused on the promotion of equal contract, marriage, parenting, and property rights for women.

By the end of the nineteenth century, activism focused primarily on gaining political power, particularly the right

of women's suffrage, though some feminists were active in campaigning for women's sexual, reproductive, and

economic rights as well.[64]

Louise Weiss along with other Parisian suffragettes in 1935. The newspaper headline reads "The Frenchwoman Must Vote."

Women's suffrage began in Britain's Australasian colonies at the close of the 19th century, with the self-

governing colonies of New Zealandgranting women the right to vote in 1893 and South Australia granting

female suffrage (the right to vote and stand for parliamentary office) in 1895. This was followed by Australia

granting female suffrage in 1902.[65][66]

In Britain the Suffragettes and the Suffragists campaigned for the women's vote, and in 1918

the Representation of the People Act was passed granting the vote to women over the age of 30 who owned

houses. In 1928 this was extended to all women over twenty-one.[67] In the U.S., notable leaders of this

movement included Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony, who each campaigned for

theabolition of slavery prior to championing women's right to vote. These women were influenced by

the Quaker theology of spiritual equality, which asserts that men and women are equal under God.[68] In the

United States, first-wave feminism is considered to have ended with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution (1919), granting women the right to vote in all states. The term first wave was

coined retroactively to categorize these western movements after the term second-wave feminism began to be

used to describe a newer feminist movement that focused as much on fighting social and cultural inequalities

as political inequalities.[64][69][70][71][72]

During the late Qing period and reform movements such as the Hundred Days' Reform, Chinese feminists

called for women's liberation from traditional roles and Neo-Confucian gender segregation.[73][74][75] Later,

the Chinese Communist Party created projects aimed at integrating women into the workforce, and claimed

that the revolution had successfully achieved women's liberation.[76]

According to Nawar al-Hassan Golley, Arab feminism was closely connected with Arab nationalism. In

1899, Qasim Amin, considered the "father" of Arab feminism, wrote The Liberation of Women, which argued for

legal and social reforms for women.[77] He drew links between women's position in Egyptian society and

nationalism, leading to the development of Cairo University and the National Movement.[78] In 1923 Hoda

Shaarawi founded the Egyptian Feminist Union, became its president and a symbol of the Arab women's rights

movement.[78]

The Iranian Constitutional Revolution in 1905 triggered the Iranian women's movement, which aimed to

achieve women's equality in education, marriage, careers, and legal rights.[79]However, during the Iranian

revolution of 1979, many of the rights that women had gained from the women's movement were systematically

abolished, such as the Family Protection Law.[80]

In France, women obtained the right to vote only with the Provisional Government of the French Republic of 21

April 1944.[81] The Consultative Assembly of Algiers of 1944 proposed on 24 March 1944 to grant eligibility to

women but following an amendment by Fernand Grenier, they were given full citizenship, including the right to

vote.[81] Grenier's proposition was adopted 51 to 16.[81] In May 1947, following the November 1946 elections, the

sociologist Robert Verdier minimized the "gender gap," stating in Le Populaire that women had not voted in a

consistent way, dividing themselves, as men, according to social classes.[81] During the baby boom period,

feminism waned in importance.[81] Wars (both World War I and World War II) had seen the provisional

emancipation of some, individual, women, but post-war periods signaled the return to conservative roles.[81]

Mid-twentieth century

French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir provided a Marxist solution and an existentialist view on many of the

questions of feminism with the publication of Le Deuxième Sexe (The Second Sex) in 1949.[82] The book

expressed feminists' sense of injustice. Second-wave feminism is a feminist movement beginning in the early

1960s[83] and continuing to the present; as such, it coexists with third-wave feminism. Second wave feminism is

largely concerned with issues of equality other than suffrage, such as ending discrimination.[64]

Second-wave feminists see women's cultural and political inequalities as inextricably linked and encourage

women to understand aspects of their personal lives as deeply politicized and as reflecting sexist power

structures. The feminist activist and author Carol Hanisch coined the slogan "The Personal is Political", which

became synonymous with the second wave.[14][84]

Second and third-wave feminism in China has been characterized by a re-examination of women's roles during

the communist revolution and other reform movements, and new discussions about whether women's equality

has actually been fully achieved.[76]

In 1956, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt initiated "state feminism", which outlawed discrimination

based on gender and granted women's suffrage, but also blocked political activism by feminist leaders.[85] During Sadat's presidency, his wife, Jehan Sadat, publicly advocated further women's rights, though

Egyptian policy and society began to move away from women's equality with the new Islamist movement and

growing conservatism.[86] However, some activists proposed a new feminist movement, Islamic feminism, which

argues for women's equality within an Islamic framework.[87]

In Latin America, revolutions brought changes in women's status in countries such as Nicaragua,

where feminist ideology during the Sandinista Revolution aided women's quality of life but fell short of achieving

a social and ideological change.[88]

Late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries

In the early 1990s in the USA, third-wave feminism began as a response to perceived failures of the second

wave and to the backlash against initiatives and movements created by the second wave. Third-wave feminism

seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave's essentialist definitions of femininity, which, they

argue, over-emphasize the experiences of upper middle-class white women. Third-wave feminists often focus

on "micro-politics" and challenge the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for women, and

tend to use a post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality.[64][89][90][91] Feminist leaders rooted in the

second wave, such as Gloria Anzaldua, bell hooks, Chela Sandoval, Cherrie Moraga, Audre Lorde, Maxine

Hong Kingston, and many other black feminists, sought to negotiate a space within feminist thought for

consideration of race-related subjectivities.[35][90][92]

Since the 1980s standpoint feminists have argued that the feminist movement should address global issues

(such as rape, incest, and prostitution) and culturally specific issues (such asfemale genital mutilation in some

parts of Africa and the Middle East and glass ceiling practices that impede women's advancement in developed

economies) in order to understand how gender inequality interacts with

racism, homophobia, classism and colonization in a "matrix of domination."[93][94] Third-wave feminism also

contains internal debates between difference feminists, who believe that there are important differences

between the sexes, and those who believe that there are no inherent differences between the sexes and

contend that gender roles are due to social conditioning.[95]

The term post-feminism is used to describe a range of viewpoints reacting to feminism since the 1980s. While

not being "anti-feminist", post-feminists believe that women have achieved second wave goals while being

critical of third wave feminist goals. The term was first used to describe a backlash against second-wave

feminism, but it is now a label for a wide range of theories that take critical approaches to previous feminist

discourses and includes challenges to the second wave's ideas.[26] Other post-feminists say that feminism is no

longer relevant to today's society.[96] Amelia Jones has written that the post-feminist texts which emerged in the

1980s and 1990s portrayed second-wave feminism as a monolithic entity.[97] The goddess-centred nature of

Wicca has been associated with feminism.