Did the last 40 years see more change than any other period of history?

[Razgovory]

Decolonization seems like a pretty big deal.  I think Grumbler's right that 1914-1954 is the biggest changes on the planet.  The biggest political change in the last 40 years is collapse of communism in Europe, which was a big deal, but it was 30 years ago.  Since then there hasn't been a great deal of change.  The biggest story since then is the real, but uneven, growth of the third world.  The cause of that growth is decolonization followed by the end of the cold war.

[Jacob]

Yeah two world wars, the collapse of the British Empire, the rise and fall of the Japanese Empire, the creation of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block, decolonization and independence for many nations across the world, the end of the Austria-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, the Holocaust and the creation of Israel, the creation of car culture, the creation of international pop-culture, the rise of America as cultural and military superpower...

I think that 1984 to 2024 has seen more technological change than 1914-54, but that the political and cultural changes of 1914-54 were more significant.

[Sheilbh]

As I say I think you could make a good argument about basically any forty years in the 19th and 20th centuries. But I think it's interesting that both of you mention decolonisation - because I'm not sure why that is necessarily more significant than colonisation/imperialism.

So, for example, the 40 years prior to WW1 had the scramble for Africa, Cape to Cairo and discovery of resources, establishment, peak and nationalisation of the Congo Free State, concentration camps in South Africa and genocide in Namibia. It also had the establishment of French imperialism in Indochina, the end of the last independent states in Indonesia, the Boxer Rebellion and its consequences (open doors in China for Western powers, collapse of the Qing and declaration of a Chinese republic) - plus the rise of new entrants in global imperialism with the Sino-Japanese war, Japan taking over Korea and the Spanish-American war (and the end of the American colonisation of the West). And running through all of that new types of resistance to empire - especially China and India but led, in a way, or particularly inspired by the Russian-Japanese war.

And with that the example of Japan and "modernisation" - the Young Turks, reform in Qajar Iran and revolution in 1905. 

Obviously there is all the technological/scientific stuff too like the spread of rubber in everyday life - it's the start of the bicycling boom across the world, the first ever electric power plant, electrification of cities, invention of cars, refrigeration ships and railway carriages, invention of antibiotics, breakthrough of germ theory (which I think is arguably the most important medical discovery ever in the importance of clean water, disinfecting, sterilisation, washing your hands etc) etc. (Total aside but on the germ theory point read a horrifying book on the assassination of James Garfield - it's argued over but very possible he might have survived if his doctors didn't probe the bullet wounds so much with their unwashed hands and instruments. It's so grim.)

I wouldn't necessarily make a case for those 40 years either - just think it's an interesting example of what I mean. But also a bit struck by mentioning decolonisation (and I agree) when it seems that the creation of colonies and empires which, for most of the world, was pretty recent seems similarly important.

[Josquius]

What did decolonisation actually change for most people?

All it really did was swap out a few of the local government folks at the top, a few flags here and there, maybe every few years a guy coming round telling you to vote...

For the middle class and elites sure. Bigger changes. But I really don't think it meant that much at all for most people's daily lives.

Do remember quite how recent Africa's large-scale urbanisation is. Look at population growth over the past century and it has shot up in most of the continent.

I'd agree colonisation was generally a much bigger change. It often did mean fundamental changes in the structure of how a place worked. Installing modern government based on lines on maps, taxes, and all that, where before quite different structures existed in many places.

[Zanza]

In German history, the time period from 1914 to 1954 saw WW1, the end of centuries of German monarchies, the Weimar Republic with its upheaval and cultural-intellectual peak, the Nazi period with WW2 and genocide, occupation, loss of the Eastern territories and expulsion of millions, foundation of a democratic and a communist German state in the Cold War...

The period from 1984 onwards saw the annexation of East Germany and deep integration into the EU.

Seems clear to me which period saw more change here.

[Razgovory]

I was under the impression that colonization took longer than 40 years.

[Razgovory]

What did decolonisation actually change for most people?

Well, for many it meant they were in a civil war.  Sometimes it meant they were communist now.  Many, many more people now had civil rights, which is nice.

[jimmy olsen]

There has been no 40 year stretch in all of human history which had more change than 1984 - 2024.

This was posted on Pdox boards by the inestimable Yakman this week.  I disagreed.  I pointed out that the previous 40 years, 1944-1984 saw more changes.  Stuff like the Atomic bomb, decolonization, the end of WW2, the moon landing, etc.  What do you folks think?

1914-1954 for me

[grumbler]

What did decolonisation actually change for most people?

It changed the fundamental basis of the economies of both the colonizers and colonized.  The Green Revolution came later in India, but at least farmers were no longer forced to grow cash crops instead of their own food.  The former colonies could build factories instead of being forced to import manufactured goods.

The economic changes hadn't produced a great deal of change by 1954, but the newfound economic freedoms were visible to everyone by 1954.

Note that the Great Leap Forward was still in the future in 1954.  The window might be adjusted a bit to include it if people are looking for maximal change.

[Josquius]

What did decolonisation actually change for most people?

It changed the fundamental basis of the economies of both the colonizers and colonized.  The Green Revolution came later in India, but at least farmers were no longer forced to grow cash crops instead of their own food.  The former colonies could build factories instead of being forced to import manufactured goods.

That's the theory. And in India certainly the government did try a lot. The license raj and weird third way pseudo-socialism was a big deal.
I guess I'm thinking more around Africa here where more often than not what you got was simply a replacing of white civil servants and politicians with black ones. Foreign business retained command over vast swathes of the economy, foreign managers heavily remained in place....and most people in their daily life had no contact with any of these people anyway.
But then I suppose again here its a question of how we're measuring change since there were a lot less people in Africa than today.

Efforts to start up local industry...they happened on occasion in Africa but largely the old trading arrangements remained in place- in India this had been a rising trend even pre-independence (see Tata) and yes, the government certainly pushed through change there. On this one I do think its worth seeing it alongside Indian independence as a process stretching right back to the formation of the Raj rather than the sudden event the Indian nationalists like to pretend it was.

Note that the Great Leap Forward was still in the future in 1954.  The window might be adjusted a bit to include it if people are looking for maximal change.

If looking just at China yeah, I'd think going more to a start date in the 20s or maybe even 30s would give you the biggest impact on most people.
Again though I suppose there's the question of whether that's what we're looking at or the 'country' as an institution or what.

[Sheilbh]

I was under the impression that colonization took longer than 40 years.

It depends where you are - you know the Caribbean or parts of the Americas have 500 years. India for a couple of hundred years. But between the Opium War and Mao on Tiananmen gate declaring the PRC is about 100 a years - it really is a century of humiliation. For, say, Nigeria or Indochina colonial rule is about 80 years. Between 1848 and the West "closing" is a lot less than 40 years.

That isn't to say that those "uncolonised" areas of the world were not feeling the impact of colonialism elsewhere - for example, the interior of Africa was hugely impacted by the Atlantic slave trade. It transformed societies many miles from the location of the European ports on the edge of Africa.

But I think you can meaningfully talk about entire phases of colonial history within the 19th century.

In a way I think it's a bit like what I'd argue happens after the industrial revolution. It's like a fireworks display - there are different lengths of fuse and different fireworks. It isn't all happening at once everywhere, but pretty consistently there is always vast discombobulating change somewhere.

What did decolonisation actually change for most people?

All it really did was swap out a few of the local government folks at the top, a few flags here and there, maybe every few years a guy coming round telling you to vote...

Welcome to Languish, Kemi Badenoch

I don't think achieving national sovereignty is an insignificant thing whether - in that period - it's China, India, Pakistan or Indonesia. It may not necessarily have a significant material impact immediately.

It changed the fundamental basis of the economies of both the colonizers and colonized.  The Green Revolution came later in India, but at least farmers were no longer forced to grow cash crops instead of their own food.  The former colonies could build factories instead of being forced to import manufactured goods.

Yeah although I think it depends slightly when you're looking at it (for example once minimal home rule is introduced to India in 1919, British India - over loud campaigns from British industry - more than doubles their tariffs on the UK) - I'm not sure there ever really was an imperial economy in the British empire and the free trading bit was radically important.

But I think you're right in general and particularly with the Green Revolution. I also think it's part of the twentieth century developmental state - so you see similar processes in Latin America despite not being part of any formal empire (and attempts in, say, the Middle East).

[Josquius]

]
Welcome to Languish, Kemi Badenoch

I don't think achieving national sovereignty is an insignificant thing whether - in that period - it's China, India, Pakistan or Indonesia. It may not necessarily have a significant material impact immediately.

Badenoch is against neocolonialism and corrupt dictatorships?
Never expected that from her.

As said for the middle class it was a big deal. Material and in terms of fluffy feels.
But despite some initial promises and hope it didn't change much for regular people - a few positive cases that bucked the trend and more than a few that turned quite negative.

[Razgovory]

On the other hand, what is so important about the last 40 years?  The past quarter century in particular doesn't seem very interesting.

[Josquius]

On the other hand, what is so important about the last 40 years?  The past quarter century in particular doesn't seem very interesting.

..

The Internet, especially in its mobile form, has massively altered people's mindsets.
In the west this is so. In Africa and other less developed parts of the world even more so - people in places that previously didn't have tv or newspapers or anything suddenly have the full Internet in their pocket.

[Razgovory]

So do you remember the world without internet?  Even in Africa they had newspapers.