Suchergebnisse

The Zulu kingdom is not extinct. It survives in the imaginations of many Bantu people, and remains latent in their social practices. Historically, it is as old as modern France, but it remained an independent state for a brief seven decades, its glory ending in the Zulu War of 1879. The period is spanned by the reigns of five monarchical figures: Dingiswayo (c. 1808–1818), who laid the foundations; Shaka (1816–1828), who established the kingdom and ruled at the zenith of Zulu power; Dingane (1828–1840), who continued the despotism as European settlers began to entrench upon the Zulu domain; Mpande (1840–1872), whose sovereignty was limited by accommodation first to Boer, then to British, power; Cetshwayo (1872–1884), who sought to break free but lost independence in a war against the British. Shaka stands out as the greatest of them all—both Romulus and Napoleon to the Zulu people—and his legend has captured the imaginations of both European and African writers, inspiring novels, biographies, and historical studies in several tongues. As a violent autocrat he is both admired and condemned: admired by those who love conquerors, condemned by those who hate despots. The internal transformations wrought by his regime were accompanied by enormous devastation and dislocation throughout South and Central Africa, disrupting a third of the continent. Some estimates of the slaughter in Shaka's total wars and in the mass migrations caused by them have placed the number of dead at close to two million. It is also estimated that by 1820 Shaka had deprived some three hundred tribes of their independence, had commanded a force of more than a hundred thousand warriors, and had brought half a million souls under his rule. Several of his generals fled with their armies to make empires of their own. Thus, even after his day had passed, Shaka's influence remained, for his model of military despotism was replicated in kingdoms such as the Matebele under Mzilikazi in Southern Rhodesia and the Gasa (Shangane) under Soshangane in Portuguese East Africa, and in several groups of Ngoni north of the Zambezi River. These kingdoms for some years preserved the Zulu pattern, coupling internal despotic power with external military terrorism.

Two approaches to the theory of international relations at present compete for our attention. The first of these I shall call the classical approach. By this I do not mean the study and criticism of the "classics" of international relations, the writings of Hobbes, Grotius, Kant, and other great thinkers of the past who have turned their attention to international affairs. Such study does indeed exemplify the classical approach, and it provides a method that is particularly fruitful and important. What I have in mind, however, is something much wider than this: the approach to theorizing that derives from philosophy, history, and law, and that is characterized above all by explicit reliance upon the exercise of judgment and by the assumptions that if we confine ourselves to strict standards of verification and proof there is very little of significance that can be said about international relations, that general propositions about this subject must therefore derive from a scientifically imperfect process of perception or intuition, and that these general propositions cannot be accorded anything more than the tentative and inconclusive status appropriate to their doubtful origin.

The purpose of this article is to argue that the doctrine of rapid economic development coupled with organization theory is an inadequate basis for a nation-state. Our subject is Egypt, but we believe the analysis reaches beyond Egypt because the problem—the attempt to use organization theory with a doctrine of economic development as a political philosophy—can be found in a number of other countries; in a sense it can be found in most countries today. Egypt is a good case because salient aspects of the problem are writ large there and articulated with unusual clarity. While Egypt is in some ways unique, it shares with other countries certain characteristics that are basic to the analysis pursued in this article: underdevelopment, scarce resources, lack of enthusiasm for development on the part of the population, a "Western" and a "Communist" set of models to observe, a knowledge of modern organization theory, charismatic leadership, a one-party system (to the extent that there is a party in operation at all), and a lack of structural pluralism and group action.

Foreign conflict behavior data covering long periods of time are urgently needed for the scientific investigation of international conflict. Except in the case of the most violent behavior, war, such data in aggregate form generally are not available to researchers.

In attacking the problem of revolution, as most others of major significance in history, we historians should think twice before we spurn the help offered by our colleagues in the social sciences, who have, as it happens, been particularly active in the last few years in theorizing about the typology, causes, and evolutionary patterns of this particular phenomenon. The purpose of this article is not to advance any new hypothesis, but to provide a summary view and critical examination of the work that has been going on.

The detonation of Peking's first atomic devices in recent months has X provoked renewed widespread discussion of the dangers of the further spread of nuclear weaponry. Speculation has flourished about who would be next—Sweden? Japan? Israel? Or perhaps India, which has become the first nonnuclear country to build a chemical separation plant? Cost estimates put nuclear weapons within reach of the poorest nations within a few years. Governments have issued solemn pronouncements about the need to design further international agreements to prevent nuclear proliferation. The President of the United States made use of a high-level committee to advise him how to deal with the problem.

On November 1, 1963, the Ordinary Professor for Physical Chemistry at the Humboldt University in East Berlin, Robert Havemann, included the following remarks in his lecture on conceptual thinking: "The vital source of our cultural development … is the many-sided, increasingly comprehensive information of all members of society concerning all knowledge, all problems and questions of our time. Every impediment to and limitation of information paralyzes the activity of the members of society and thereby the development of social conditions, and only puts a brake on development. At all times reactionary regimes have attempted to keep the people in ignorance. … A government can only succeed in its so very important tasks if it can rely on the active and energetic cooperation of all members of society.… Whoever is afraid of the consequences of general unlimited information and, on account of this fear, impedes it, creates thereby precisely the conditions for fateful development" (p. 52).

THE Kennedy Administration had not been long in office when one began to hear from Pentagon friends that the man whom the President had chosen as his Secretary of Defense was not just extraordinary; he was un phénomène.