Encyclopedia of World History N

The Ancient World

Nabataeans The merchandise and produce that traversed the great deserts separating the Mediterranean from the Orient often were traded and carried by the Nabataeans. This lucrative commerce meant that their capital city, Petra, became an exotic and prosperous center of ancient civilization. The Nabataeans migrated as Arab wanderers from the northwest Arabian Peninsula and occupied the land of the Edomites. By the fourth century b.c.e. they controlled the southern region of the Transjordan, the southern Negev Desert, and Wadi Arabah. Unlike many of their Arab predecessors, they settled into cities and formed into a political state under a monarchy, 11 kings of which have so far been identifi ed. They established their domain as the intermediary trading power in the Middle East, dominating the trading routes going north and south from Arabia to Syria, and having an interest in east-west trade as well. Nabataean goods have been found as far west as Spain. Precious items of their cargoes included frankincense and myrrh from Arabia, balsams and bitumen from the Dead Sea area, and silk and gems from Asia. To protect their routes they constructed hundreds of caravan stations throughout the deserts. They were also famous for their sophisticated water-gathering technology that enabled them to support relatively heavy populations and sustain desert agriculture on a scale unmatched until modern times. Nabataean cities thrived in otherwise waterless areas. The capital city Petra greatly benefi ted from trade and technology. It reached its height in the fi rst century c.e., tucked away in a remote desert valley of presentday Jordan. Its climate was ideal for preservation of the architectural structures, often carved into the rocky cliffs: Some 800 structures of tombs and cult survive in addition to the many more conventional Greek-styled temples and secular buildings. The evidence for Petra’s advanced culture is also found in its inscriptions, coins, ceramics, and decorative art. The Nabataeans borrowed Aramaic as their language, perhaps because it was the lingua franca of trade in the region, but their language retained many Arabic words. Their script is the basis for modern Arabic. Many letters and business documents have been found—including very many Byzantine manuscripts—but no early extensive literary texts remain to describe the civilization’s ideology, social structure, and even history. Speculation must come from external sources and from the material remains. The earliest references to the Nabataeans come from the biblical stories about the Maccabees and later from Roman historians. The Persian Empire effectively left them alone, and the Seleucid Empire was unable to absorb them. Under Aretas IV (c.9 b.c.e.–c. 40 c.e.), their borders reached as far north as Damascus. There were some tensions between them and the Judaeans during the reign of the Herods, but the Romans apparently left them alone and independent until the end of the fi rst century c.e. In 106 c.e. Trajan decided to colonize the entire area. Though the kingdom ceased to exist at that time, nonetheless Petra seems to have continued largely unaffected for another 250 years. Only a succession of earthquakes and Islamic invasions N 293 brought oblivion to the Nabataeans for the outside world. Except for a brief visit by crusaders in the late Middle Ages, Petra and its civilization were not opened again to outsiders until modern times. See also Aramaeans; Desert Fathers and Mothers. Further reading: Markoe, Glenn. Petra Rediscovered: The Lost City of the Nabataean Kingdom. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2003; Rollin, Sue, and Jane Streetly. Jordan. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998. Mark F. Whitters Nag Hammadi See Christian Dualism (Gnosticism). Native Americans: chronologies and peoples Native North American tribes had sets of beliefs describing the origin of Earth and the universe, the laws of that universe, how humans interacted with the rest of that universe, and the relationship between the physical world and the spiritual world. Prior to the incursion of Europeans, Natives in North America organized themselves into distinct self-governing units that functioned with an independence and sovereignty that was recognized both within the tribe and by outside groups. It is often estimated that there were more than 500 Native nations at the time of European contact, and as independent communities there was a remarkable variety to the beliefs and customs from tribe to tribe. There are, however, certain commonalities and patterns in languages, cultures, and beliefs across these 500 nations. CREATION STORIES Native Americans predominantly had creation stories telling of their arrival from the underworld into the physical world. Typically, this was a hero story for the tribe, telling of the fi rst man’s (or fi rst woman’s) adventures and trials in winning the way for all of humans to live in the current physical world. Male and female principles were very important to Native people. The underworld was typically a female realm, and whether this community was fi rst under the earth or under water, it was associated with being within Mother Earth. The journey into the current world was often long and diffi cult and often involved a migration either up from the underworld or over land to arrive at the tribal homeland. And always, the community thought of themselves as the First, or True, People. Native American tribes in North America closely integrated their spiritual practices with their community conduct, their cultural practices, and their decision making. Indians often believed in a strong tie between humans, the other living things in the world, and the elements in the world. The powers and forces of the spiritual realm were ever present in every day existence, and the laws of the spiritual world were just as important to the events of life as the laws of the physical world. SOCIAL STRUCTURE Most North American tribes were egalitarian, with little social stratifi cation, and their spiritual beliefs refl ected this. Humankind was recognized as a distinct type of being, but the other entities in the world all had spirits and were generally considered as being on equal footing spiritually with humans; there was no “spiritual hierarchy” to creation. This extended not just to the mammals but to birds, reptiles, fi sh, and often to stones, water, and the landscape. The fact that these other entities had spirits did not preclude hunting or harvesting them for food or using them for tools or shelter; it was considered that each entity had a purpose within creation and that using these other entities or harvesting them was within the purpose of creation. But it was important to acknowledge the spirit of these other entities and recognize their place in creation. For example, the tribes of the Algonquin language group in the Northeastern woodlands of North America referred to the animals as their “brothers.” When hunting and killing an animal, it was important to offer a prayer of apology and thanks to the brother animal for taking its spirit and to explain to the brother spirit that its life was given up so that the human tribe could continue on its path in the world. Frequently, a spirit guide would be identifi ed for the individual, such as an animal like the bear, the eagle, or the sturgeon, or a force of nature such as the thunders, and the attributes of this spirit would serve as a guide to an individual throughout their adult life. Many tribes organized themselves into clans associated with specifi c animals, and the clan families would serve specifi c roles in the life and decision making of the tribe. For example, the tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy to the south of the St. Lawrence River divided their communities into nine clans, including the Turtle, Wolf, Heron, Hawk, Snipe, Beaver, Deer, Eel, and Bear. Clans were quite widespread throughout the tribes of North America and often were respected across tribal boundaries. 294 Nag Hammadi CONNECTION WITH THE NATURAL WORLD This belief in the spirit within living creatures carried to the plant world as well, and the cultivated food plants of the Native Americans were particularly important. Corn was signifi cant throughout the southern half of North America. The pueblo-dwelling tribes of the Southwest cultivated strains of corn that were adapted to the marginal semidesert climate, and the tribes had ceremonies to honor the spirit of the corn, to mark the times of year for planting, rainfall, and harvest, and to give thanks for the continuing cycle that led to the annual harvest and to the production of a new seed bank to begin the cycle again. The Iroquois tribes revered corn along with beans and squash as the Three Sisters. Their agricultural practice combined the three plants into symbiotic garden plots that minimized weeding and maximized production. Similar to the Pueblo people, the Iroquois honored the growing cycle and the spirits of the Three Sisters in their ceremonies. Many plants were used for spiritual purposes as well. In ceremonies smoking was considered a way to offer prayers to the spirit world. Smoking pipes have been found in burial sites and village sites dating back thousands of years and range from very simple and humble clay pipes to elaborate carved artworks of pipestone and other precious materials. Various plants were used for smoking mixtures, with tobacco being used almost universally throughout the continent. Other plants were eaten, used in teas, or burned as incense for spiritual purposes. For instance, the Algonquin people in the Great Lakes considered sage, sweetgrass, cedar, and tobacco the four primary spiritual plants, and their use was common among many other tribes across North America. HEALING AND SPIRITUALITY Healing and spirituality were closely linked. Many plants were used for their medicinal and healing effects on the body. But many of the Native healing practices aimed at the spiritual problems as well as the physical. The Navajo in the Southwest speak of the Navajo Way, an outlook of having one’s life and physical body in harmony with the community, the physical world, and the spiritual world. Many illnesses are considered to be a manifestation of actions or desires in one’s life that are in confl ict with the physical and spiritual order of the universe, and healing these illnesses is a matter of restoring the person to balance with the rest of creation. This notion of balance and a cyclical order to the spiritual and natural worlds is widespread. The Sioux of the Great Plains speak of existence as the Sacred Hoop, delineated by the four cardinal directions. Tribes across the continent revere this concept of the Circle and the Four Directions. Rather than viewing time and existence as a linear march of event following event, Native people looked at existence as cycles: the cycle of the year and seasons, and the cycle of birth to death leading to rebirth. The archaeological, geologic, and genetic records point to the First Americans migrating from Siberia into North America sometime between 25,000 to 11,000 years ago. These people then spread throughout the American continents, adapted to changes in climate and the varied American landscape, and arrived at their wide variety of cultural and cosmological worldviews prior to contact with the European colonists. HUNTING AND AGRARIAN TRADITIONS In studying Native American spiritual practices, modern anthropologists trace these Native beliefs back to two major traditions. The fi rst is referred to as the Northern Hunting tradition, linked to the big-game hunters of the ice age migration from Siberia. The spirits of the animals and the cycles of the hunt are the focus of worship, with the cult of Bear worship being particularly common. Shamans, individuals within the community who are considered to have gained great power and wisdom carry out ceremonies and healing rituals. The younger tradition is the Southern Agrarian tradition, believed to have spread northward from Central America, traveling with the introduction of corn and organized agriculture. The Southern Agrarian tradition links the power of creation and rejuvenation with plant life and the growing seasons, with Corn Mother becoming a central force in the cycles of the world. Priesthoods and cults directed the ceremonial practices in agricultural communities, particularly among the city-states of southern North America. Aspects of these two traditions mingled among the tribes over the centuries, with most tribes retaining portions of the old hunting tradition while incorporating elements of the newer agrarian tradition. Both traditions indicate a people closely linked to nature and to the other living entities of the world. The force of life, spoken of by some tribes as the fundamental power of movement in the universe, was seen to be present in all things and was to be respected and acknowledged, particularly in the most central living things that give up their life-force so that humans could eat and live, whether that sacrifi ce was recognized in the corn plant or the bear. All other life and movement in the world, whether it was the hopping of the rabbit, the push of the seedling from the ground, the movement of the wind, or the turning of the Great Circle of Life itself, all related back to this central power, and by acknowledging the Native Americans: chronologies and peoples 295 spirit in the Bear or the Corn Mother, the community acknowledged the presence of the spirit within itself and the community’s own place in creation. See also Native Americans: regional adaptations; migration patterns of the Americas. Further reading: Benton-Banai. The Mishomis Book: The Voice of the Ojibway. St. Paul, MN: Red School House, 1988; Deloria, Vine, Jr. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing, 1994; Erdoes, Richard, and Alfonzo Ortiz, eds. American Indian Myths and Legends. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984; Hoxie, Frederick E., ed. Encyclopedia of North American Indians. New York: Houghton Miffl in, 1996; Waldman, Carl. Atlas of the North American Indian. New York: Facts On File, 2000. Kevin Daugherty Native Americans: regional adaptations Native Americans in North America had an enormous range of customs prior to the coming of Europeans. Their ancestors had fi rst migrated into North America from Asia more than 10,000 years ago, hunting the huge herds of giant ice age mammals. As they spread throughout the continent, Native Americans adapted to take advantage of local resources and to cope with the local climate and geography. Community organization ranged from nomadic family units in the harsh deserts and the frigid Arctic, to elaborate city-states in the Temple Mound culture of the Southeast. THE SOUTHWEST REGION A common way to study Native North Americans is to group them according to geographic region. The Southwest region includes the upper Rio Grande River westward to the Colorado River. This is a hot, arid, and rugged area with limited plant and animal life. Paradoxically, a culture of permanent villages began developing 3,000 years ago, using farming to provide a steady food supply where little was available naturally. Infl uenced by the farming practices of Central America, Southwest people developed sophisticated irrigation systems and refi ned plant strains. They also developed permanent villages, the most striking of which are the large apartment- like pueblos. These clusters of rectangular rooms stacked one upon another could include 500 and more rooms. Some of these agricultural tribes are the Pima, Zuni, Hopi, and Tewa. The Apache and Navajo entered the region later as nomadic hunter-gatherers. Over time they began to adopt some of the cultural practices of the Pueblo tribes. THE SOUTHEAST REGION The tribes of Southeast North America also practiced extensive agriculture. Their land, however, was more bountiful because of greater rainfall and richer soils, which allowed them to continue to combine hunting and foraging with organized farming. Mound- building cultures began developing about 3,000 years ago and spread inland from the Gulf of Mexico and up the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys. These were also likely infl uenced by the city-states of Central America, as evidenced by the farming practices, the shape of the temple mounds, and a cultural obsession with death. By 1600 c.e. these mound-cities were largely gone, likely decimated by European diseases. The Natchez of the lower Mississippi River were the one mound-city people to survive into the 1700s. One hereditary leader ruled them, the Great Sun. The center of their city was the large temple mound, which hosted the religious ceremonies and where the nobility had dwellings. Artisans, farmers, and other citizens lived in small structures spread around the temple mound. The Natchez reported to French colonizers that as many as 500 citystates had once existed, ruled by Great Suns. Most of the people in the Southeast, however, lived in smaller, semi-permanent villages. Linguistic and agricultural patterns point to many of these tribes, such as the Muskogee, Choctaw, and Cherokee, as being the descendants of earlier mound-building cultures. THE NORTHEAST REGION The Northeast includes the area of the Ohio River, New England, the Great Lakes, and the St. Lawrence River. It was also a region of dense forests similar to the Southeast but with a colder climate and shorter growing season. Northeastern Indians practiced a similar combination of agriculture and hunting-foraging, but the mound-city culture was not common here. The tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy along the St. Lawrence established permanent villages of arched-roofed longhouses surrounded by log stockades. An extended family would live in one longhouse, which could extend for several hundred feet. The main food crops were the Three Sisters of corn, squash, and beans. Most of the other tribes in the Northeast were of the Algonquin language group. The peoples of the Atlantic coast often had palisaded villages similar to the Iroquois and also formed cooperative unions, including 296 Native Americans: regional adaptations the Abnaki Confederacy and the Powhatan Confederacy. Among the Great Lakes tribes fi shing formed a signifi - cant part of the diet. The Indians in the western Great Lakes tended to a more mobile culture, building smaller, semi-permanent villages of dome-shaped wigwams. THE GREAT PLAINS The Great Plains were more arid than the Southeast and Northeast, with vast grasslands and with trees mostly restricted to river valleys. Indians here evolved a lifestyle of farming and foraging along the river valleys. Horses had become extinct in North America along with many other large ice age mammals but by 1600 were being reintroduced through contact with the Spaniards. Over the next 200 years this would lead to a revolution, as many tribes would use the horse to once again become nomadic hunters, relying on the herds of buffalo. Eventually, the tribes of the new horse culture would live side by side with other tribes, such as the Mandan, who remained village dwellers in the river valleys. The Great Basin, to the west of the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, is a harsh, arid land. Rainfall is sparse, and the few rivers fl ow into salty, alkaline lakes and sinks, unfi t to drink. The people here, mainly of the related Ute, Paiute, and Shoshone tribes, lived in nomadic family groups, foraging for desert plants and shrubs and hunting small game. Families would often gather together for communal hunts, then scatter to forage again. To the north of the Great Basin is the elevated Plateau region, including the upper Columbia River and upper Fraser River. While still dry the Plateau region is not as harsh as the Great Basin. The rivers supported huge runs of salmon that were the staple food. The people also hunted other large game such as deer and elk, as well as gathering edible plants. Some of the tribes in the south of this region included the Klamath, the Modoc, and the Nez Perce. Northern tribes were mainly of the Salish language group. CALIFORNIA AND THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST California and the Pacifi c Northwest were both rich, bountiful regions. Most of California gets enough rainfall in the winter months to support abundant vegetation. The numerous rivers supported many varieties of fi sh and shellfi sh, and game was plentiful. The Pacifi c Ocean provided a wealth of plant life, fi sh, seals, and other aquatic mammals. With year-round mild temperatures the tribes here lived a rich life with little adaptation from that of their ancestors. California has areas of large oak savannas, and many tribes relied on ground acorn meal as a staple. The rugged terrain of the region combined with the rich natural resources encouraged the development of numerous independent communities, and, as a result, there were more than 100 distinct language dialects spoken in California. As one travels from California along the Pacifi c Ocean to the Northwest Coast, rainfall gradually increases, with some areas near Puget Sound classifi ed as true rain forests. The Northwest Coast’s temperate and extremely wet climate produces a profusion of plant life and giant trees, and the region supports one of the great fi sheries of the world. The Indians here built plank houses of cedar and developed a life of permanent villages without resorting to agriculture. One notable community practice was the potlatch, where a family or individual would mark a signifi cant event by hosting a big feast and holding an elaborate giveaway of gifts and belongings to the rest of the village. The only plant cultivated in the region was the ubiquitous tobacco. THE SUB-ARCTIC REGION To the north, stretching from east to west across the continent is the Sub-Arctic region. The region experiences cold winters and a short growing season that prohibits agriculture. The region is largely forested with pine, spruce, and fi r. The people here relied on hunting (especially caribou), fi shing, and trapping. They were nomadic and built simple lean-tos and tipis. The Cree were widespread here, from the eastern shore of Hudson Bay to the northern Great Plains. The Arctic is the northernmost fringe of the continent, a rolling plain of moss and lichen. The soil never thaws out. Winters are harsh, with little daylight, and winds can rage because of the lack of trees and relatively fl at landscape. Despite these extreme conditions the Native people developed a rich culture. The Aleut and Inuit (or Eskimos) lived from Greenland to Alaska and into eastern Siberia. They were relatively late migrants to North America, coming across from Asia as recently as 3,000 years ago. The people of the Arctic lived in nomadic family units relying on hunting and fi shing. Sea mammals and caribou were the primary game. The people developed ingenious clothing, warm and watertight, to allow them to handle the elements, such as lightweight raincoats made from the stomachs and bladders of walrus and seals. They extensively ornamented their clothing and implements and practiced community ceremonies with music and dancing. Double-pitched brush lean-tos were Native Americans: regional adaptations 297 used along the Alaskan coasts, and the famous domed snow igloos were common in the north-central Arctic. Native communities throughout North America had a sense of kinship with the elements of their universe and showed an enormous respect for the plants, animals, and the land in their ceremonies and their practices. For the most part they lived with minimal impact on their environment. The mound culture, with its ruling Great Sun, nobility, and social castes, is in some ways an aberration. Most Native communities were egalitarian, and the individuals, notoriously independent. Father LeJeune, a French missionary on the St. Lawrence River, observed in 1634 that Indians would not “endure in the least those who seem desirous of assuming superiority over others.” This egalitarianism and the ways that Native communities managed the interactions and disputes between their nations through the Iroquois Confederacy would later provide an inspiration for the United States Constitution. See also Native Americans: chronologies and peoples; migration patterns of the Americas. Further reading: Champagne, Duane, ed. Chronology of Native North American History. Detroit, MI: Gale Research, 1994; Hoxie, Frederick E., ed. Encyclopedia of North American Indians. New York: Houghton Miffl in, 1996; Nabokov, Peter, and Robert Easton. Native American Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989; O’Brien, Sharon. American Tribal Governments. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989; Waldman, Carl. Atlas of the North American Indian. New York: Facts On File, 2000; Weatherford, Jack. Native Roots: How the Indians Enriched America. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1991. Kevin Daugherty Nebuchadnezzar I See Babylon, later periods. Nebuchadnezzar II (late 7th century–early 6th century b.c.e.) emperor The reputation of Nebuchadnezzar II abounds in the ancient world, as he represents one of the most famous of the Near Eastern monarchs. No fewer than four books of the Jewish scriptures, 10 rabbinic commentaries, six 298 Nebuchadnezzar I Native Americans developed villages or pueblos, like those found in this ancient Anasazi village in Mesa Verde, Colorado. These clusters of dwellings were stacked one upon another and could include 500 or more rooms. books of the Pseudepigrapha and the apocrypha, several Arabic commentaries, and many classical and medieval Greek and Latin authors mention Nebuchadnezzar, showing his fame and impact on the ancient world. Many of these sources show him to be godlike and a city builder, while others, especially biblical and early Jewish writers, make him out to be the archetypical villain and city destroyer. He often appears in the sources as Nebuchadnezzar (mostly in Latin and Greek writings), but more accurately he should be called Nebuchadrezzar (according to the Akkadian and Babylonian version of his name and the Aramaic and Hebrew spellings). His name means “Nabu protects the son (or boundary).” Nabu forms the main root of his father Nabopolassar’s name and is the name of the divine son of the national Mesopotamian god Marduk. There are at least fi ve other famous Babylonians who take Nabu’s name, including Nebuchadnezzar I, ruler in Second Dynasty of Isin (southern Mesopotamia), 1124–03 b.c.e., from whom his father may have named his son. His life must be reconstructed from disparate and limited materials. Archaeology provides a somewhat sound basis to speak of his tenure as king. Another somewhat contemporary and cuneiform record is the Babylonian Chronicles, but there is a 30-year gap in its account of Nebuchadnezzar. The gap is fi lled in by Jewish biblical accounts and by the history of Josephus, writing many centuries later. The Neo-Babylonian Empire replaced the empire of Assyria in 612 b.c.e. under Nabopolassar. It was built on a hybrid of peoples, one of which was the Chaldeans of southern Mesopotamia. There is some evidence that Nebuchadnezzar’s family descended from the Chaldeans. One of Nebuchadnezzar’s marriages was to a Median princess, an arrangement meant to keep security among the major powers (like the Medes and Persians) of the eastern Fertile Crescent so that the Babylonians might venture westward. He accompanied his father on several campaigns and was with him at Carchemish in 608–607 b.c.e., a major frontier city on the Euphrates River, held by the Egyptians. His father had to return to Babylon, but Nebuchadnezzar stayed on and successfully fought the army of the pharaoh Neco. The Egyptian army was vanquished, and the world of Syria, Phoenicia, and Judaea lay open to him. News of his father’s death, however, interrupted his plan, and he rushed back home to claim the throne. Then he swept to victories across the Levant in 601 b.c.e., and cities throughout the region were forced to pay tribute. At this point the Jewish Bible is important as a commentary on Nebuchadnezzar, for the Babylonian Chronicles is silent. Judah, the southern counterpart to the now defunct kingdom of Israel, chafed under the burden of Babylon’s domination. The kings of Judah miscalculated the strength and resolve of the Egyptians to help them, and they let domestic hotheads and fanatics lead them into open rebellion against their overlords. By 587 b.c.e. Nebuchadnezzar surrounded and besieged the city of Jerusalem. On July 30 the Judaean king and his family were humiliated, the city fell, and the Babylonian army deported the citizens. Only poor peasants were left behind in Judaea. All the Temple’s treasures and cultural trappings were exported to Babylon. For the people of biblical Israel this event became a turning point in their national identity. The central image in the biblical books for this period is Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the Temple, his captivity of their leading citizens, and his branding of their status as Diaspora. In retrospect the Babylonian foreign policy was more merciful than that of the Assyrians, for Nebuchadnezzar did not totally disintegrate the structures that hold a people together (religion, family life, social customs). In fact, Nebuchadnezzar left enough intact that 50 years later the captive people could return and reconstitute themselves as a nation. Even the famous prophet Jeremiah counseled his fellow religionists to cooperate with Nebuchadnezzar and his ilk. But the enormity of the loss of land and temple forever colored the evaluation that writers of the biblical tradition would have of Nebuchadnezzar. They caricatured him in the darkest hues. For Nebuchadnezzar’s later years as king inscriptions, archaeology, and later writings must fi ll the gap. He never was able to invade Egypt successfully or enduringly. Instead he seems to have devoted himself to public works and beautifi cation. The empire he led reached its pinnacle of power and prosperity under his rule. His construction program involved at least 12 cities in his own land, and he lavished the empire’s resources on his capital city. Excavations suggest that fi ve walls surrounded the city, with towers perched at various strategic places. In addition a moat protected the whole boundary. He was not satisfi ed to live in his father’s palace but constructed a dwelling for himself using the most valuable of materials such as gold, silver, lapis lazuli, ivory, and cedar. He restored the city’s temple of Marduk with a tower (ziggurat) perhaps popularly associated with the biblical Tower of Babel (anachronistically placed in the Bible at an earlier Babylonian period). For all these reasons he wins adulation from later classical historians. For example, the Greeks considered him as the patron of the hanging gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Judging by the extant physical Nebuchadnezzar II 299 evidence he was not so much of a military general as a good administrator and planner. Nebuchadnezzar made his capital one of the splendors of the ancient world. The Neo-Babylonian Empire was not able to maintain Nebuchadnezzar’s splendor in later generations. Either his descendants did not show the same leadership, or the resources were exhausted, but the empire soon succumbed to the Medes and Persians. In the biblical books of Daniel and Judith, a whole image of the man is projected to the readers. He comes across as a man of clear intellect and sophistication, though he literally goes mad because of his egomania. The later stories suggest that he became sympathetic to biblical religion later in his life, though his egomania fatally affl icted his descendants’ ability to maintain the Neo-Babylonian Empire. See also Akkad; Aramaeans; Babylon, later periods; Israel and Judah; Josiah; Medes, Persians, and Elamites; prophets. Further reading: Sack, Ronald H. “Nebuchadnezzar.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992; Wiseman, Donald J. Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon. Schweich Lectures 1983. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1985. Mark F. Whitters Nefertiti See Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Neolithic age The Neolithic age followed the Paleolithic age and Mesolithic (or Epipaleolithic) as the last era of the Stone Age of human prehistory. Homo sapiens (the modern human species) experienced the Neolithic age; late-surviving relatives such as Homo neanderthalensis and Homo fl oresiensis died off in the Upper Paleolithic. Its boundaries are not specifi c years but rather the onset of trends: The Neolithic began roughly with the advent of agriculture and ended with the adoption of metal tools, events that varied from place to place and culture to culture. In Europe, for instance, the Neolithic lasted from roughly 9,000 years ago to 5,000 years ago in southern Europe, and 4,000 years ago further north. The regional cultures that had fi rst developed in the Upper Paleolithic became more distinct as agricultural innovations allowed (and encouraged) hunter-gatherer groups to settle in permanent or semi-permanent settlements. Much of the technological innovation of the Neolithic pertains to building and pottery. THE MESOLITHIC PERIOD Between the long Paleolithic and the active Neolithic was the Mesolithic period, a barely 2,000-year-long transitional time during which the ecosystem, and the humans within it, adjusted to the environmental changes following the end of the last ice age. The last ice age began its glacial advance around 70,000 years ago and lasted about 60,000 years. At its most severe, sheets of ice reached northern Germany and covered Canada and the northern quarter of the United States. Denmark and Britain were connected by dry land, which the North Sea fl ooded into after the glacial thaw; the Baltic Sea became brackish when fresh glacial water diluted its salinity; and the Great Lakes and Niagara Falls were formed by glaciers scraping the Earth’s surface. The end of the ice age coincided with the widespread extinction of megafauna, sometimes called the Ice Age Extinction or the Pleistocene Extinction Event. Megafauna, broadly speaking, are any mammals larger than a bull, and while once plentiful, they began dying off toward the end of the ice age and continued to do so after its end. The woolly mammoth, a shaggy relative of the modern elephant, is the best-known victim of the extinction event. Nearly a dozen other species died off in Europe at the same time, including the cave lion and cave bear, while in the Americas nearly 80 species died, including the giant beaver, the dire wolf, and the fi ve species of American horses. Australia suffered a mass extinction of megafauna marsupials and giant reptiles about 50,000 years ago, roughly coinciding with the arrival of humans, though not necessarily the result of hunting. Climate change is a strong possibility for their extinction, as are plagues. The term Epipaleolithic is often used to describe this post-Paleolithic, preagricultural period in regions where such environmental changes were minimal: The Natufi an culture of the Levant, for instance, was unusual in that their Paleolithic predecessors had been little enough affected by the ice age that their technological achievements continued uninterrupted. The Natufi ans developed building and permanent settlements before agriculture, reversing the order of most Neolithic cultures (in which agriculture is the initial reason for abandoning nomadism). Natufi an homes were partially underground, kept cool by the insulating earth around their walls, just as modern basements are; when necessary they were warmed with central fi replaces. Although fl oors were often stone, the majority of the structure was made of wood. 300 Nefertiti The Natufi ans were probably able to settle in the Levant without farming because of abundant fi shing conditions and plentiful wild plants to forage. Though they must have hunted, unlike their nomadic forebears they would not have depended on following migratory herds. Foraged acorns, almonds, and pistachios supplemented their protein intake. They domesticated dogs to assist them in the hunt (and may have attempted to domesticate jackals and wolves), made fl int sickles to harvest wild grains and mortar stones in which to grind them for bread and were experts in making tools from bone, including harpoons and fi sh-hooks. Later in Natufi an history, trade with other cultures is evident in the remains of Nile shells and Anatolian stone. THE ADVENT OF AGRICULTURE Eventually the Natufi ans and other Mesolithic and Paleolithic groups adopted agriculture—the seeding and harvesting of plants for food—more useful and diffi cult than foraging. The Younger Dryas event, or Big Freeze, was a 1,000-year period of sudden cold about 11,000 to 12,000 years ago. This was not an ice age as such but an extremely rapid cooling that led to glaciation in many mountain ranges, the displacement of hinterland forests by tundra, and in more southerly lands like the Levant prolonged drought. Wild plants would no longer be plentiful enough to sustain either the Natufi ans or the animals they had hunted and fi shed. It is likely that they understood some basic principles of agriculture through observation of the grains they had been harvesting but had lacked the incentive to sow their own fi elds—something they were now forced to do in order to maintain their settled, non-nomadic lifestyle. Beyond the Natufi an culture most groups were hunter-gatherers. They foraged and hunted, without domesticating plants or raising animals for food, and as such were generally nomadic, organized in bands of about 25 people and tribal groups of about 20 bands. Agriculture encouraged permanent settlements, a community life governed by the harvest instead of the herd, and cultivated land sustained much denser populations than wild land. The adoption of agriculture led almost immediately to the rise of the fi rst towns and of specialized building: granaries, family homes, tombs, temples, and megaliths. The megaliths are famous in the popular imagination: Monuments of large stone erected or stacked to some purpose include Stonehenge in England and the Monuments of Carnac in France. Some served as tombs, while others are hypothesized to have had signifi cance to Neolithic astronomers. POTTERY In the archaeological record pottery is the most signifi - cant technological achievement of the Neolithic and is divided into the pottery and prepottery periods. Ceramics, unlike fl int, were easy to fashion into containers, especially portable ones. The advent of pottery greatly expanded humans’ craftwork repertoire. The prepottery technological periods in the Near East are divided into the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B: The fi rst largely resembled Natufi an culture, with sickle blades used to harvest wild grains, partially subterranean buildings with stone foundations and mud brick walls, and cooking methods using hot rocks as well as direct fl ame or smoke. In Pre-Pottery Neolithic B domesticated animals became commonplace. The Paleo-Arctic culture developed at the end of the ice age among Siberians who had crossed the land bridge to Alaska and is noted for its specialized microblades and wedges. Contemporaneous with the Paleo-Arctic culture but slightly younger, originating around 9,000 years ago in China’s Yellow river valley, the Peiligang culture created the fi rst Chinese pottery and bred pigs for meat. In Europe the most signifi cant pottery culture was the Linear Pottery (LP) culture, which lasted about a millennium and started 7,500 years ago. Pottery cultures tend to be named for some distinctive feature of the potter’s style rather than using a geographic derivation, as is done for tool industries: The LP culture decorated its products with incised bands. They seem to have prized weapons less than many of their contemporaries, and their efforts instead went into cultivating wheat, lentils and peas, hemp, and fl ax and domesticating the sheep and goats they brought with them from Neolithic age 301 The adoption of agriculture led almost immediately to specialized building and megaliths, such as Stonehenge in England. southern Europe. The fl int and obsidian used in their tools came from two different parts of the continent, indicating some sort of long-distance commerce, a distinct shift from the opportunistic use of local resources that had marked earlier cultures. Despite the LP culture’s deep cultural and technological impact on Europe, investigation of the mitochondrial DNA of 24 skeletons shows that their genetic impact on modern humans was minimal. It may have been native Europeans who furthered the cultures that followed the Linear Pottery, while the LP progenitors died off or migrated elsewhere, their descendants coming to an unknown fate. Contemporary with the LP culture was the Yangshao culture in the Yellow River region of China, which started some 7,000 years ago. The Yangshao cultivated millet, wheat, and rice; raised pigs, dogs, sheep, cattle, and goats; built highly specialized tools; and were the fi rst to cultivate silkworms. At least some of their dead were buried in pottery jars, as was becoming increasingly common across the Neolithic world. Approximately 5,000 years ago the Yangshao were displaced by the Longshan (Lungshan), who left their mark on China with their walled cities and moats, pottery wheels and beautiful polished black pottery, and extensive rice cultivation. Compared to the slow development of tools in the Paleolithic, Neolithic advancements were outright rapid, a fact generally attributed to the superior cognitive faculties of Homo sapiens. In only a few thousand years humans went from crude cavelike dwellings to living near their new farms and then to fortifi ed and defended cities with buildings for religious, commercial, and military purposes and the fi rst roads. The concept of specialization to that degree, which would have been incomprehensible to most Paleolithic humans, became integral to human development by the end of the Stone Age. A species that had once traveled with the seasons, following its food, now cultivated, improved, harvested, stored, and traded its own food goods. See also Andes: Neolithic; food gatherers and producers, prehistory; paleoanthropology; religious inclinations, prehistory; Xia (Hsia) dynasty. Further reading: Bellwood, Peter. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Studies. London: Blackwell Publishers, 2004; Gibson, Kathleen, and Tim Ingold, eds. Tools, Language, and Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Jaynes, Julian. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. New York: Penguin, 1993; Liu, Li. The Chinese Neolithic: Trajectories to Early States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Mellaart, James. Neolithic of the Near East. New York: Macmillan, 1976; Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct. New York: HarperCollins, 1994; Thomas, Julian. Understanding the Neolithic. New York: Routledge, 1999; Whittle, Alasdair. Neolithic Europe: A Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Bill Kte’pi Neoplatonism Neoplatonism is the modern name for the last school of pagan Greco-Roman philosophy. It fl ourished from 200 to 550 c.e., when its last teachers died; however, the infl uence of Neoplatonic doctrines continued in the teachings of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim philosophers. The infl uence of Neoplatonism in the Middle Ages was enormous and has lasted into the 21st century. At times it was helpful, but more often it was rejected as subversive to orthodox monotheism. The term Neoplatonism, to distinguish it from Platonism, was fi rst used in the 19th century. Neoplatonism combined the philosophy of Plato with bits of the whole history of Greco-Roman philosophy. It was otherworldly, mystical, and, in part, nonrational. Until Neoplatonism, Greco-Roman philosophy had been secular in that it sought the way to live as a “wise man” (or “wise woman”) in this world. Although Neoplatonism was to develop its own unique doctrines, it had a number of precursors. Except for the Epicureans whose doctrines were always seen by Neoplatonists as an anathema, virtually all of the development of Greco-Roman pagan philosophy contributed to their doctrines. Plato and the many interpretations of his teachings, especially in epistemology, had been developed into a long and varied tradition of Platonism. Moreover, Plato’s greatest student, Aristotle, had initiated new lines of inquiry with varied forms of Aristotelianism. Also of infl uence is the idea of a transcendent God who deals with humans only through intermediaries. Others also contributed to the emergence and development of Neoplatonism. PLOTINUS The fi rst Neoplatonist was Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria. However, his student Plotinus (c. 204–270 c.e.) was the one who gave Neoplatonism its fi rst major exposition. After studying and teaching at Alexandria he settled in Rome, where he taught in his own school that attracted some of the Roman elite, including the emperor and his wife. For a while Plotinus considered developing 302 Neoplatonism a new city organized from the ideas of Plato’s Republic. The city was to be called Platonopolis, but he was unable to implement the plan. During his life Plotinus wrote 54 treatises, which were less eloquent than his speeches. After his death Plotinus’s literary corpus was organized into a unifi ed whole and given the title, Enneads. The Enneads are the locus classicus for Neoplatonism’s doctrines. Plotinus’s thought presents a philosophical analysis of God, nature, human beings, and the problem of evil. Plotinus taught a mystical form of Platonism. Plato, in describing the nature of knowledge, had argued that sensory knowledge was transitory and that ultimate knowledge was acquired by direct experience of the ultimate forms or ideas. The greatest of these was the form of the Good. The apprehension of the form of the Good required long philosophical training and was ultimately a kind of mysterious experience rather like “seeing” the solution to a mathematics problem. For Plotinus the Good was really the ultimate or the divine. He was not a monotheist but a pantheist who believed that the divine was the ultimate “stuff” of the universe. For Plotinus the mystical experience of the One is ineffable. The One, or the Absolute, “resides” in Unity in an arena which is Transcendent, Good, and from which it is the Source of all things. For Plotinus the Absolute is the One from which all things come. It is an active force that is beyond description. The Absolute can be experienced mystically only by those who are seeking to be joined with it. In the philosophy of Plotinus, the One and all things are of the same substance. His view is very different from the biblical doctrine of creation. The biblical doctrine teaches that the world is not of the same substance with its creator but stands distinctly apart. For Plotinus the visible world is rationally apprehensible because it is the product of Intelligence. In this regard there is a similarity to Plato’s rationally apprehensible forms, and to the Wisdom of God, the divine Logos, Christ, through whom all things are made. PORPHYRY OF TYRE After the death of Plotinus his best student, Porphyry of Tyre (233–305), devoted his life to spreading the teachings of Plotinus. Porphyry wrote the Life of Plotinus (298) as an introduction to the Enneads and arranged Plotinus’s works into six Enneads or groups of nine. The Enneads is not a systematic organization of Plotinus’s teachings but instead presents the oral lectures of Plotinus. Each lecture had independently considered ideas such as the problem of memory, the worth of astronomy, and the relationship of soul and body. Porphyry also wrote other works, including On the Philosophy to Be Derived from the Oracles (written before meeting Plotinus); On Images, Introduction to Intelligibles, which taught that the soul was impassive; On Abstinence from Animal Foods; and The Nymph’s Cave, which expounded a passage from Homer. The literary achievements of Porphyry also included an introduction (isagogue) to Aristotle’s Categories, which was translated by Boethius and had a great impact on medieval philosophy. The Tetrabiblos suggests that Porphyry had a keen interest in astrology. With the death of Plotinus and the spread of his teachings numerous teachers used his instructions to guide their students. However, these varied Neoplatonic teachers created numerous confl icting interpretations of Plotinus’s thought. Neoplatonism merged slowly with the religion of paganism. Those who had an interest in magical practices took up the great emphasis that Plotinus put upon rites and rituals as formulas that evoked powerful responses. IAMBLICHUS OF CHALCIS Iamblichus of Chalcis (c. 270–330) began the last stage of Neoplatonism. His teachings gave future Neoplatonists a method for developing it in new directions and allowed for a more mathematical expression. The son of a prosperous family in Coele-Syria, Iamblichus studied under Anatolius and later with Porphyry, after which he returned to Chalcis. There he attracted a large group of students from many different countries. Many of them would later claim that he had divine powers. Most of the writings of Iamblichus listed by Suidas have been lost. He wrote commentaries on Plato and Aristotle, works on Chaldaean theology, and on the soul. He also wrote a book called On the General Science of Mathematics and a biography of the Life of Pythagoras. The tradition of students reading Plato’s dialogues in fi xed order is attributed to Iamblichus. He taught that the student should begin with Alcibiades, then read through the Gorgias, and fi nally complete the readings with the Parmenides. To read the dialogues in this order would teach students how to gain knowledge of self, political virtues, and spiritual principles. Iamblichus changed the teachings of Plotinus on the soul from a “being” that is passionless intellect to a more active reality that moves through multiple transmigrations in which it acquires virtues that are political, purifying, theoretical, paradigmatic, and priestly. He taught that the soul is active and has free will with which, and with the aid of the gods, eventually returns to the Absolute. The Pythagorean and Neo-Pythagorean infl uences accepted by Neoplatonism 303 Iamblichus allowed him to teach that the whole complex vision of Neoplatonism was ruled by mathematical principles beginning with a monad. Mystical experience did not play a major role in the philosophy of Iamblichus. Instead, he seemed intent on bringing the gods to people. For most of Iamblichus’s life Platonism was held in high regard. With the founding of Constantinople there was even speculation that Plotinus’s vision of a Platonopolis would be realized. This was not to be after Christianity became the religion of the empire, despite the great admiration for him by Emperor Julian the Apostate. PROCLUS AND DAMASCIUS Proclus Diadochus (412–485), one of the late representatives of Neoplatonism, was born at Constantinople and grew up at Xanthus in Lycia. He attended the Neoplatonic lectures of Plutarch and Syrianus. About 450 he succeeded to the chair of philosophy at Syrianus to become the successor of Plato. He put Neoplatonism squarely into the Academy as its doctrine. An adamant supporter of the old paganism, Proclus often attended or performed the rites of Egyptian, Chaldaean, and Greek celebrations. He succeeded in so enraging the local Christians with his paganism that he felt it prudent to go to Asia Minor. After a year he returned to Athens where he remained until his death. The writings of Proclus were numerous, with a small number having survived. His views were fully developed in his work On Platonic Theology. His teachings on Neoplatonism were elaborated in Institutio Theologica. Other writings by Proclus discussed astronomy, mathematics, and some of the astrology of Ptolemy. The Neoplatonism of Damascius (c. 480–550), taught at Alexandria, almost abandoned it. He wrote Life of Isidorus and a long treatise, On the First Principles, which is a commentary on the last part of the Platonic dialogue, Parmenides. The hierarchical world of Proclus is replaced with a mystical path that allows the soul to journey to the higher realities. Perhaps the most infl uential of Neoplatonic writings in the Middle Ages was the anonymous work long attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts 17:34), but which are now attributed to Dionysius the Pseudo-Dionysius. The writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius were originally written in Greek sometime after 450, probably either at Ephesus or in Syria. The writings, The Divine Names, The Mystical Theology, The Celestial Hierarchy, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and The Letters, have been the center of debates by scholars over whether the Pseudo- Dionysius was a Neoplatonist, a Christian, or both. Neoplatonism’s infl uence was deep and long lasting. The Neoplatonists promoted a fresh, dynamic philosophy. Christians infl uenced by Neoplatonism include Origen, the Cappadocian Fathers of Orthodoxy, and some of the medieval Byzantines such as Psellos. Neoplatonism found occasional expressions in medieval Western philosophy in the writings of Johannes Scotus Eriugena, and others. After the Arab conquest of much of the Middle East, Neoplatonism deeply infl uenced Islamic philosophy through the thought of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Averroës, and others. Neoplatonism infl uenced Jewish philosophy and literature in Moorish Spain, eventually fi nding expression in the philosophy of Baruch de Spinoza. See also Alexandrian literature; Epicureanism; Greek oratory and rhetoric; libraries, ancient; pre- Socratic philosophy; Sophocles. Further reading: Armstrong, A. H., ed. The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970; Bigg, Charles. Neoplatonists. 1886; Blumenthal, H. J. Aristotle and Neoplatonism in Late Antiquity: Interpretations of the De Animia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996; Bowerstock, G. W. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990; Brehier, Emile. The Hellenistic and Roman Age. Trans. by Wade Baskin Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965; Burt, B. C. A Brief History of Greek Philosophy. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1889; Gersh, Stephen. From Iamblichus to Eriugena: An Investigation of the Prehistory and Evolution of the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1978; Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995; Luibheid, Colm, trans. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1987; Siorvanes, Lucas. Proclus: Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science. New Haven: CT: Yale University Press, 1996; Wallis, R. T. Neoplatonism. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1995. Jack Waskey Nero (37–68 c.e.) Roman emperor The fi fth and fi nal of the Julio-Claudian emperors, a dynasty founded by Augustus Caesar, Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus reigned for the last 14 years of his life, succeeding his mother’s uncle Claudius. Although a patron of the arts, his reign is remembered as one indicative of the decadence and eventual fall of Rome—the 304 Nero emperor who “fiddled while Rome burned” and possibly one referenced in the New Testament’s Revelation. Nero was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus during the reign of the emperor Caligula, his maternal uncle. Caligula expected to have sons to succeed him, but despite his sexual misadventures (all three of his sisters were reputed to have been among his lovers) that did not occur. Instead, Claudius, uncle of Caligula and Lucius’s mother, Agrippina—and a disabled stutterer who had never been considered a likely emperor—succeeded Caligula after the emperor’s assassination. Claudius adopted Lucius, who was older than his natural children and became heir by default. In order to better ensure an adult heir, Lucius was made a legal adult at a younger age than most children. He married Claudius’s daughter Octavia a year before the emperor’s death, a death with which he was in some way involved. He repudiated Claudius after his death, declaring him insane and incompetent, and frequently praised mushrooms, the poison which had killed him. The ultimate cause of Claudius’s death was probably a conspiracy involving Agrippina and several of the emperor’s servants, and its goal may have been to put Nero on the throne before someone else could be named heir. Only 17 years old when he ascended to the throne, Nero most likely deferred to Agrippina in the early years of his reign, as may have been her intent. He continued to be tutored by Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Younger), the Stoic philosopher and playwright. These first five years of Nero’s reign, the Quinquennium Neronis, were uneventful. With Claudius’s son Britannicus approaching the age of adulthood and Nero’s advisers jockeying for position, the stability of Nero’s reign began to fray. Brittanicus died suddenly, most likely of poison. Aggripina died four years later, the victim of another of the many conspiracies in Nero’s life. Nero began to surround himself with people of his own choosing rather than the tutors and advisers of his childhood. According to the historian Suetonius, Nero attempted to kill his mother numerous times, finally charging her with participation in a plot to kill him, having her executed, and claiming that she had committed suicide out of guilt. Nero executed many more of his relatives, on one pretense or another. Otho was sent away, and when his mistress Poppaea became pregnant, he divorced Octavia and married her 12 days later. Octavia was sent to an island in exile and was later executed. Though his matricide had harmed his relationship with the Senate, nothing would jeopardize his popularity as much as the Great Fire of Rome. In 64 c.e. a fire began in the Circus Maximus on July 18 and spread quickly throughout residential areas. The fire continued for six days, and even once under control it reignited and burned for another three days. At its worst the fire was hot enough to melt the metal nails used in construction. Most of Rome was destroyed—about three-quarters of the city. There are no indications as to a cause, but largescale accidental urban fires were not uncommon. Early historians were the first to recount the rumor that Nero “fiddled while Rome burned,” reading poetry about the fall of Troy while playing the lyre, but this was almost certainly only a reflection of Nero’s unpopularity. Needing a scapegoat of some kind, Nero blamed the Christians, which was then a small minority sect only a generation removed from Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth. Many were crucified, others sent to fight lions in the gladiatorial arenas. Christian tradition holds that he also ordered the deaths of the disciple Peter and Paul of Tarsus. With public opinion of Nero plummeting and ill will against the emperor still present in the Senate, Gaius Calpurnius Piso and several senators conspired to have Nero assassinated and for Piso to take the throne. The conspiracy was wildly unsuccessful, and its members were ordered to commit suicide, including Seneca. A year later, even Poppaea was a victim of the emperor when he kicked her to death during a quarrel. Poppaea died pregnant, having previously given birth to a daughter who died in infancy. Nero was left with neither wife nor heir. An increasingly irate Senate deposed him within two years. Nero committed suicide on June 9, 68 c.e. His last words were “Hoc est fides” (“This is faithfulness!”), spoken in praise of the Roman centurion arriving to arrest him. See also Rome: decline and fall; Rome: government. Further reading: Champlin, Edward. Nero. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2005; Griffin, Miriam. Nero: The End of a Dynasty. New York: Routledge, 2000; Holland, Richard. Nero: The Man behind the Myth. Stroud, UK: Sutton, 2003. Bill Kte’pi Nestorius and the Nestorian Church (d. 451 c.e.) church leader Nestorius is the bishop associated with the Assyrian Church established in the realm of the Persian Sassanid Empire. Nestorius has been called a heretic, but most likely his theological rivals misunderstood him; moreover, he is sometimes viewed as the father of the Assyrian Church (Nestorian Church), but his own theological positions are Nestorius and the Nestorian Church 305 sometimes markedly different than those of his namesake church. Nestorius grew up in Antioch and distinguished himself by his fasting, prayer, and preaching. His pious reputation caused him to be named as bishop of Constantinople (428 c.e.), the capital city of the Byzantine Empire and the center of the Greek Church. One of the ambitious theologians of rival city Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, criticized Nestorius for an alleged heresy involving the nature of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth. He claimed that Nestorius taught that Jesus Christ was the union of two persons, one that suffered and died and the other that was divine and eternal. However, Nestorius did not teach that there were two persons in Christ but rather that he had two natures in one person. This position was vindicated at the Council of Chalcedon, though the council emphasized the unity of the divine and human natures in the person of Jesus. This was too late and too little noticed by the Greek Church and Latin Church, for the brand of heresy had already emblazoned the name of Nestorius. He was stripped of his offi ce, his literary works were burned, and then he was exiled. He spent 10 years in the area of the Nabataeans in the Jordanian desert and then 10 years at the Great Oasis in the Libyan Desert, before dying in 451. The popular association of Nestorius with the Assyrian Church occurred because many followers of Nestorius migrated from Antioch to Edessa, the intellectual center for the whole Syriac Church. Here they found sympathy among the Christians who were not allied with the Greek or Latin Churches. Eventually, pressure came against Edessa’s intellectuals so that the dissidents moved into the Persian domain to the city of Nisibis, where they established their own school of theology. From there they dispersed into other parts of the Persian Sassanid Empire. By the sixth century the Assyrian Church had become “Nestorianized,” as Nestorius’s followers were welcomed into high ecclesial and educational positions. Their school at Nisibis was held in high esteem among the Persian Christians. The Assyrian Church had severed ties with the Greek and Latin Churches anyway and was little interested in the nuances of the controversy. As refugees from the Byzantine Empire they were not suspected of subversion or disloyalty. Thus, the Assyrian Church grafted the followers of Nestorius and other Syriac Christians into their fold and received the name of their fi gurehead. The irony of history is that it never offi cially adopted Nestorius’s position on the nature of Christ, nor did it accept the alleged heresy for which he was exiled many generations before. The Assyrian Church has always been on the fringes of Persian society, whether the society was Zoroastrian or Muslim. This diminished and fl exible status perhaps explains how the Assyrian religion so readily penetrated other people groups and political boundaries. The scope of its mission is remarkable for such a small group of believers: Their communities spread within 300 years to India, Sogdiana, Turkestan, Turfan, Manchuria, Siberia, and China. See also Assyria; heresies; Oriental Orthodox Churches; Syriac culture and church. Further reading: Loofs, Friedrich. Nestorius and His Place in the History of Christian Doctrine. Whitefi sh, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2004; Wessel, Susan. Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Mark F. Whitters New Comedy New Comedy refers to ancient Greek theatrical comedies created and performed during the era in which the Macedonians ruled Greece—roughly 320–260 b.c.e. The revolutions in lifestyle of this period facilitated a change in entertainment. The characters in these comedies were typically drawn from the masses of everyday people, as opposed to earlier plays that featured caricatures of the rich, the famous, or the ruling elite. Many hundreds or perhaps even thousands of comedies were produced during this period, but only a few survive today. All Greek theatrical performances originated in religious rites honoring Dionysus, also known as Bacchus, the god who roamed the world followed by throngs of crazed women. These women, called Maenads (from whom we get the term mania), participated in wild orgiastic rites. The god’s symbol was the thyrsus, a phallic staff topped with a large pinecone and wound with an ivy or grape vine. Originally, festivals honoring Dionysus took the form of choreographed dances performed by a chorus. This evolved into cathartic performances of tragedy, a word that literally means “goat ode,” the goat being the symbol of Dionysus. Tragedies gradually evolved into plays with actors and stylized formats, but the chorus remained. The chorus was held by some to represent the will and opinions of the society, while others believed the chorus represented supernatural forces. According to some, the oldest known comedies emerged as a break between tragedies or between parts of a single tragedy, in which exaggerated characters lam- 306 New Comedy pooned the tragedy in a spoof that closely followed the form, costumes, and masks of the tragedy itself. Others claim that comedy arose from the rough jests of Dionysian revelers in procession before the performance of the tragedies. From either origin, or both, soon entire comic plays arose. These are referred to as Old Comedy, referring to comedies performed in the period beginning with Pericles’ establishment of democracy, about 450 b.c.e. Notable authors such as Aristophanes (whose Clouds lampooned Socrates) ridiculed, and made satires (a word coming from the satyrs sacred to Dionysus) of all aspects of Greek society, particularly the famous and most upstanding citizens. This was in contrast to tragedy, in which the main characters were held up for emulation and found to be very nearly perfect, other than having a tragic fl aw. In Old Comedy, the main characters were exaggerated buffoons, who spoke and performed every manner of nonsense. No aspect of society was sacred in these comedies, and often even the very gods were lampooned. The next major evolution in comedy was Middle Comedy, which reduced or eliminated the chorus, ridiculed private personages rather than public ones, and often featured plots that revolved around an intrigue created by the characters. This style was prevalent from the end of the Peloponnesian War to the conquest of Greece by Macedonia. From about 388 to 322 b.c.e. New Comedy evolved from Middle Comedy when Athens’s revolt against Macedonian rule failed, and free speech was lost to the Athenians and their plays. New Comedies tended to focus on the role of chance in the average citizen’s daily fi ght for survival. The play would open to fi nd the characters’ lives had become quite tempestuous, but by the fi nal act, chance would have resolved the diffi culties in the characters’ favor. Mistaken identities, disguises, and comical errors abound in these plays. In format New Comedies were typically divided into three or, more often, fi ve acts. Frequently there was an interlude between acts of a comedy, such as our modern half-time shows. If a chorus appeared anywhere in a New Comedy, the chorus would be strictly limited to such an interlude. Menander (342–292 b.c.e.), Philemon (c. 368–267 b.c.e.), and Diphilus (c. 360–290 b.c.e.) were the three most renowned authors of comical plays in this era. Of these authors’ works, only a handful of the Athenian Menander’s 99 plays survive. His work Dysklos (The Grouch) was discovered on an Egyptian papyrus found in 1959. Among the many of Menander’s plays that exist in only fragmentary form are such titles as The Farmer, Aspis, Phasma, The Shorn Woman (Perikeiromene), and The Hero. Philemon was Menander’s primary rival and was regarded as superior by many contemporary critics. Philemon lived to be 99 years old and wrote 97 plays. Much of what we know about these three poets comes from Roman scholars who quoted from and commented upon their works, and from Roman playwrights, such as Terence and Plautus, who adapted these Greek comedies to their own culture. New Comedy greatly infl uenced not only the plays of Rome, but also the romantic comedies of the Middle Ages, and also the plays of Shakespeare, which bear a formal resemblance to the plots of the New Comedies. See also Greek drama; Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric. Further reading: Bates, Alfred, ed. The Drama: Its History, Literature and Infl uence on Civilization. London: Historical Publishing Co., 1906; Riu, Xavier. Dionysism and Comedy. Latham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld, 1999. Joseph R. Gerber New Kingdom, Egypt This era has been called “Egypt’s Empire,” when Egyptian armies reached and crossed the river Euphrates in the north and marched deep into Nubia. The rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty (1550–1295 b.c.e.) pursued a policy of vigorous expansion, creating an empire that the pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty (1295–1186 b.c.e.) were able to sustain. Its focus was commercial rather than military, designed to facilitate control of trade routes and to extract the resources of conquered territories. Native princes ruled under the supervision of Egyptian offi cials; their sons were taken to Egypt to be raised in the royal household and their daughters to the royal harem. Nubian gold, the timber and metals of Syria-Palestine, Aegean trade, and regular tribute sustained the Nineteenth Dynasty. After the end of the weaker Twentieth Dynasty, Egypt slowly declined into its long twilight. In the last phase of the Second Intermediate Period (1650–1550 b.c.e.), a native Egyptian dynasty ruled from Thebes. By 1550 b.c.e. their infl uence extended from Qis in Middle Egypt to the First Cataract: The Hyksos prince of Avaris held sway north of Qis, and a native Nubian dynasty ruled from Kerma at the Third Cataract. In a replay of the origins of the Middle Kingdom, the foundations of the New Kingdom were laid by Theban rulers, notably Kamose (1555–50 b.c.e.) and his brother Ahmose (1550–25 b.c.e.), the latter recognized as fi rst king of the Eighteenth Dynasty. It was Kamose New Kingdom, Egypt 307 who complained that his rule meant nothing while he was “bound to an Asiatic and a Nubian.” He pushed as far south as the Second Cataract and set up the new government offi ce of viceroy of Nubia, “the King’s Son of Kush.” He began a series of campaigns against the Hyksos that ended their rule at Avaris and united Egypt once more. Ahmose strengthened Egypt’s borders in Nubia and Syria and consolidated his rule at home. The Eighteenth Dynasty is best seen through several remarkable pharaohs. Thutmose I (1504–1492 b.c.e.), a nonroyal, succeeded Amenhotep I without dynastic change. In his short reign a series of successful forays into Nubia and Syria defi ned Egypt’s early empire. Thutmose I enlarged and endowed the temple of Amun at Karnak, practices continued by his successors that would lead to the wealth and power of Amun’s priesthood rivaling that of the pharaoh. Thutmose II married his half sister, the famous Hatshepsut. His life was brief, and his young son by a concubine became Thutmose III (r. 1479–1427 b.c.e.). For two years Hatshepsut, “Foremost of Noble Women,” was content to be regent for her nephew, but she soon assumed royal trappings, even having herself portrayed as a male. Other women ruled in Egypt, but she is the best known, chiefl y from her magnifi cent mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri. A relief from this temple shows the circumstances of her divine birth where the god Amun visits her mother, Queen Ahmose. Her tomb is in the Valley of the Kings, the preferred burial place of New Kingdom pharaohs. After her death Thutmose III came into his inheritance. In his 32 years of sole rule he proved an energetic and adept military leader, advancing to the Fifth Cataract in Nubia. He made 17 campaigns into Syria, even crossing the Euphrates. He captured the strategic cities of Joppa and Megiddo and brought the city of Kadesh fi rmly under Egyptian domination. These wars were intended for plunder, tribute, and future peaceful trade, and Thutmose III’s incessant activity ensured Egypt’s prosperity. His building activities extended throughout Egypt. His tomb in the Valley of the Kings contains the complete set of vignettes and accompanying text of the Book of What Is in the Underworld, recounting the night journey of the sun god, Ra. Amenhotep II (1427–1400 b.c.e.) followed his energetic father into Syria and Nubia. These campaigns of his fi rst 10 years mark the end of the consolidation of Egypt’s empire. The reign of Thutmose IV began the association of the king with the sun god, Ra, and the joining of Ra with Amun as the supreme deity Amun- Ra. Also royal women came to prominence in the roles of “king’s mother” and “great royal wife.” The Eighteenth Dynasty reached its high point in the magnifi cent opulence of Amenhotep III, who reigned for almost 40 peaceful and prosperous years. Two large statues of this king stand forlornly beside the tourist road to the Valley of the Kings, all that survives of his mortuary temple. Every class of Egyptians appears to have prospered, and Amenhotep III was later revered as a fertility god. The cult of the sun god increased at Thebes and devotion centered on the, aten, the sun disc or sphere, as the giver of life. Amenhotep III was followed by his second son, Amenhotep IV (1352–36 b.c.e.). Initially he ruled from Thebes and did not disrupt traditional religious life. The cult of the Sun reached its climax in his reign: The aten was depicted with its rays ending in hands holding the ankh, symbol of life. In year fi ve of his reign he abruptly ordered the building of a capital at a site in Middle Egypt, el-Amarna, called Akhetaten, “Horizon of the Aten,” where the court moved in year nine. His name change to Akhenaten, “servant of the Aten,” signaled his complete rejection of the other gods, notably Amun. Akhenaten’s famous wife, Nefertiti, played an equal role with her husband. The Amarna idyll lasted only until his death in 1336 b.c.e. The boy-king Tutankhaten was moved to the ancient capital at Memphis, and his name changed to Tutankhamun, a clear return to the old ways and gods of Egypt, notably Amun. Enormous effort was made to expunge the Amarna period from Egypt’s history and to obliterate Akhenaten’s memory. 308 New Kingdom, Egypt The huge mortuary temple built for Ramses II, the Ramesseum, stands on the West Bank at Thebes. Tutankhamun died after 10 years, probably of natural causes. Paradoxically, this obscure teenager is the best known of Egypt’s kings due to the discovery of his intact tomb in 1922. The reigns of the nonroyal Ay and Horemheb brought the Eighteenth Dynasty to an end. Ramses I, a close adviser and military offi cer, succeeded Horemheb. He was the founder of the Nineteenth Dynasty (1295–1186 b.c.e.). This dynasty is defi ned by the 67-year reign of his grandson Ramses II (1279–12 b.c.e.). Ramses (born of Ra) was a larger-than-life fi gure who fi lled Egypt with his statues, recorded his military campaigns on temple walls, and built on a scale of unparalleled magnifi cence. His huge mortuary temple, the Ramesseum, stands on the West Bank at Thebes. His greatest monument is his temple carved into the mountainous cliffs at Abu Simbel above the Second Cataract. It was saved from the rising waters of Lake Nasser during the 1960s by an international effort and, with Giza and Karnak, remains a prime archaeological site. Two enormous statues of Ramses fl ank the entrance. Ramses built a residence at Piramesse in the Delta where his family came from. The events of the biblical Exodus are traditionally associated with him, without much evidence. His fi rst and beloved “great royal wife” was Nefertari, whose magnifi cent tomb in the Valley of the Queens has been carefully restored. Father of more than 100 sons and daughters, several of his sons by his chief wives held high positions. He died around the age of 92 and was buried in the Valley of the Kings. Ramses’s mummy remains in good condition in the Cairo Museum. He outlived 12 of his sons and was succeeded by the 13th, Merneptah, already in his 60s. In his 10-year reign Merneptah subdued the Libyans and sent military expeditions to Nubia and Palestine. After Merneptah a disputed succession ushered in the last four short reigns of the Nineteenth Dynasty ending with Queen Twosret. The origins of the Twentieth Dynasty (1186–1069 b.c.e.) remain confused: From its second pharaoh, Ramses III, all its rulers were named Ramses. Ramses III reigned for 31 years and was the last powerful pharaoh. He successfully prevented the Sea Peoples from entering Egypt but ruled an Egypt whose infl uence abroad had diminished. At home the centuries-old policy of lavishing endowments on the major temples, particularly that of Amun-Ra at Karnak, led to a priesthood whose political and economic power rivaled that of the pharaoh. During the 28-year reign of the last pharaoh, Ramses XI, the high priest of Amun at Karnak, Herihor, adopted some royal titles and was virtual ruler of Upper Egypt. Royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings were pillaged and the royal envoy to the ruler of Byblos, Wenamun, was received with scant courtesy. The power of Amun-Ra had fi nally eclipsed that of the pharaohs, and Egypt’s imperial age slid into decline and civil discord. See also Hittites. Further reading: Allen, James P. Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Clayton, Peter A. Chronicles of the Pharaohs. London: Thames and Hudson, 1998; Gardiner, Alan. Egypt of the Pharaohs. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964; Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. New York: Blackwell, 1995; Kemp, Barry J. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. New York: Routledge, 1995; Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. 2, The New Kingdom. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976; Manley, Bill. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt. New York: Penguin Books, 1996; O’Connor, David, and Eric H. Cline, eds. Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001. John Barclay Burns Nicaea, Council of Christianity in the early fourth century c.e. was a complex spectrum of beliefs, whose adherents were faced with the additional problem that their religion was illegal in the Roman Empire. Constantine the Great recognized Christianity as a legal religion in 313 c.e. in the Western Roman Empire. With Constantine’s unifi cation of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires in 324, an approach to the growing Christian population and the implications of its theological diversity and disputes became a matter of national interest. At the heart of this Christian diversity was a theological dispute concerning the divinity of the Son of God that had developed in Alexandria. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria formulated traditional theology in somewhat novel formulas. He emphasized that the Word is eternally generated from the Father and that, if it is correct to call God Father, God always must be the father of a son. Alexander expressed these thoughts in slogans such as “Always God, always the Son.” To some this view endangered monotheism by suggesting, in effect, the existence of a second co-eternal and equal god alongside the one God. Arius, a well- respected senior presbyter and preacher in Alexandria, became the leader of the opposition called Arianism and attacked Alexander’s theology by presenting a radicalized Nicaea, Council of 309 version of a view of God as absolute unity outside of time, boundaries, and defi nition. The Word, in contrast, was to be understood as the principle of multiplicity. God the Father, as absolute unity, thus can and did subsist without the Word, a situation for which Arius and his supporters employed the slogan “There was [a time] when He [the Word] was not.” The Word therefore does not have to exist, but rather, as Arius interpreted Proverbs 8:22, the Word, or “Wisdom,” was “created . . . at the beginning.” Still, the Word was not like other creatures, since the Word was in fact the fi rst of all that was created and also functioned in turn as creator of all that subsequently was created. At a local council of bishops from Egypt and Libya, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria had Arius’s teachings condemned. Arius himself was deposed, but he quickly became the leader and fi gurehead of the opposition to Alexander’s theology, concentrated in a group of clergy who were students and followers of the exegete and martyr Lucian of Antioch (d. 312 c.e.). The theological dispute became quickly politicized, as both sides attempted to impose their position through the enlisting of popular sentiment and military and political support. A civil crisis ensued. In response to this crisis Constantine called a council of all of the bishops of the Roman Empire to convene in Nicaea to decide this theological question and thereby put an end to the civil unrest it engendered. This council was inaugurated on May 20, 325. At the council the pro-Arian bishops, under the leadership of Eusebius of Nicomedia, presented a formula of faith that expressed the subordination of the Son to the Father and declared that the Son and the Father were of different natures. Eusebius of Caesarea, whose doctrinal orthodoxy previously had been called into question as pro-Arian, now seized the opportunity to free himself of charges and presented his formula of faith that in the end, with a few modifi cations, served as a basis for the Nicene Creed. The creed that was fi nally adopted was not a new creed but one that refl ected the baptismal confession of Jerusalem, with an additional postscript of anathemas (curses) against Arian subordinationism. The most important aspect of the creed is its explicit mention that the Son is “of the same substance” as the Father, expressed in the term homoousios, translated in the Nicene Creed today as “begotten not made.” The insertion of this term was probably motivated by the fact that Arius had rejected it. Arius had stressed that the Father was the source of all creation in a strict sense, meaning that he was also the creator of the Son. Some bishops had diffi culty accepting the philosophical term homoousios because it was an expression found neither in other earlier Christian creeds nor in the Bible. Therefore, the list of expressions “God from God, light from light, true God from true God” were added before the word homoousios. Immediately following the term homoousios in the creeds is the clarifi cation “that is, of one being with the Father” to emphasize the equal divinity between Father and Son. In addition to attempting to solve the Arian controversy, the Council of Nicaea had other items on its agenda. The date of the celebration of the feast of Easter was fi xed to occur on the fi rst Sunday after the fi rst full moon of spring in order to settle the Quartodeciman controversy. The Quartodecimans stipulated that Easter should be celebrated on the 14th of the fi rst month of spring, since this was the historical date of Christ’s resurrection. A number of questions concerning church hierarchy in the empire were addressed in 20 canons. Most significant of these was the defi nition of the jurisdictions of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The decision to place Constantinople, the city called New Rome, and the residence of Emperor Constantine, on a par with Old Rome and over the older see of Alexandria created ecclesiastical tensions that would contribute to the fracturing of the church in the course of the Christological controversies of the fi fth century. The results and effects of the Council of Nicaea included, on the one hand, the fi rst creation of a universal statement of Christian faith, the attempt to organize the church into a coherent administrative structure, and the defi nition of its rights and responsibilities in reference to the Roman state. However, the creed that resulted from the council did not eliminate the Arian controversy, nor did it settle the key questions of the relationship between the Father and the Son and between the divinity and humanity of Christ. The creed of Nicaea was not binding on all Christian bishops. It was modified at the Council of Constantinople (381), which added language to state more clearly the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Only at the Council of Chalcedon (451) did acceptance of the Nicene (Constantinopolitan) Creed become binding. Nicaea was a step, but only a fi rst step, toward a unifi ed expression of Christian faith and the creation of the church as an integrated and hierarchical administration. See also Ephesus and Chalcedon, Councils of; persecutions of the church; wisdom literature. 310 Nicaea, Council of Further reading: Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. New York: Penguin, 1990. Cornelia Horn and Robert Phenix Nineveh For all of the attention Nineveh receives in the Jewish Bible, it was not the capital of Assyria until the last few decades of the Assyrian Empire in the seventh century b.c.e. The earliest biblical reference to the city is in the fi rst few chapters of the book of Genesis, where it is said that Nimrod, “the mighty hunter,” founded Nineveh, and also founded Babylon, the nemesis citystate of Nineveh. Nineveh’s ruins are in modern-day Mosul, Iraq. There the Khosar River fl ows into the Tigris River, providing natural protection for ancient Nineveh. There are three reasons why the location was advantageous. First, the water of the Khosar could be diverted into the moats that surrounded the massive city walls. Second, the land around Nineveh was agriculturally rich and productive, just south of the Kurdish foothills. Third, trading paths crossed this area, going north and south along the Tigris River and going east and west following the foothills. The city was one of ancient Assyria’s four population centers (the others were Ashur, Calah, and Arbela), but before that the city was known for its connection with Ishtar, goddess of love and war. At its high point it was populated by more than 175,000 people, almost three times the size of Calah. The fi rst archaeological records are Akkadian (2400 b.c.e.) and tell of a king named Manishtushu who restored Ishtar’s temple there. Writings tell of other kings who invaded for the glory of Ishtar, 400 years later. It was not until 300 years later that the city-state of Ashur took the city from the Mittanis and began to forge the fearsome Assyrian Empire. Shalmaneser I (c. 1260 b.c.e.) and Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1100 b.c.e.) made Nineveh their royal residences. The Assyrians continued Nineveh’s Ishtar traditions throughout all the periods of their hegemony. The city grew in prominence as an imperial center. One of the great Neo-Assyrian emperors, Sennacherib, who nearly conquered Jerusalem about 700 b.c.e., made Nineveh his capital. He conducted a lavish building program: One of his famous projects was digging aqueducts and canals—one 32 miles long—for irrigating his city gardens and parks; another was building the enormous city walls and gates, which still partially stand. The emperors that followed him presided over the days of Assyrian glory. A vast cache of tablets from Nineveh’s libraries has been discovered, making Assyrian literature better known than that of any ancient Semitic peoples except the Hebrews. In 612 b.c.e. the Babylonian Chronicle says that a coalition of Medes, Babylonians, and Scythians captured the city and defeated the Assyrian Empire, astonishing the peoples of the Fertile Crescent. Nineveh went into decline, and by the time of the Greek historian Xenophon (401 b.c.e.), the city was unrecognizable. That Assyria was feared and hated can be seen in many books of the Jewish Bible where the destruction of Assyria is almost gleefully announced. This antipathy toward Assyria is also found most vividly in the book of Jonah, the biblical prophet ordered to preach salvation for Nineveh. Only when a whale swallowed Jonah did the prophet relent and go. Today the area where Nineveh is buried, Tell Nebi Yunus, literally means “Hill of the Prophet Jonah,” and Nestorian Christians fi rst and then Muslims have erected a major shrine in his honor there. See also Akkad; Babylon: early period; Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon; Nestorius. Further reading: Grayson, A. Kirk. “Mesopotamia, History of: History and Culture of Assyria.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 4, edited by David N. Freeman, 733–755. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Mark F. Whitters Nubia Egypt provides the earliest historical record of northern Sudan, the land of Kush at the First Cataract. The Egyptian name for Nubia was Kush, meaning “wretched.” Kush encompassed modern-day northern Sudan and southern Egypt. Nubia was the place where African and Mediterranean civilizations met. Nubia was sometimes under Egypt, sometimes independent, and has been inhabited for 60,000 years. By the eighth millennium b.c.e. Neolithic people lived a sedentary life in fortifi ed mud-brick villages. They hunted, fi shed, gathered grain, and herded cattle. They had contact with Egypt by means of the Nile. The Nubian city of Kerma produced ceramics as early as 8000 b.c.e., earlier than in Egypt. Nubia was rich in minerals and gold needed for building temples and tombs. In the mid-fi fth millennium b.c.e. central Sudan’s abundant savanna and lakes made a settled life with agriculture and domestication of animals possible for the Nubians who inhabited Nubia 311 the region. The early Nubians engaged in a cattle cult similar to those found in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa today. Around 2400 b.c.e. the Neolithic culture evolved into the Kerma culture, and Kush prospered due to trade in ebony, ivory, gold, incense, and animals to Egypt. By 1650 b.c.e. Kerma was a city-state with territory, stretching from the First Cataract to the Fourth. The power of Kerma rivaled that of Egypt. Over time trade developed between Kush and Egypt, with Egyptian grain trading for Kushite ivory, incense, hides, and carnelian. Periodic Egyptian military forays into Kush produced no permanent presence until the Middle Kingdom (2100–1720 b.c.e.). At that time the Egyptians built forts to protect shipments of gold mined at Wawat. From the Old Kingdom (2700–2180 b.c.e.) for 2,000 years Egypt dominated the central Nile region economically and politically. Even during times of diminished Egyptian power, the Egyptian religious and cultural infl uence remained strong in Kush. The nomadic Asian Hyksos conquered Egypt around 1720 b.c.e., ending the Middle Kingdom, destroying the Nile forts, and cutting ties with Kush. An indigenous kingdom developed at Karmah. In 1500 b.c.e. Nubia fell to Egypt, which established an empire ranging from the Euphrates in Syria to the Fifth Cataract. The pharaohs of the New Kingdom ruled for more than 500 years. Egyptian power renewed with the New Kingdom (c. 1570–1100 b.c.e.), and Kush became an Egyptian province that provided gold and slaves, with the children of local chiefs taken as pages in the Egyptian court to ensure the chiefs’ loyalty. As a province of Egypt, Kush became attractive to Egyptian settlers, including merchants, military personnel, government offi cials, and priests. The Kushite elite converted to the Egyptian language, culture, and religion, preserving Egyptian culture and religion even during Egyptian decline and with temples to the Egyptian gods remaining in use until the coming of Christianity. Egypt was weak and divided in the 11th century b.c.e., and Kush became autonomous for the next 300 years. Little is known about that period, but Kush reappeared as an independent kingdom in the eighth century b.c.e. The Kushites conquered Upper Egypt in 750 b.c.e. and all of Egypt later in the century, ruling Kush and Thebes for about 100 years. Egypt occupied Nubia for about 500 years. Then in 856 b.c.e. Nubia under the Twenty-fi fth Dynasty ruled Egypt. The dynasty at Napata was known as the Ethiopian dynasty, making it a great African power despite its holding to Egyptian culture and religion. Confl ict with Assyria in the seventh century b.c.e. led to the withdrawal of the Kushite rulers from Egypt to their capital of Napata. In 713 b.c.e. King Shabaka of Kush came to power. He controlled the Nile Valley to the Delta. His dynasty fell to Assyria. In 590 b.c.e. an Egyptian incursion led to the relocation of the capital to Meroë, and Egypt came under Persian, Greek, and Roman domination during subsequent centuries. Isolated from Egypt, Kush developed its own culture, peaking in the third and second centuries b.c.e. The proximity to black Africa showed in the increased infl uence in Kushite civilization. They modeled their jewelry on African styles. Meroë had an elected kingship with the succession strongly infl uenced by the queen mother. The rulers at Meroë continued the Egyptian practices of raising stelas as records of their exploits and using pyramids as their tombs. The kingdom at Meroë enjoyed a centralized political system capable of bringing together the large numbers of artisans and laborers needed for building projects. The still-undeciphered Meroitic script that replaced Egyptian hieroglyphics in the fi rst century b.c.e. was an adaptation of the Egyptian writing system. Meroë prospered due to trade and commerce, especially after the introduction of the camel to Africa in the second century b.c.e. and the concurrent fl ourishing of the African caravan trade. Meroë benefi ted from its access to the Red Sea. It was noted for its pottery, woven cloth, and jewelry. The kingdom also used Nile water and acacia trees (charcoal) to smelt iron for spears, arrows, axes, and hoes. It developed agriculture and irrigation in a tropical region. In religion Kush worshipped the Egyptian state gods but also its own regional gods, including Apedernek, the lion god. Over time northern Kush, home of the religious center of Napata, fell to predatory nomads, the Blemmyes. Nevertheless, Meroë maintained contact with the Mediterranean world through the Nile, dealt with Arab and Indian traders on the Red Sea coast, and began to include Hindu and Hellenistic cultural infl uences. Meroë had occasional friction with Egypt. In 23 b.c.e. Meroë raided Upper Egypt, leading to Roman retaliation, the razing of Napata. The Romans regarded the area as too poor for colonization, so the army left. Meroë began to decline in the fi rst or second century c.e. due to war with Roman Egypt and the decline of its traditional industries. The manufacture of iron had exhausted the acacia forests, and deforestation caused the loss of fertility in the land. The Nobatae were horseand camel-riding warriors who occupied the west bank of the Nile in northern Kush in the second century c.e. Initially they sold protection to the Meroitic popula- 312 Nubia tion. Then they intermarried and became the military aristocracy. Until around the fi fth century, they received subsidies from Roman Egypt, which used Meroë as a barrier between itself and the Blemmyes. During this period Meroë shrank as the Abyssinian state of Axum took over. In 350 Ezana, king of Axum, invaded Meroë. By then the Meroites had already given way to the Noba. In the sixth century Meroë was home to three successor states: Nobatia, or Ballanah, in the north, with a capital at Faras in modern Egypt; Muqurra in the center, with a capital at Dunqulah; and Alwa in the south, with its capital at Sawba. Warrior aristocrats ruled all three cities, but the court offi cials styled themselves after the Byzantine model. The Nubian kingdoms converted to Christianity in the sixth century. The form of Christianity taken by the Nubian rulers was Monophysite Christianity, the Coptic version, and the spiritual head of the Nubian church was the Coptic patriarch of Alexandria, who held strong infl uence over the church and confi rmed each ruler’s legitimacy. The monarch in return protected the church’s interests. The queen mother preserved the Meroitic right to determine the succession, making possible the accession of nonroyal warriors through marriage. With the change to Christianity, Nubia reestablished cultural and religious ties to Egypt and renewed contacts with Mediterranean civilization. The Nubian language replaced the Greek liturgy, but Coptic remained common in both religious and secular activities. Arabic grew in infl uence from the seventh century particularly in the world of commerce. The Christian Nubian kingdoms attained their highest prosperity and military power in the ninth and tenth centuries. Arab domination of Egypt hampered Nubian access to the Coptic patriarch and ended the supply of Egyptian-trained clergy, causing the Nubia 313 An illustration of the Temple of Abu Simbel (Semple), built during the reign of Ramses II in the 13th century b.c.e., in commemoration of Ramses’s Egyptian queen and to intimidate his Nubian neighbors. Nubian Christians to become isolated from the rest of Christianity. Islam changed Sudan and split the south from the north. It also promoted political, economic, and educational development among its adherents, mostly in the urban commercial centers. Islam began spreading shortly after the death of Muhammad in 632. Islam had converted the Arab tribes and cities, and Arab armies began spreading Islam into North Africa during the fi rst generation after Muhammad’s death. Within 75 years North Africa was Muslim. The conquest of Nubia began with invasions in 642 and again in 652, at which time the Arabs besieged Dunqulah (Dongala) and destroyed its cathedral. The Nubians refused to surrender, so the Arabs accepted an armistice and withdrew. Nubians and Arabs had contacts long before the rise of Islam, and the process of Arabization took about 1,000 years. Intermarriage and exchange of cultural values were common. With the failure of the early efforts at military conquest, the Arab commander in Egypt, Abd Allah ibn Saad, established the fi rst of a series of treaties that lasted for almost 600 years. Arab rule of Egypt meant peace with Nubia. Periodically, non-Arabs ruled Egypt, and that generated confl ict. The Arabs wanted commerce and peace, and treaties facilitated travel and trade between the two. Trade fl ourished, with Arabs exchanging horses and manufactured goods for ivory, gum arabic, gems, gold, and cattle. Arabs had treaty rights to buy Nubian land, and Arabs moved into Nubia as merchants, engineers in the gold and emerald mines, and pilgrims who used Nubian Red Sea ports, which also served as entrepôts for cargoes from India to Egypt. Arab tribes who immigrated to Nubia during this time provide the ancestors of most of the region’s mixed population. The two most important are the Jaali and the Juhayna. The Jaali were sedentary farmers, herders, or townspeople. The Juhayna families are nomadic descendants of 13th-century migrants into the savanna and semidesert regions. The Arabs and indigenous peoples intermarried. Arabization occurred without forced conversion or prosyletization. The Christian kingdoms remained politically independent until the 13th century. Nubian armies invaded Egypt in the eighth and 10th centuries to free the imprisoned Coptic patriarch and reduce persecution of Copts under Muslim rule. Then in the mid-14th century the kingdom of Makuria fell in a combination of conquest and intermarriage to the joint forces of the Juhayna Arabs and Mamluk. In 1276 the Mamluk (Arabic for “owned”) soldier-administrator elites overthrew the monarch of Dunqulah and gave the crown to a rival. Dunqulah was Egypt’s province. Nubia converted to Islam and Arabic. Intermarriage brought Arabs into the royal succession as the two elites merged. The king in 1315 was a Muslim prince of the royal Nubian line. Islam expanded, and Christianity declined. In the 15th century Nubia became politically fragmented, and slave raiding became a major problem. Towns fearful for their safety asked for Arabic protectors. By the 15th or 16th century Arabs formed the majority in the region. See also African city-states; Egypt, culture and religion; Ethiopia, ancient; Nabataeans. Further reading: Adams, William. Nubia: Corridor to Africa. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984; Metz, Helen Chapin, ed. Sudan: A Country Study. Washington, DC: Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, 1991; Redford, Donald B. From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. John H. Barnhill

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450

Nalanda Nalanda was the most renowned center of Buddhist learning in India in the fourth–12th centuries. A Buddhist monastic center and major university were located at Nalanda, which is in Baragaon, Bihar state, in east central India, about 90 miles southeast of the state capital of Patna. The village’s association with Buddhism predates the establishment of the university and monastery: Legend has it that the Gautama Buddha visited the Nalanda village several times and delivered sermons there, and that one of his principal disciples, Sariputta, was born near Nalanda village. Nalanda University was established in the fi fth century and grew, with more than 10,000 students from many different countries attending the university at the time of its destruction in the 12th century. The Chinese pilgrim and scholar Xuanzang (Hsuan-tsang) studied at Nalanda University in the seventh century and left detailed accounts of it in his writings. Besides Theraveda and Mahayana Buddhism, instruction was offered in medicine, astronomy, and art. Nalanda, along with many other Buddhist monasteries and temples, was sacked by Turko-Afghan Muslim invaders led by Bakhtiyar Khalji in the 12th century. The monastery and university were destroyed and many of the monks either were killed or fl ed to other parts of Asia, in particular Nepal and Tibet. This invasion marked the virtual end of Buddhist culture in India until the 1950s, although Buddhism continued to fl ourish in other Asian countries such as Tibet, China, Japan, and Southeast Asia. In fact Buddhism in those countries was partly nourished by monks from Nalanda who sought refuge. Many historians also believe that destruction of Buddhist centers of higher learning at this time caused the abrupt demise of ancient Indian scientifi c thought in areas such as mathematics and medicine. The ruins of Nalanda are frequently studied by scholars today because of their central importance in the history of Buddhist history, culture, and art. Currently excavated ruins cover an area of about 150,000 square miles, and it is estimated that this constitutes only 10 percent of the total area that was developed in the 12th century, as described by Xuanzang. Nalanda is also the name of the administrative district where the ruins are located. The name Nalanda means “the place that confers the lotus” and survives as the name of a Buddhist monastery near Lavaur, France, and two colleges, one in Toronto, and one in Sri Lanka. Further reading: Chauley, G. C. Art and Architecture of Nalanda. New Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan, 2002; Ling, Trevor Oswald. The Buddha: Buddhist Civilization in India and Ceylon. London: Temple Smith, 1973; Paul, Debjani. The Art of Nalanda: A Development of Buddhist Sculpture, a.d. 600–1200. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1995; Thakur, Upendra. Buddhist Cities in Early India: Buddha- Gaya, Rajagrha, Nalanda. Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan, 1995; Wiggins, Sally Hovey. The Silk Road Journey with Xuanzang. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004. Sarah Boslaugh Nanjing (Nanking) Nanjing means “southern capital” in Chinese. The city that is currently named Nanjing has had several names through history, and several other cities in China have also had that name. It is located on the southern bank of the Yangzi (Yangtze) River in a rich agricultural plain, close to the sea. When China split three ways after the fall of the Han dynasty in 220 c.e., one of the states called Wu that controlled the Yangzi valley and the southern coast set up its capital at Nanjing; Wu was destroyed in 280. Chaotic conditions in China led to successive invasions by nomads called the Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) and Toba (T’o-pa), who destroyed the two capitals of the Han dynasty, Luoyang (Loyang) in 311 and Chang’an (Ch’ang-an) in 316. For the next two and half centuries China was divided, the Xiongnu and other nomadic tribes ruling the north, while Chinese refugees from the north set up dynasties in the south. This era is known as the era of Division of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, during which Nanjing was capital of the southern dynasties. As a result Nanjing gained the position as the bastion of Chinese rule, while nomadic barbarians ruled the north. In the 10th century, when China was again briefl y divided, Nanjing was capital of one of the southern states. When the Jurchen Jin (Chin) dynasty (a nomadic tribe from Manchuria) defeated the Song (Sung) dynasty and conquered northern China in 1127, the remnant Song court fl ed south and briefl y established its capital in Nanjing. But it was vulnerable to Jin attacks and the Southern Song fi nally chose to establish its court in Hangzhou (Hangchou), located still farther south. In mid-14th century, as the Mongol Yuan dynasty (1279–1368) was disintegrating, many rebel groups rose up in southern China. The most successful and farsighted rebel leader was Zhu Yuanzhang (Chu Yuanchang), who established his headquarters in Nanjing in 1356. By 1368 the Mongols had been driven back to Mongolia, and China was under the Ming dynasty (Ming means “brilliant”). Zhu, now called Emperor Hongwu (Hung-wu), which means “Bountiful Warrior,” was concerned that Nanjing had never been the capital of unifi ed China. He briefl y considered making Kaifeng (K’aifeng) the Song capital, the capital city again, but he settled on Nanjing. A great city wall 25 miles long was completed that incorporated sections of earlier walls, extended to the shores of the Yangzi River. It averaged 40 feet high and was 25 feet wide at the top, built on foundations of huge slabs of stones that could withstand gunpowder barrages. The walls were faced with large fi red bricks and fi lled with rubble. There were 13 gates with immense multiple portcullis gate enclosures, topped by gate towers. Construction of palaces and government buildings continued to the end of Emperor Hongwu’s reign in 1398. Civil war erupted when Hongwu’s grandson and successor was challenged by his uncle the prince of Yan (Yen), whose army took Nanjing in 1402. The prince of Yan became Emperor Yongle (Yung-lo), and because his power base was in the north and Nanjing held bad memories for him, he had the ruined Yuan capital Dadu (T’a-tu) rebuilt; it became capital of the Ming dynasty, called Beijing (Peking). Nanjing remained the second capital, but no Ming emperor resided there again. See also Taizu (T’ai-Tsu). Further reading: Liu, Laurence G. Chinese Architecture. New York: Rizzoli International Pubs., 1989; Mote, Frederick W., and Denis Twitchett, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988; Paludan, Ann. The Imperial Ming Tombs. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Naples According to myth the city of Parthenope was established in 1000–900 b.c.e., with the city of Neapolis (New City) created three centuries later nearby. The climate and beautiful location of the city had long attracted attention, with the Roman emperor Tiberius retreating to the nearby island of Capri in 27 c.e. The former became Pompeii, which was destroyed in the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 c.e., with some of the surviving people moving to Neapolis. Although there is evidence of Christianity in Pompeii, it was not until the latter half of the fourth century that Christianity became widely accepted in Naples, with Bishop Septimius Severus building the fi rst parish church, now San Giorgio Maggiore, in 500. In 536 the Byzantine general Belisarius managed to capture the city of Naples after leading his army through the aqueduct, and in 553 Naples offi cially became a part of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Over the next few centuries the city survived attacks by the Goths and the Lombards; the latter laid siege to it in 600. As Byzantine control in the region waned in 763, Naples became an independent and hereditary duchy, 294 Nanjing nominally under Byzantine rule. It then sustained a number of attacks by the Saracens, who, in 902, were heavily defeated at the Battle of Garigliano. In 1139 to gain better protection from the Turks, the people of Naples handed control of their city—and hence the protection of it—to Roger II, the Norman king of Sicily. Naples was the fi rst of the southern duchies to receive Roger and cheered him as he entered the city. His successor, William I (r. 1154–66), was very different. He fortifi ed the city and started work on the construction of Castel Capuano in 1165. This not only was where the military garrison were based, but also became a royal residence for the subsequent rulers of Naples until the mid-16th century. William however had been brought up by Arabs and established his own harem and eunuch guards, which offended many people, earning him the title of “William the Bad.” His successor, William II, by contrast, gained the title “William the Good” and reigned until 1189. A succession crisis followed, and the local barons chose Tancred, an illegitimate son of William II’s brother. However Henry VI Hohenstaufen, the son-in-law of Roger II, and the Holy Roman Emperor, decided to take the city and on his second attempt captured it, executing many of Tancred’s supporters. He then established Naples as his base from 1194. Frederick II founded the University of Naples in 1224, and 42 years later Charles I of Anjou took control of the city, making it the capital of his Angevin kingdom. In 1282 the Angevins lost control of Sicily but retained Naples. His son Charles II succeeded him, and then the throne went to Robert. In normal circumstances the throne should have passed to Robert’s older brother, Louis of Anjou (1274–97). However Louis, who had spent seven years in captivity in Barcelona as a hostage, gave up his right to the throne to take monastic vows as a Franciscan, wanting to spend his life doing good works. He became the archbishop of Toulouse but died six months later. During that time, and in his earlier church career, he had earned such respect that in 1317 he was canonized as Saint Louis of Toulouse. Robert died in 1343 and was succeeded by his granddaughter, the 17-year-old Joanna, who became Queen Joan I. She married four times, probably murdered one of her husbands, and was deposed and murdered in 1382 by her second cousin, Charles I, king of Hungary, who became Charles III of Naples. The university and other places of learning in Naples, as well as the fl amboyant court, attracted many great artists and thinkers, including the writer Giovanni Boccaccio, who visited the city. The poet and humanist Petrarch visited Naples in 1343 and stayed at San Lorenzo, returning two years later. All of this laid a foundation for the great cultural center that the city was to become in the next 200 years. In 1386 Charles III’s son Ladislas succeeded him, then died childless in 1414. He was succeeded by his sister Joanna—Joan II, who had a terrible reputation. In 1421 Joan II, who had no children, named Alfonso V of Aragon in Spain as her successor. However before she died in 1435, she had changed her will to leave the city to René of Anjou, in whose name the city government acted until 1442, when Alfonso of Aragon came to Naples to take over the city in line with Joan’s earlier will. René of Anjou offered to face Alfonso in single combat but the Aragonese replied that he would not risk his life for something that he would get anyway. He led his soldiers through an aqueduct and easily took the city. Alfonso V of Aragon then became Alfonso I of Naples, ruling until his death in 1458. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Alfonso V encouraged many refugees to settle in the city, and Lorenzo de’ Medici visited Naples in 1479–80. In 1456 an earthquake shook the city, damaging many old buildings. In 1496, threatened by the French and the Spanish, the king of Naples ceded the city to the French but remained as its ruler until the end of the Aragonese dynasty in 1516. See also Byzantine Empire: political history; Italian Renaissance; Norman Kingdoms of Italy and Sicily. Further reading: Arthur, Paul. Naples, from Roman Town to City-State: An Archaeological Perspective. London: British School at Rome, 2002; Collison-Morley, Lacy. Naples Through the Centuries. London: Methuen, 1925; Pade, Marianne, Hannemarie Ragn Jensen, and Lene Waage Petersen, eds. Avignon & Naples: Italy in France—France in Italy in the Fourteenth Century. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1997; Skinner, Patricia. Family Power in Southern Italy: the Duchy of Gaeta and its Neighbours, 850–1139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Justin Corfi eld Nara Nara is a city and prefecture in central, inland Japan that acted as the capital between 710 and 784. Prior to the Nara period, the capital of Japan was moved from city to city at the behest of an incoming emperor. However the accession of Shomu, who had been brought up in the expectation of and preparation for rule, changed this custom and set about developing the cultural and administrative Nara 295 basis of the state. His city, Nara Heijokyo, was modeled on the great Chinese city of Chang’an and it was decorated with imposing Buddhist temples. In particular, the Todai temple was established as the central temple of the state in 752 and it was adorned at considerable expense with its Daibatsu or giant statue of Gautama Buddha. Two years later the Chinese monk Ganjin visited Nara, after years of travail, and he helped to establish Buddhism in the state and to create the great temple of Toshodaji. Several schools of Buddhist thought fl ourished, but Naran emperors particularly favored the Sutra of Golden Light, which focused on the Lord Buddha as the essence of universal law in addition to his human nature. Most Japanese in this period were involved in agricultural activities and pursued forms of Shinto beliefs, which center on the worship of or respect for animist nature spirits known as kami. Buddhism and Shinto were able to exist together in syncretic form. Buddhist thought was spread throughout the state by means of building a kokobunji regional central temple in every province, which would be the home of monks and nuns, spread learning, and act as repository for the people’s devotion and donations. In later years, some of these kokobunji and their controllers obtained considerable wealth and infl uence and acted to counter imperial power. They contended at the imperial court for favor with other important fi gures, including the Fujiwara clan, who had acted as imperial court-appointed regents since the time of Emperor Tenchi (r. 661–671). Additional administrative improvements included the creation of infrastructure, especially roads, and the decentralization of power, which enabled the growth of shoen, which were landholding estates able to yield taxes in a much more effi cient manner than had previously been possible. Writing in the Japanese language was further developed and this assisted effi ciency of rule. Society under Naran emperors exhibited a degree of social mobility that was almost unprecedented, and the many changes in the governance of society and in personal and state philosophies represented opportunities for enterprising individuals. The court of Nara maintained very cordial relations with the Tang (T’ang) dynasty emperors, although this was interrupted by the An Lushan (An Lu-Shan) Rebellion, which hindered communications and the power of the Tang emperors. However relations with Silla on the Korean Peninsula deteriorated, partly as a result of the ascendancy of Paekche in the north of the peninsula. Sovereignty was claimed, but no attempt to enforce it was realistically possible. The Nara period ended in 784 when the new emperor Kemmu, less welcoming of Buddhism, transferred the capital to Nagaoka and then 10 years later in 794 to Heian, after which the subsequent Heian period (794–1185) is named. Nara is now a designated World Heritage Site and the Nara period is regarded as something of a golden age. See also Kemmu Restoration; Silla dynasty. Further reading: Brown, Delmer M., ed. The Cambridge History of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; Martin, John H., and Phyllis G. Martin. Nara: A Cultural Guide to Japan’s Ancient Capital. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing, 1994. John Walsh Neo-Confucianism Neo-Confucianism was a Chinese revival of Confucianism in the Song (Sung) dynasty (960–1279) that, after the Buddhist domination of popular religiosity and political corruption in the late Tang (T’ang) dynasty The Chinese monk Ganjin visited Nara, helped to establish Buddhism in the state, and helped create the great temple of Toshodaji. 296 Neo-Confucianism (618–906), called the nation back to its ancient worldview and attempted to reform civil service while synthesizing widespread Buddhist doctrines with Confucianism. Whereas the great Buddhist temples previously constituted the intellectual centers of China, now academies supervised by one or another eminent teacher attracted students in large numbers. One of the central Neo-Confucian ideas developed in the academies was tao-t’ung, or transmission of the Way, which posited that the Way, or universal principle and moral standard of sage-rulership, was passed on from teacher to student in an unbroken chain from Confucius to Mencius, at which point it was lost for over a millennium. Consequently, the Neo-Confucian scholars endeavored to restore the transmission by returning to the teachings of Confucius and Mencius, serving as moral preceptors of youth, and stressing a close teacher-disciple relationship as essential to education. Foremost among these new teachers was Hu Yuan (993–1059), whose primary interest lay in the application of Confucian ethics to the problems of government and everyday life. HU YUAN Hu Yuan maintained that the Way comprises three aspects: di (ti, substance or basis), wen (literary expression), and yong (yung, function). Di is a foundation that cannot change over time, such as the bond between prince and minister and between father and son. Wen is the collection of sacred texts, including the Classics of Odes and Documents, the dynastic histories, and writings of the philosophers, which perpetuate the right example down through the ages. Yong is the activation of di by putting it into practice throughout the empire, enriching the life of the populace, and ordering all things to imperial perfection. Through his trichotomous conception of the Way, which modifi es the categories of Neo-Daoist (Taoist) Buddhist philosophy and Tientai (T’ien-t’ai) metaphysics to fi t a Confucian mold, Hu formulated both the theological infrastructure and the textual hermeneutic in which Confucian thought would be deepened and enriched in the process of encountering Buddhism and Daoism. Hu maintained that the wen must be studied as ti, or deposits of unalterable truth, instead of antiquarian repositories, and that the true aim of classical studies was to bring these changeless principles, valid for all places and times, to bear upon both individual behavior and the solution of contemporary problems. By contrast no endeavor to solve such problems could succeed unless it was rooted in these principles and undertaken by people committed to them. However Hu argued that the only way that either classical teaching or a practical program of reform could transpire was through the mastery of literature and writing, in which writing would be employed as a medium for preserving and communicating the truth in all its forms rather than merely a means of displaying the intricacies of form and style emphasized by the literary examinations. Resonating with the late Tang criticism of the literary examination system, Hu denounced it as a corrupter of scholarship and mother of a mediocre offi cialdom. In order to foster excellence in public service Hu insisted that political, economic, and social thought must be coupled with study of the Confucian classics and philosophical inquiry. For this reason Hu established two study halls in his school, one for the classics and the other for practical studies, the latter including government, military affairs, water control, and mathematics. Moreover Hu recommended practical measures to enhance the people’s well-being, to fortify military defenses against the barbarian tribes in the north and west, to raise agricultural production by expanding irrigation projects, and to encourage the study of mathematics and astronomy. Therefore, although Neo-Confucianism was more strongly inclined to the humanities than the natural or pure sciences, specialized and technological studies found powerful support within the movement as well. This fact explains the multifaceted character of the revival and the versatility of its leading intellectuals across the various disciplines. For example Wang Anshi’s (Wang An-shih) pedigree as a brilliant writer and classicist in his day has been eclipsed by his renown as a statesman, while Sima Guang (Ssu-ma Kuang), his chief political antagonist, is reputed today as one of China’s prominent historians. These fi gures, as well as many others, were indicative of the creative and allembracing vitality of the Neo-Confucian movement. Since Hu’s teaching responsibilities precluded his involvement in national affairs, at court political reformers Fan Zhongyan (Fang Chung-yen, 989–1052), Ouyang Xiu (1007–70 c.e.), and Wang Anshi (Wang An-shih) (1021–86) continued his movement. Battling against the perceived evils of Buddhist escapism and literary dilettantism, these statesmen tirelessly cultivated the implications of their watchword that “literary activity just benefi ts oneself, while political activity can affect the situation around us.” FAN ZHONGYAN During the reign of Renzong (Jen-tsung, r. 1023–63), Fan attempted as prime minister to implement a 10-point Neo-Confucianism 297 program featuring administrative reforms to: eradicate entrenched bureaucrats, offi cial favoritism, and nepotism; promote examination reform; encourage parity of offi cial landholdings to guarantee an adequate income for territorial offi cials and to discourage bribery; support land reclamation and dike repair to increase agricultural output and facilitate grain transport; form local militia to heighten national defense; decrease mandatory labor service for the people. The reforms pertaining to education and the examination system wielded the most signifi cant effect. In his memorial Fan petitioned for the establishment of a national school system aimed at recruiting and training worthy individuals for the civil service. While devised more to meet the needs of the government, this system constituted the fi rst genuine attempt to furnish universal public education in China and was a major departure from the prevailing social order of dynastic tradition. One of his most illuminating suggestions was to discontinue the pasting of a piece of paper over the candidate’s name on the examination, a practice intended to ensure impartial evaluation by the grader. The rationale behind this proposal stemmed from the signifi cance that Fan attached to personal integrity in both teaching and politics: It was just as important to know the candidate’s moral character as his literary and intellectual abilities, and character could not be assessed apart from personal knowledge. As a result of his suggestions, Renzong reformed the civil service system by dividing the examinations into three sections, with priority given to problems of history and politics, then to interpretation of the classics, and fi nally to composition of poetry. WANG ANSHI (WANG AN-SHIH) The political reformation reached its pinnacle under the leadership of Wang Anshi, one of China’s most celebrated statesmen. While he strongly believed that a return to the principles of wen would solve China’s problems, Wang had no interest in overturning the social order and restoring the institutions described in scripture. Rather his strategy was to appropriate the objective principles epitomized by those institutions for his own time, making due allowance for radically different circumstances. In addition, Wang was a practical statesman, not a social revolutionary or utopian, who was primarily concerned with the welfare of the state and only secondarily with the interests of the people. Accordingly his initial reforms were geared toward the reorganization of state fi nances, with the purpose of engendering greater economy and budgetary autonomy. At the same time Wang perceived, contrary to most Chinese emperors and statesmen, that in the long run the fi scal interests of the state depended on the basic economic welfare of the people and the construction of a dynamic and expanding economy. Hence although few of his mandates were highly novel, his attitude was bold and visionary in the sense that he viewed reform as extending into practically every aspect of Chinese life, leading his program to be broader in scope than anything previously attempted. Wang’s Xinfa (or Hsinfa, New laws) included a system of crop loans to furnish peasants in the spring with the necessary seed and implements, which would be repaid at harvest time. This enabled peasants to avoid the clutches of usurers at a diffi cult time of the year, while generating revenue for the government from the interest paid on the loans. In the Song, armies were maintained with taxes supplying the resources for employing police and soldiers. To abolish the tremendous cost of these mercenaries, who were inactive much of the time, Wang created a militia system where each territory would be coordinated for self-defense and self-policing, with families grouped in units of 10, 100, and 1,000 arranged in a pyramid structure and taking regular turns at providing service. This represented a system of both collective security and collective responsibility in each locale, as the members of each group would be held mutually accountable for the wrongdoings of any individual. Surprisingly, Wang employed precisely the opposite method to realize the same goals of economy and effi ciency in the performance of local government functions. Previously the minor civic tasks, which were sometimes menial and often onerous, were carried out on an unpaid, draft basis. Wang regarded this as a system that prevailed too heavily on individuals and families to whom the duty fell. Instead of the draft services, which amounted in principle to a labor tax, he substituted a graduated money tax to “soak the rich,” from which funds people were hired to administer these offi cial functions. Although Neo-Confucianism is characterized by its many contributions to a spectrum of disciplines, it made its most lasting impact in the realm of theology, especially through its new metaphysics and the doctrine of human nature to which the former gave rise. In formulating these metaphysics, known as the Learning of the Way and the Way of the Sage, Song Confucians confronted major philosophical challenges, including the need for a more coherent and systematic cosmology on which to base its conception of human nature and to defend the objectivity of values against the Buddhist doctrines of impermanence, emptiness, and moral 298 Neo-Confucianism relativism. By denying the existence of the “self” and “self-nature,” these Buddhist ideas undercut the prime Confucian concern with the moral person and practical self-cultivation. Responding to these challenges, the Neo-Confucians devised a new cosmic infrastructure governed by li (principle) and qi (ch’i, vital force), coupled with a theory of human nature as intrinsically good, moral, and rational. Up to this time Confucianism had presented the Way of the sage kings or noble person as relevant only to the social and political elite. Now through universal education and a neoclassical curriculum, both of which were promoted by the spread of printing and literacy, the Neo-Confucians universalized the Way and formulated methods by which all persons could reach the spiritual ideal of sagehood. Foremost among these constructive theologians were Zhou Dunyi (Chou Tunyu, 1017–1073), Zhang Zhi (Chang Chi, 1020–1077), Cheng Hao (Ch’en Hao, 1032–1085), and Cheng Yi (Cheng I, 1033–1107), all of whose techniques were integrated and expounded by the master synthesizer of the movement, Zhu Xi (Chu-Hsi, 1130–1200). ZHOU DUNYI Zhou Dunyi perhaps did more than any other Song thinker to assimilate popular Daoist concepts into the Confucian worldview. His greatest contribution to Neo-Confucianism was his brief Taijitu Shuo (T’ai-chitu Shuo, Explanation of the diagram of the supreme polarity), which was controversial in his day since the diagram was composed by Chen Tuan (906–989), an eminent Daoist master, and since key terms of the treatise— wu-chi (nonpolar) and tai-qi (t’ai-chi; supreme polarity)—were borrowed from Daoism. In Daoist works, wu-chi symbolized a state of primordial chaos prior to the division of yin and yang. Following wu-chi in Daoist cosmogony was tai-qi, which literally refers to an end point before a reversal, and a pivot between bipolar processes. Hence tai-qi designated a phase of chaos later than wu-chi in which yin and yang have differentiated but have not yet become manifest. In Daoist meditation, the diagram was read from the bottom up, whereby practitioners would attempt to reverse the aging process by generating within their bodies the spark of the primordial qi, or psychophysical vital force, and return to the primordial state of chaos from which the cosmos developed. By contrast Zhou attached a distinctly Confucian meaning to the diagram by reading it from the top down and arguing that human nature is a microcosm of the evolution of the universe. In the diagram, after the manifestation of taiqi as yin and yang, these in turn generate the Five Phases of water, fi re, wood, metal, and earth, which fi nally give rise to the myriad things in the world. Correspondingly, humans receive the fi nest qi, which manifests itself after birth as spirit and intelligence. Spirit and intelligence actualize the Five Constant Virtues of ren (jen, humanity), yi (i, rightness), li (ritual decorum), zhi (chi, wisdom), and xin (hsing, trustworthiness), through which all humans have the ability to manage a plethora of personal and interpersonal affairs and thereby become sages. In so doing the sage’s virtue equals that of heaven and earth, and his timeliness matches that of the four seasons. By introducing this Daoist structure into Confucian theology, Zhou aimed to demonstrate that the Confucian role of humanity in the cosmos was only seemingly but not actually opposed to the Daoist worldview, as Confucianism was inclusive enough to embrace a primordial chaos while still asserting the reality of the differentiated and phenomenal world. ZHANG ZAI (CHANG TSAI) The next major set of conceptual underpinnings essential to the Neo-Confucian system was formulated by Zhang Zai, who posited the unity of all creation based on their common psychophysical substance of qi. In refutation of Buddhism, Zhang argued that the universe and all phenomena are not illusory effects of the mind or ephemeral products of an all-pervading emptiness, but rather the manifestations of the original life force emerging from tai-qi. Zhang expanded the notion of qi by defi ning it as an energy encompassing both spirit and matter that displays itself dynamically by consolidating to form all creatures and states of affairs and that, in the ordinary course of time, disintegrates back to the original undifferentiated void. The doctrine that all creation is formed from and united by this one underlying essence carried profound ethical implications. For Zhang all human beings and all heaven and earth must be joined together as creatures of one fl esh and blood and ruled, as socially proper to their kinship, by the principle of unselfi sh and humane love. Without undermining the social order, therefore, Zhang fostered a theological egalitarianism in which the emperor is one’s older brother and simultaneously the eldest son of heaven and earth and thus rightful ruler of China— hence rulers are ontologically equal to but positionally greater than their subjects. The outworkings of unselfi sh and humane love include respecting the elderly, showing goodwill toward the orphaned and weak, and easing the burdens of the tired, infi rm, crippled, and sick. Neo-Confucianism 299 No distinction was made between private and public morality—people must not do anything shameful in the secrecy of their homes any more than they would commit those acts public. Finally the notion of equality in diversity rendered all emotions and socioeconomic positions as analogous but intrinsically entailing different rewards and penalties. While wealth, honor, blessing, and benefi t are meant for the enrichment of temporal life, they are at best neutral and at worst detrimental to one’s spiritual life and cultivation of the Five Constant Virtues. Conversely, poverty, humble station, care, and sorrow, although temporally unpleasant, are “helpmates to fulfi llment,” which convey assistance on the path to sagehood and fertilize the seeds of virtue embedded in one’s nature. CHENG HAO AND CHENG YI The brothers Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi, commonly grouped together in Asian religious discourse because of their theological concurrence, conjoined the doctrine of li as the inner structure or directive principle of things with Zhang’s developed idea of qi (ch’i). According to the Cheng brothers, li was the paradoxically unifi ed yet diversifi ed uninstantiated essence or pattern for both the entire universe and every organism. Resembling a genetic coding, li provided the creative life structure, or shengsheng, which created all things upon being fi lled out by the life substance of qi. In people, li manifests as human nature (hsing), equivalent to the moral nature (dehsing) or heavenly nature (tianxing or t’ien-hsing), the fulfi llment of which was ren, or the virtue of humaneness. By identifying li as the genetic and magnetic growth principle of the Way, moreover, the Cheng brothers contended that the joint metaphysical ground of every actual thing or affair was a shared physical existence and an intrinsically good moral nature. For the Cheng brothers, a mixture of two approaches could fulfi ll human destiny: investigation of the principles in things and introspection of principles in the mind. However the lines of objective inquiry and judgment could never be pursued separately, but the convergence or unity of li, in both its rational and moral dimensions, must be experienced in the realms of contemplation and action. The twin methods of studying the classics and quiet sitting enabled humans to attain their destiny of sagehood. During quiet sitting, the typical examination of one’s xin, or heart-mind, amid an active engagement with society, the Cheng brothers emphasized reverence and ethical concern instead of mental passivity. Through such attention to li, practitioners could discriminate between desires and motives that served the common good (gong) and those that were selfi sh or prejudiced (si). As manuals for this meditation, the Cheng brothers recommended the Daxue (Ta-hsueh, Great Learning) and Zhong Yong (Chung-yung, Doctrine of the Mean). Although the Cheng brothers had many followers, their radical claim to speak authoritatively for the Way because of their personal conviction springing from immediate experience of the Way within themselves incited powerful opposition and imperial condemnation of their daoxue (tao hsueh), or learning of the Way. This daoxue survived solely through its approval by Zhu Xi, who posthumously pronounced the Cheng brothers as orthodox and canonized their insights for future generations. ZHU XI The greatness of Zhu Xi consisted in his ability to adapt in a unifi ed system of thought the individual contributions of his Song predecessors. His remarkable powers of analysis and synthesis allowed him to combine ideas and articulate each of them with greater clarity and cogency than their originators had achieved. He delineated with greater precision such doctrines as li, qi, xing (the nature of all things), xin, and tai-qi. His philosophy is often identifi ed as the Cheng-Zhu school, since the forerunner whose work he most appropriated was Cheng Yi. Zhu compared li to a seed of grain, as each seed partakes of both commonality and diversity by possessing its own uniqueness but also displaying generic and organic elements of structure, growth pattern, direction, and functional use. In a slight departure from his forebears, however, Zhu modifi ed the concept of qi by postulating that qi is not found equally in all people, and the fact that people have various endowments of ch’i accounts for their ethical differences. Resembling the idea of a Buddha mind, Zhu introduced the new concept that, while all humans have the potential for perfection, evil arises through the clouding effect of li being shrouded by ch’i. Zhu argued that the mind of every person contains two dimensions: the mind of the Way, or the original intrinsic principled goodness that links the person directly with the tai-qi, and the human mind, or the qi-fi lled arena where confl ict arises between xinxing (the original mind) and carnal desires. Zhu’s approach for overcoming this psychophysical imbalance consisted in the investigation of things, a fourfold process including apprehending the principles of things, reading and refl ecting on the Classics, becoming 300 Neo-Confucianism a lover of learning, and performing an “exegesis of one’s life” by studying the causes of one’s experience. The end result of this approach was the optimal development of the virtue of humaneness, or ren. For Zhu, it is through ren that one overcomes selfi shness and partiality, and thus unites oneself with the Mind of the universe, which is love and creativity itself. Zhu’s greatest contribution to Neo-Confucianism was his completion of the second wave of canonizing Confucian learning. He codifi ed as basic texts of the Confucian school the Four Books—the Mengzi (Mencius), Daxue (T’ahsueh), Zhong Yong (Chung-yung), and Analects—and wrote exhaustive interpretations of every sentence in the Four Books, called the Annotations. After Zhu’s death, the Four Books and the Annotations became the offi cial standard for the Chinese civil service examinations from 1313 until 1905. As a movement concerned primarily with this world and its perceived nucleus in human nature, Neo-Confucianism recapitulated in an all-embracing manner, extending both to religion and the multifarious realms of society, what Confucius and his disciples had consistently proclaimed—that the human sense of order and value does not alienate one from the universe but constitutes the channel through which one can commune with it. Accordingly the being of ethics, history, and politics is not empty, contra Buddhism, but an unfolding growth process and world of creativity with the principle of goodness as its foundation. This conviction furnished Neo-Confucianism with its copious vitality and a degree of universality that rendered it quite appealing to people not only in China but also in Mongolia, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, who similarly searched for assurance that their lives had meaning and value. Further reading: Berthrong, J. H. and E. N. Confucianism: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Oneworld, 2000; Chang, Carsun. The Development of Neo-Confucian Thought. New York: Bookman, 1957; Bol, Peter K. “This Culture of Ours,” Intellectual Transitions in T’ang and Sung China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992; Dardess, J. W. Confucianism and Autocracy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983; De Bary, W. T. The Liberal Tradition in China. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983;———. Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart. New York: Columbia University Press, 1981; De Bary, W. T., and Irene Bloom, eds. Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999; Shun, Kwong-loi, and David B. Wong, eds. Confucian Ethics: A Comparative Study of Self, Autonomy, and Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Taylor, R. L. The Religious Dimensions of Confucianism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990. Kirk R. MacGregor Nevsky, Alexander (1220–1263) Russian king Alexander Nevsky, a Russian prince named after his victory over the Swedes on the Neva in 1240, was the son of Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise (Vsevolodovich), who was apparently poisoned by the Mongols. During Alexander’s early life, independent Russia had three major enemies—encroaching Swedes, Teutonic Knights, and the Mongols. Alexander chose to tolerate, and even collaborate, with the latter but took seriously the threat from the north and west and became a leader in the struggle against both western enemies. He defeated a large Swedish invasion when just 20 years old, and on April 5, 1242, he stopped an even larger invasion by the Teutonic Knights. The Teutonic Knights were an order fi rst formed during the Third Crusade, similar to the better-known Knights Hospitallers of Saint John, but unlike the latter order, it quickly shifted its attentions to eastern Europe. Initially in connection with privileges granted by King Andrew the II of Hungary (1211), the Teutonic Knights fought against that king’s enemies, the Turkic Quman of the south Russian steppe and nearby areas. Later (from 1230) it took the lead in fi ghting against the pagan Russians and then, after the order had absorbed the Livonian Sword Brothers, the Teutonic Knights began to get involved in Russian affairs, acting against the city of Novgorod. It was in this connection that Alexander, a proven military leader, was recruited by Novgorod to become its prince and fi ght against the Teutonic enemy. The result was the famous defeat on the ice of Lake Peipus of 1242 in which the invading army was all but destroyed by cleverly positioned and deployed Russians who knew the landscape better than their rivals. Possibly Alexander had Mongol allies, since archery played an unusual role in the battle. The Teutonic Knights remained a power in eastern Europe but were never a direct threat to Russia in the way that the order was in 1242, so the results of the victory lasted. Alexander’s young adulthood was disrupted by the reappearance of the Mongols and their conquest of virtually all of Russia. The Mongols had fi rst come into contact with Russian forces on June 16, 1223, during a Nevsky, Alexander 301 clash on the Kalka River. In 1237 an even larger Mongol army launched an invasion of Russia. Among the fi rst Russian city-states to fall was Ryazan, in December 1237, followed by Vladimir, in February 1238, and in March 1238, Torzhok, which offered fi erce resistance. By then spring came and the ground was too wet for effective campaigning, but the Mongols returned again, after some campaigning in the steppe against the Turkic peoples during the winter of 1240. Their advance seemed unstoppable and Kiev, the leader of the coalition of princes that was then Russia, was taken on December 6, 1240, ending an era of Russian history. Pausing to regroup, the Mongols launched a massive and well-coordinated invasion of eastern Europe, masterminded by the Mongolian general Subotai. Only the sudden death of Ogotai Khan (r. 1229–41) stopped the advance, as the interested parties prepared for the power struggle that would accompany the election of a new supreme khan. The election of Mongke Khan (r. 1251–59) quieted things for a while. After his death the Mongols of Russia, known as the Golden Horde, split off permanently from Russia as various parties dueled for supremacy. At the point that Alexander defeated the invading Teutonic Knights and thereby established, again, his reputation in Russia, the Mongols appeared to be more and more disunifi ed. Alexander was both a mediator and a mitigator, where he could, of the worst abuses of Mongol control. During the 1240s and early 1250s Alexander, who took his father’s oath of submission seriously, made efforts to appear a loyal vassal of the Mongols and formally acknowledged their power. He continued to enjoy infl uence with the Mongols and within Russia, one of the reasons he was appointed grand prince in 1252, after the Mongols had deposed his predecessor. At that time Russia was divided into territories where there was a direct Mongol presence, usually located on the fringes of the Russian cultural area and close to the steppe zone, and territories controlled indirectly by the conquerors. This included Novgorod controlled by Alexander. It was the Mongol custom to send out tax collectors and other emissaries to canvass the wealth of their territories. First came a census, then generally the appointment of a direct Mongol representative, a basqaq, “the one pressing down,” and fi nally tax collectors. It was the presence of these Mongol offi cers, more than attacks by Mongol armies, that plagued Mongol subordinates in Russia and provoked continued unrest and even outright opposition and rebellion, which always provoked a powerful military response. During the late 1250s it was Novgorod, still proud from its 1242 victory led by Alexander against the Teutonic Knights, and until then left unassaulted by the Mongols, that was the source of discontent. Alexander’s actions in quieting it make clear the role he had chosen in Mongol Russia. He made sure that opposition to the Mongols was suppressed, and then Alexander personally sponsored the census taking in Novgorod. Novgorod paid, and had its pride humbled, but it survived intact (1259). Alexander is also said to have intervened on behalf of the Orthodox Church, to secure its privileges and help prevent Mongol attacks on other cities. At the time of his death, in 1263, he was still actively engaged in such activities. He was rewarded with sainthood. After Alexander’s death a considerable legend formed, fueled by a vita that presents Alexander as a saintly protector of Russia against the Mongols. He was also associated with some popular uprisings. See also Mongol rule of Russia. Further reading: Buell, Paul D. Historical Dictionary of the Mongolian World Empire. Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2003; Halperin, Charles J. Russia and the Golden Horde, the Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Paul D. Buell Nicaea, Second Council of In the era of the early church, the artistic portrayal of biblical characters, or iconography, served to teach biblical lessons and church history to the illiterate masses. Churches often displayed biblical scenes or depictions of saints’ lives, but charges of idolatry from Muslims (who opposed the depiction of the human form) and the Jews (citing the Torah’s prohibition against the worship of any graven image) served to bring about the imperial decrees to destroy any pictorial or symbolic representations of scenes from the scriptures or the saints. Biblical passages about the nature, practice, and consequences of idolatry abound in Holy Writ; indeed, devotion to icons had risen in intensity among the Byzantines, as well as a great deal of religious superstition related to their use. Emperor Leo III (717–741), the Isaurian, believed the only hope of converting Muslims and Jews was to abandon the use of icons. In 726 he issued an imperial decree ordering the destruction of icons and relics, and his successor, his son, Constantine 302 Nicaea, Second Council of V, upheld his father’s edict in 753. A synod at Hiereia met in 754 and upheld iconoclasm. The iconodules, or churchmen and monks defending the use of icons, fought against the destruction of the images, often at the cost of their lives. Convoked at the behest of the empress Irene in 786, the imperial government called for the council to decide the issue. Though dominated by over 300 Byzantine clerics, Pope Hadrian I (772–795) sent two representatives to the gathering who carried with them a treatise from the pope justifying the veneration of images. The fi rst session, meeting at Constantinople, came under attack by soldiers committed to iconoclasm; therefore it was decided to move the meeting to Nicaea in Bithynia (now Inzik, Turkey), where the council opened on September 24, 787. The council met for eight sessions conducted over a period of three weeks. Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, presided over the fi rst seven sessions, and the empress Irene led the fi nal meeting of the council at Constantinople. The fi rst session dealt with the issue of what to do with the iconoclast bishops, many of whom attended the gathering. Once the wayward bishops recanted of their “error” and begged forgiveness from the conclave, the clerics received restoration among the ecclesiastical fellowship. During the second session, the papal legates sent by the Holy See read aloud the letter sent by Pope Hadrian I to the assembly in which the pope urged the restoration of the icons. The third session, September 28 or 29, bishops who recanted their iconoclastic pronouncements received permission to take seats on the council. The fourth session, held on October 1, consisted of readings of long passages from the Bible and the church fathers that favored the veneration of images, and the session closed after a decree was signed by all present that the participants were ready to receive in fellowship all those who would openly abandon the iconoclastic position. During the fi fth session, on October 4, the gathering heard the oral readings of the church fathers opposed to icon use, but the council chose not to read all of the anti-icon writings and voted in favor of image veneration. The fi fth session closed with the formal display of an image in the meeting place of the council. The sixth session, which met October 6, the iconoclastic decision of the council held at Hiereia in 753 received the formal condemnation. The dogmatic decision of the council, read at the seventh and fi nal session at Nicaea on October 13, formalized the veneration of images. The fi nal session, led by the empress and her son at the Magnuara palace in Constantinople on October 23, resulted in the two monarchs and the clerics signing the Acta of the council making the canons decided upon by the gathering the law of the church and the Byzantine Empire. In the end, the council promulgated 22 canons. The ninth canon demanded the surrender of writings against images, and the remaining canons consisted of matters related to clerical ethics, practice, and discipline. The council did not end the controversy; it persisted for another generation, but it did provide for the formal recognition of icon veneration, defi ned as a matter of respect and honor, and not idol worship or pagan practice. See also Byzantine Empire: political history. Further reading: Hughes, Philip. The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Church Councils, 325 to 1870. Garden City, NJ: Hanover House, 1961; Jedin, Hubert. Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: An Historical Survey. New York: Herder and Herder, 1959; Laurent, V. “Nicaea II, Council of.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill, 1966; Tanner, Norman P. The Councils of the Church: A Short History. New York: The Crossroads Publishing Company, 1999. James S. Baugess Nicheren (b. 1222) religious leader Nicheren (or Nichiren) Buddhism was a sect unique to Japan that challenged the existing notions of Buddhism as part of a societywide upheaval of intellectual and religious understanding. The essence of Nicheren Buddhism is the reversal of the original message of Gautama Buddha, which Nicheren considered to have been used to exalt and protect the state to the detriment of individuals. Instead, people should study ways of achieving material and physical security and ease by following the Lotus Sutra (Saddharmapundarika-sutra). Nicheren (originally Zennichi and also known as Zenshobo Rencho) was the son of a poor fi sherman from the Awa province. He studied various forms of Buddhism over a 10-year period before concluding that all were false or otherwise unhelpful. This was a period of Japanese history that was characterized by considerable turmoil. The huge distance between the court and the people was crumbling, and the intellectual landscape was threatened by social change and by external threats, notably the Mongol conquests. Religious reformers traveled from the court to try to learn from the common Nicheren 303 people, who were almost completely alien to them. Radical schools of thought were widespread across the land and were represented by monks and scholars including Chomei, Jien, Honen, and Shinran. The latter two were largely responsible for the spread of Amidist Buddhism, which abandoned all hope in the present world, which was doomed. Only faith in a future act of transcendence or salvation was of any value. In response orthodox Buddhists sought to reinstate traditional monkish asceticism and reliance on good works. Nicheren ultimately rejected both Amidism and the orthodox Buddhist response as being inadequate to respond to the world as it stood, particularly the very real possibility of Mongol invasion, which threatened the existence of the Japanese culture altogether. He believed that Japan was suffering the period of the degradation of the law of dharma known as mappo and that he was the embodiment of the bodhisattva Jogyo, whose task was to rescue his people and nation during their time of tribulation. He came to believe that this could be accomplished through recognizing the threefold nature of the Lotus Sutra, which was the culmination of Sakyamuni Buddha’s fi nal teaching and that Sakyamuni was to be identifi ed with the eternal Buddha. This was composed of the dharma-kaya (the universal body), the sambhogakaya (enjoyment body), and the nirmana-kaya (phenomenal body). This gave rise to three great secret laws that Nicheren taught were the honzon, which focused on the ritual drawing of the Lotus Sutra, the daimoku, which featured ritual chanting of the name of the Sutra, and the kaidan, which was related to the place of ordination. Only by following these teachings, according to Nicheren, would Japanese people and society develop suffi cient strength and the power to resist the troublesome times affl icting them. This is considered to be the opposite of Buddhism, which preaches the need to escape from the physical world of suffering by relinquishing desire in all its forms. Nicheren selected six disciples to continue his work after his death but they were unable to prevent the multiplication of sects associated with his teaching. In the modern world, nearly 40 million Japanese profess beliefs that derive from Nicheren’s teachings, which have had considerable importance in shaping the spiritual and intellectual nature of Japanese society. Nevertheless, his standing remains controversial. Further reading: Brinkman, John T. “The Simplicity of Nichiren,” Eastern Buddhist (v.28/2, 1995); Christensen, J. A. Nichiren: Leader of Buddhist Reformation in Japan. Fremont, CA: Jain Publishing Company, 2001; Souyri, Pierre-François. The World Turned Upside Down: Medieval Japanese Society. Trans. by Kathe Roth. London: Random House, 2002. John Walsh Nicholas I (d. 867) pope Nicholas I was the second pope known as “the Great” (the fi rst was Leo the Great). Nicholas was the son of a Roman nobleman and received a classical education as a youth. He entered the clerical service as a young man and was ordained a deacon by Pope Leo IV (847–855). Under the infl uence of Emperor Louis II, Nicholas was elected pope on April 24, 855. Ninth-century Christianity was fragmented. Bishops sought worldly power in their particular dioceses and ignored the decrees of the Roman pontiff. Previous popes had weakened the offi ce of the papacy, and the primacy of the pope over other bishops had also been weakened. Nicholas changed this, in part, by his treatment of Archbishop John of Ravenna. John battled with the pope over lands controlled by the papacy. He imprisoned priests who disagreed with his policies and bullied his bishops. John mistreated the diplomatic representatives of the popes, who sought to bring him to justice at the papal tribunal. Pope Nicholas excommunicated John because of his refusal to come before the tribunal. John reconciled, and then was excommunicated again for his dealings with other excommunicated archbishops. The episode with Archbishop John of Ravenna and another with Archbishop Hincmar of Reims solidifi ed the primacy of the papacy in matters attaining to the role of the pope in the hierarchy of the church and his control over his bishops. Hincmar opposed the right of appeal to the pope in matters of ecclesiastical succession but eventually recognized this legal power of the papacy. Nicholas also strengthened the authority of the papacy over the marriage laws of the church. Lothair II of Lorraine had left his wife to marry another woman. At the Synod of Aachen in 862, the bishops of Lorraine approved of the conduct of Lothair. Another synod, held in Metz in 863, condemned Lothair for abandoning his lawful wife. Pope Nicholas, aware of the confl icting decisions of the two synods, brought the archbishops who certifi ed the two decisions before him. The disagreement led to excommunication for both archbishops and intervention of Emperor Louis II, who imprisoned Nicholas 304 Nicholas I in St. Peter’s Basilica for two days. Nicholas worked hard to reconcile Lothair and his wife, to no avail. Perhaps Pope Nicholas’s greatest legacy to history was his establishment of primacy over the patriarchs of Constantinople and the church of the East. Patriarch Ignatius was deposed in 857 in violation of ecclesiastical law. He excommunicated Ignatius’s unlawful successor, Photius, and led the bishops of the East to reconcile with Ignatius. The eastern bishops thus legally accepted that the pope was “fi rst among equals.” Papal primacy in church doctrine was solidifi ed in Nicholas’s famous letter Responsa Nicolai ad consulta Bulgarorum. Greek missionaries had recently converted Bulgaria. Bulgaria’s ruler Prince Boris appealed to the pope in 863 to answer 106 questions on the teachings of the church. Nicholas answered the questions and, as some of his predecessors, set the trend for doctrinal questions to be answered by the pope, not by local bishops and clergy. Further reading: Cheetham, Nicholas. Keepers of the Keys: A History of the Popes From St. Peter to John Paul II. New York: Scribner, 1983; Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. Russell James Nicholas V See Rome, papacy in Renaissance. Norman and Plantagenet kings of England The conquest of England in 1066 brought with it a completely new ruling dynasty. The Norman kings, beginning with William I, began a social and legal revolution in England. They also succeeded in unifying England and blurred the lines between Saxons and Normans. The Plantagenet kings composed a long dynasty that included the related families of Anjou, Lancaster, and York. However, most historians seclude the Angevins from the Lancastrians and the Yorkists because of the historical development of the Wars of the Roses. The Norman kings included the following rulers: William I (the Conqueror): 1066–1087 William II (Rufus): 1087–1100 Henry I (Beauclerc): 1100–1135 Stephen: 1135–1154 Matilda (Maude): 1141 The Plantagenet rulers were Henry II: 1154–1189 Richard I (Lionheart): 1189–1199 John: 1199–1216 Henry III: 1216–1272 Edward I (Longshanks): 1272–1307 Edward II: 1307–1327 Edward III: 1327–1377 Richard II: 1377–1399 William I, originally the duke of Normandy and the second cousin of Edward the Confessor, emerged victorious from the Norman Conquest of England and seized control of the English throne on Christmas Day, 1066. Within fi ve years William I contained numerous rebellions and subdued the country. His reign was highlighted with the creation of the Domesday Book, a survey of landownership used to collect taxes and the most comprehensive and detailed record of a country’s physical resources produced in Europe during the Middle Ages. William I died on September 9, 1087, from complications of a wound received in battle. William II, or Rufus, was the second son of William I. He received England upon the death of his father. William I’s eldest son, Robert, received Normandy. William Rufus’s rule was categorized by heavy taxes and animosity between Crown and clergy. On August 2, 1100 William II was shot in the eye with an arrow while on a hunting expedition and died childless and unmarried. Because of his unpopular reign, many historians believe his death was not an accident. Henry I, brother of William Rufus and the youngest son of Edward I, ascended the throne of England upon the death of his brother. He was nicknamed Beauclerc (fi ne scholar) because of his educational background. Through his skilled use of court politics, he established the exchequer, or the royal treasury, during his reign. Henry I had hoped to leave his throne to his only surviving daughter, Matilda, but upon his death the throne was offered to Stephen of Blois. Stephen, Henry I’s nephew and grandson of William the Conqueror, was ill equipped to respond to the demands of the monarchy and his lack of authority over the quarreling and power hungry English barons erupted into civil war and strife during 1135–54. The government that Henry I had constructed was in jeopardy of collapse, and the church and Crown continued their deepening animosity. He was briefl y overthrown in 1141 when Matilda (known also as Maude) and her husband, Geoffrey of Anjou, entered London and claimed the throne. She ruled briefl y but was removed from the throne by Norman and Plantagenet kings of England 305 Stephen’s rallying troops. Questions of succession continued until the Treaty of Wallingford was signed. Under this agreement, Stephen would rule unopposed until his death, at which time the throne would pass to Matilda’s son, Henry of Anjou. Henry Plantagenet, count of Anjou, succeeded Stephen as Henry II in 1154. As the fi rst of the Angevin kings, Henry II was a European ruler rather than an English king because of the size of his empire and the fact that he was the richest prince in Europe at the time of his ascension to the throne. Henry II’s rule is often remembered as one of the most effective of English monarchs’. Most important at this time were the revival of royal justice and the foundation of English common law applicable to all of England. Henry’s reign also included his quarrel regarding the power of church courts with Thomas Becket, Henry’s former chancellor and archbishop of Canterbury, which led to the latter’s martyrdom at Canterbury cathedral in 1170. The latter years of Henry II’s reign included several rebellions ignited by his sons, backed by the kings of France and Scotland and encouraged by Eleanor of Aquitaine Henry’s vivacious wife. Richard I ascended the throne in 1189 but only lived in England for less than a year of his entire reign. Instead, he fought in the Crusades, fell captive to the Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI in Germany, and continued to fi ght for lands lost in France. While he was away, the government built by Henry II continued to collect taxes and survive. He died from battle wounds in April 1199, leaving no heirs. John, the fourth son of Henry II, ruled England in 1199 after many years of trying to steal the throne from his brother Richard. Nicknamed Lackland, John was the stereotypical wicked king; he taxed the English system in every possible manner. During his reign England lost her French possessions, Pope Innocent III excommunicated John from the church for refusing to install Stephen Langton as the archbishop of Canterbury, and taxes consistently increased. The barons, led by Langton, confronted John at Runnymede and forced him to accept the Magna Carta, or Great Charter, in 1215. The document confi rmed popular liberties and restated the rights of the church and the English people. When John died in 1216, his nine-year-old son, Henry, was accepted as king of England. He assumed the role of king in 1234 and confi rmed the Magna Carta. However Henry III was an inept king who engaged in costly wars in an attempt to replenish his impoverished treasury, refused to defy papal decree, and provided appointments to foreigners rather than the English nobility. This approach to government fueled antipapal sentiment and laid the foundation for the Reformation. It also provided opportunity for the rise of English nationalism. As English barons became more frustrated with Henry III’s choices and costly wars, they revolted and threw England into a period of civil war. At one point Simon de Montfort briefl y held power in 1264; however, he was killed in battle and power returned to Henry III and his son, Edward. There were some positive aspects of Henry III’s reign. The population of London and the country rose substantially, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge were established, and the economy improved with the increase of agriculture. By the time Henry III died in 1272, he was monarch in name only, as the true power had already been transferred to Edward. Edward I, known as Longshanks because of his height, was an accomplished soldier, statesman, and perhaps the most successful medieval monarch. Through his reign England recognized and retained many aspects of society, law, and government that survived centuries, civil war, and international confl ict. Although Edward I could be considered ruthless and aggressive in many situations, he understood the delicate balance in which a monarch functioned. He is credited with the creation of the modern-day Parliament. In 1295 Edward I summoned various representatives to his Model Parliament in order to raise more revenue. To this end parliament was used to conduct national business. Edward I also supplied the courts of King’s Bench, Exchequer, and Common Pleas with judges; established a Court of Equity; and created a Chancery Court to provide redress in situations where other courts could not intervene. Edward accepted the Confi rmation of Charters in 1297, which stated that taxes must have the assent of the realm. Edward I also lived up to his ancestors’ attempts to expand the English empire. He conquered Wales in 1284 and chose to name his eldest son Prince of Wales in 1301, a title that has been bestowed upon the all fi rstborn male heirs to the present day. Scotland proved to be a tougher conquest. Edward attempted to lay claim to Scottish lands by having his son marry Margaret, the legitimate heir to the Scottish Crown. However she died en route to England, and Edward I invaded Scotland in 1296, defeated them, and was paid homage by the Scottish barons. William Wallace incited a riot against the English king in 1297, defeated the English army at Stirling, and continued to be a thorn in Edward I’s side until his capture and execution in 1304. Robert Bruce, a distant claimant to the Scottish throne, continued to harass 306 Norman and Plantagenet kings of England Edward I and his armies. The English were eventually defeated at Bannockburn under Edward II, but the animosity between the two nations continued for centuries. Edward I’s biggest failure came in the form of his son, Edward II, who was feeble, lazy, and incompetent. Edward II also had a penchant for surrounding himself with foreigners, a trait that the English barons loathed. He carried on a homosexual affair with Piers Gaveston, which led to Gaveston’s exile and murder. Eventually Edward II’s wife, Isabella, and her lover, Roger Mortimer, invaded England from France, forced Edward II to abdicate in favor of his son, and murdered him. Once his wife and her lover deposed Edward II, Edward III ascended the throne in 1327. He quickly arrested and hanged Mortimer while imprisoning his mother for the last few decades of her life. Edward III was responsible for the beginning of the Hundred Years’ War with France in 1337 allegedly to support his claim to the French throne. Initially England saw victories at Sluys (1340), Crécy (1346), and Calais (1347), giving them control of the Channel and the land. The bubonic plague, or Black Death, provided a short break from hostilities, but England resumed the fi ght with an invasion of France in 1355. Edward, the “Black Prince” and eldest son of Edward III, found success at Poitiers (1356). The Treaty of Brétigny (1360) brought this phase of the Hundred Years’ War to a close. However, John of Gaunt, Edward’s third son, resumed the battle in 1369 when he invaded France again. Under Edward III, English social life and economic history changed. He experienced relatively peaceful relations with the noble classes. Mercantilism began to replace feudalism. The taxation system was supported by commerce rather than land taxes. Parliament found a bicameral cohesion as it divided into two houses representing the nobility and clergy, and the middle classes. In 1362 English replaced French as the national language of the realm. Treason was defi ned in 1352, and the offi ce of justice of the peace was created (1361) to assist the sheriffs. Unfortunately Edward III’s fi nal years were marked by increasing senility, the death of the Black Prince, and disintegrating relations between the Crown and his subjects, due in part to Edward’s mistress, Alice Perrers. Richard II, son of the Black Prince and grandson of Edward III, ascended the throne in 1377 at the age of 10. His rule was highlighted by his marriage to Isabella of Valois, daughter of Charles VI of France, in order to end further confl ict with France. He also subdued a Peasants’ Revolt in 1381 that resulted from the effects of the Black Plague’s strain on the economy. Rival factions continued to fi ght for governmental control, and in 1397, Richard II became embroiled in a struggle with some of the nobles for control. First John of Gaunt, then his son, Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV), attempted to take the throne. Richard was usurped in 1399, imprisoned, and murdered. The Wars of the Roses had claimed their fi rst victim in the former king. See also Wales, English conquest of. Further reading: Bartlett, Robert. England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075–1225. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002; Fry, Plantagenet Somerset. The Kings and Queens of England and Scotland. New York: Grove, 1990; Hallam, Elizabeth, ed. The Four Gothic Kings: The Turbulent History of Medieval England and the Plantagenet Kings, 1216–1377 (Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III). New York: Grove Press, 1987; Lappenberg, J. M. A History of England under the Norman Kings. New York: J. Wright, 1857; Spaltro, Kathleen. Royals of England: A Guide for Readers, Travelers, and Genealogists. Lincoln, NE: I Universe, 2005; Usilton, Larry W. The Kings of Medieval England, c. 560–1485. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996. Jennifer Hudson Allen Norman Conquest of England The Norman Conquest is the period of English history that followed William the Conqueror’s defeat of King Harold at the Battle of Hastings in October 1066. Although Hastings was the turning point of the conquest, it actually took William about six years to put down all Saxon opposition. The political personalities changed and Britain became less isolated. Along with the Anglo- Saxon king, most members of the nobility were killed at Hastings or during the ensuing insurrections. Those who survived had their lands taken from them. These landholdings became the possessions of William and his followers, thus imposing a Norman aristocracy on the English people. Recognizing that relatively few Normans were ruling the masses of Englishmen, William utilized the Anglo- Saxon idea of a centralized monarchy to stabilize and consolidate his power. Other political and legal institutions he established borrowed heavily from English tradition. In this feature, English feudalism differed from that found on the Continent. To strengthen his position of power, William had himself crowned William I, king of England, by the archbishop of Canterbury on Christmas Day 1066. To guarantee further his sovereignty, Norman Conquest of England 307 William began an extensive building program, erecting castles and garrisons at strategic points throughout the Isles. Placing each of these tactical locations under the control of one of his most trusted nobles, William was able to tighten his control over the entire nation. Castles, which were rare in the British Isles before 1066, became a familiar feature of the landscape. Construction of castles also made it easier for William to introduce the feudal system to England. William divided his territory among his favorites in return for their pledge to feed, house, and equip knights for the king. From the castles lords could effectively administer large areas of land for the king. With the Oath of Salisbury in 1086, William established the precedence of loyalty to the king as more important than loyalty to lesser lords. This highly organized system of obligations among knights, lords, and the king was far removed from Anglo-Saxon ideas of kingship. WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR William was the illegitimate son of Robert I, duke of Normandy, and the daughter of a local craftsman. Sometimes called William the Bastard, William nevertheless inherited his father’s lands when the duke died in 1035. Constant rebellions during William’s minority kept him and his guardians in frequent danger. William 308 Norman Conquest of England A portion of the Bayeux Tapestry, depicting the Battle of Hastings and the events leading up to it. The tapestry, or embroidery, has been housed in Bayeux, France, at least since 1476, and possibly since shortly after its creation in the 1070s. was able to defeat the invading army of the king of France and to put down opposition among his nobles. With his power established in Normandy, William visited England in 1051 or 1052, when he received the promise of his cousin Edward the Confessor that he would name William as his successor. William further improved his position through marriage to Matilda of Flanders, a descendant of Alfred the Great. Later Harold, earl of Wessex and also in line for the English throne, was shipwrecked off the coast of France. Harold found himself under William’s authority and, likely in exchange for his freedom, promised to support William’s claim to England. In 1066 when word reached France that Harold had been crowned king of England, William immediately appealed to the pope, who gave him sanction to raise an army and invade England. BATTLE OF HASTINGS Although some Norman barons did not give wholehearted support to the mission, William brought them in line through bribes and threats. In September 1066 William sailed for England with an amassed army of approximately 30,000 troops, including mercenaries and men attracted by the possibility of plunder. Harold II was already under attack from Harald Hardrada, king of Norway, and Harold’s exiled brother Tostig, whom he was able to defeat on September 25. William landed at Pevensey in Sussex on September 28. Even though Harold’s troops were tired and William had superior numbers and equipment, Harold was able to keep William at bay when they fi rst met at Hastings. At one point, William had to rally his troops and lead a counterattack on the Saxons. Tradition, including the Bayeux Tapestry, shows that Harold received an arrow in his eye during the battle, causing his troops to act in confusion; some fl ed; some stayed to fi ght to the end. After this battle, William’s advance to London was uneventful, and he was able to proclaim himself king of England. Despite uprisings from the Saxons during the next six years, William’s takeover had been accomplished. BAYEUX TAPESTRY The Bayeux Tapestry tells the story of the Battle of Hastings and the events leading up to it on a linen background more than 7 meters long and half a meter wide (20 by 230 feet). Most scholars agree that this is not the total tapestry, that some pieces of the embroidered cloth have not survived the years. Bishop Odo, William’s half brother, whom William named earl of Kent, may have commissioned it. There are fl attering images of Odo, and only he and one other of William’s companions are named on the tapestry. The origin of the labor is highly disputed among the English and French, each insisting the massive work was done in their homeland. The tapestry has been housed in Bayeux, France, at least since 1476, and possibly since shortly after its creation in the 1070s. RELIGIOUS REFORM William was a ferocious opponent and could be quite brutal in putting down opposition, yet in many ways he was also a very spiritual man. Another signifi cant part of his conquest agenda was reform of the church. In 1070 William arranged for his longtime friend Lanfranc to be named archbishop of Canterbury. Lanfranc’s primary responsibility was to facilitate the reforms William wanted, including appointing foreign prelates to replace Saxon clergy and enforcing discipline in monasteries. King and archbishop also instigated a canonical court, removing church-related cases from the secular legal system. William asserted his power to name bishops and to approve or disapprove of church doctrine and decrees without opposition from Lanfranc and the church. DOMESDAY BOOK Always cognizant of the fragility of his hold over the English, William constantly sought better means to solidify his power and manage his fi nances. To that end, he ordered that the Domesday Book be assembled. The title is a variation of doomsday, or “day of judgment,” and probably is linked to the fact that the book became the fi nal authority in many property disputes. This remarkable compilation, completed between 1085 and 1086, is a detailed accounting of the wealth of England, listing personages and their holdings in land and livestock, the numbers of tenants on the land, buildings, mills, and other sources of wealth. The Domesday commissioners also noted the devastation that England had undergone as a result of William’s expeditions to put down opposition. In fact in some areas, they released individuals from their taxes because of the poverty they found in areas where William’s troops had been especially destructive. The Domesday Book was the basis for tax assessments until 1522. A CHANGED LANGUAGE One of the most signifi cant infl uences of the Norman Conquest was on the English language. The conquering French imposed their native tongue as the language of the upper classes, literature, and the court, considering Anglo-Saxon speech crude. However the English never abandoned their language, forcing the upper class to accept much of the language of the lower classes. As the Norman Conquest of England 309 Norman and Saxon languages fused over the decades, Middle English, the language of Geoffrey Chaucer, emerged, still primarily Anglo-Saxon, but much enriched by French and Latin additions. Parliament was opened in English for the fi rst time in 1352. William I died as the result of a riding accident in 1087. He bequeathed his Norman territory to his son Robert II and his English lands to his son William II, a decision that was later to shape the events of the Hundred Years’ War. Henry I and King Stephen followed William II. The end of the Norman period is usually considered as 1154 when Henry II, a Plantagenet, came to power. See also feudalism: Europe; Norman and Plantagenet kings of England. Further reading: Chrisp, Peter. The Norman Conquest. London: Wayland Pub. Ltd., 1996; Golding, Brian. Conquest and Colonisation: The Normans in Britain, 1066–1100. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994; Matthew, David. Britain and the Continent 1000–1300: The Impact of the Norman Conquest (Britain and Europe). London: Hodder Arnold, 2005. Jean Shepherd Hamm Norman kingdoms of Italy and Sicily Described by some sources as bloodthirsty brigands, the fi rst Norman warriors arrived in Italy from Normandy, France, in search of adventure, land, and wealth. As foreigners to the fragmented lands of Lombard, Italy, and Sicily, the fi rst Normans were able to take advantage of disputes between the pope, the Byzantine Empire, the Lombard lords, and the Muslims of Sicily to forge a united kingdom out of fractious, petty states. The Normans assured stability with a strong bureaucracy based on Arab, Greek, and Latin models. The largely tolerant and synergetic culture of Norman Sicily was embodied in the fusion of Arab, Berber, Greek, and western traditions in their architecture, art, and literature. The Normans epitomized Mediterranean culture and trade, knitting a kingdom that, as the Mediterranean itself, connected Africa, Europe, and the East. At its height the civilization of Norman Italy and Sicily was a remarkable combination of Greek, Arab, and Latin cultures. Robert Guiscard and his brother Roger I were two of the fi rst Norman warriors to attack Byzantine possessions in southern Italy. They even captured Pope Leo IX in 1053. He was not released from captivity until he recognized the authority and legitimacy of the Normans. The papacy and the Normans were reconciled after Pope Nicholas II gave Guiscard authority over Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily even as these regions were still occupied by Byzantium and the Muslims of Sicily. Ibn al Thumma, an Arab from Sicily, offered the entire island to Roger I if he agreed to help establish stability on the island. By 1072 the Normans had conquered Palermo. Despite their thirst for booty, the Normans guaranteed the protection of religion and local laws. In 1091 Roger I had effectively conquered the entire island, respecting the local laws and beliefs as promised. His feudal system simply copied the Muslim military districts, Muslims were a large part of his army, and Muslim eunuchs took over many bureaucratic tasks. Roger II, son of Roger I, was probably the most famous Norman ruler. His reign of more than four decades (1111–54) saw the birth of a great trading empire. Recognizing the importance of North African trade, he conquered several cities on the coastline of modern-day Tunisia and challenged the naval supremacy of the North African, Muslim states in the Mediterranean. This opened the rich African gold and Oriental spice market to European traders, creating an economic boon for the Normans, the new masters of the Mediterranean. As a statesman Roger II reformed the judicial system and maintained order among the different religious and ethnic communities of the region. In addition to Greek scholars and ministers, his court included a harem, and a cohort of Muslim slaves, eunuchs, and administrators. Some Muslim scholars were so impressed by his tolerance and kindness that they claimed he was a Muslim in disguise. The Palatine Chapel in Palermo, considered the fi nest example of Norman medieval architecture, exemplifi ed the Norman use of the best Byzantine mosaics, Arab plaster decoration, and Latin painting, creating a magnifi cent jewel of medieval and intercultural unity even as the rest of Europe was rocked by war and confl ict. Greek, Latin, and Arabic were all offi cial languages of the Norman court. A cadre of religious scholars and poets from the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt, Byzantium, North Africa, Italy, and Spain engaged in free and open debates about the nature of God, faith, and fate, answering diffi cult theological questions asked by Roger II. Al-Idrisi, the Arab Sicilian geographer, called his carefully constructed map and description of the world the Book of Roger. A book used by European explorers, the Book of Roger drastically increased western and Latin knowledge of world geography. 310 Norman kingdoms of Italy and Sicily Faced with the reconquest of North Africa by the Almohads and other threats to his power, Roger II gradually became less tolerant to the Muslims of Sicily. Norman power began to wane under William, Roger’s successor. He did not have the same energy for statecraft as his father. Even as the fi rst stage of Norman rule went into decline, a new leader soon emerged from a marriage between a Sicilian and the ruler of Germany, a leader who would bring Sicily and Italy back into an age of cultural brilliance. Frederick II (1194–1250) ushered in the next great era of southern Italian history. As son of Constance of Sicily, he had Norman blood. He was also son of Henry IV, a German king and Roman emperor. As the Normans before him, he had a diffi cult relationship with the church. Despite his strong crusading spirit, he was excommunicated by a papacy concerned about the unifi cation of Italy and threats to the Papal States. He was crowned emperor of Jerusalem in 1229, establishing a state that was largely tolerant of different religious faiths. Inspired by the multireligious culture of Sicily, he created a rare and brilliant era of peace in Jerusalem. Like his Norman predecessors Frederick was very much a man of the Mediterranean. Far from a provincial German ruler, or a Norman barbarian, he was steeped in the international cultures of Islam, Judaism, and the Greek church as well as the Roman church. It could easily be argued that the cultural patronage and openness of the Norman kings and their defi ance of papal authority helped build the foundations of the Italian Renaissance and the birth of humanism. See also Byzantine Empire: political history; Norman Conquest of England; Norman and Plantagenet kings of England. Further reading: Ahmad, Aziz. A History of Islamic Sicily. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1975; Johns, Jeremy. Arabic Administration in Norman Sicily. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Matthew, Donald. The Norman Kingdom of Sicily. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Wolf, Kenneth. Making History: The Normans and their Historians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995. Allen Fromherz

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750

Nadir Shah (1688–1747) Persian conqueror Nadir Shah (Nader Shah), often called the “Napoleon of Iran,” was the last of the Central Asian conquerors who made the region quake under the hoofbeats of his army. Like Genghis Khan, Babur the Tiger, and Timurlane before him, Nadir came from humble origins and rose to the pinnacle of power through a potent combination of great courage, implacable brutality, and shrewd wisdom. Nadir was born in 1688 in Persia, five years after the defeat of Persia’s great enemy, the Ottoman Turks, at the gates of Vienna in 1683. He was an outsider in Persia, a member of one of the Turkomen tribes that had once swelled the ranks of the armies of Genghis Khan and Timurlane. Much like Genghis Khan, known in early life as Temujin among the Mughals, Nadir was captured and taken into slavery by a rival Turkomen clan, the Ozbegs, while a boy. The Ozbegs (modernday Uzbeks) had been powerful in Central Asia since the 14th century, even before the birth of Timurlane, in 1336. Nadir apparently managed to escape his slavery, although his mother, taken with him, seems to have died in captivity. Nadir went to the Afshar clan and sought service under one of their chieftains. His ambitions proved too much for the Afshars, and he left to found a bandit army, which eventually reached the strength of 5,000 men, all hardened Turkomen warriors like him. Nadir seemed destined to live out his life as a bandit until war erupted between Persia and Afghanistan in 1719. Prior to this date, the Safavid dynasty had been powerful in southern Afghanistan and claimed the loyalty of the powerful Ghilzai tribe. The Safavids, however, were Shi’i Muslims, while the Ghilzais were Sunni. Safavid rulers had respected the different Ghizai beliefs until the Safavid sultan Hussein, who had been raised to the Persian throne in 1694, began a purge under the ayatollah Mohammed Baqir Majilesi, whose zeal in his religion would equal that of the ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini some 300 years later. All Sunnis were persecuted, both in Iran and in Iranian-controlled regions of Afghanistan. Zoroastrians (Parsees), Jews, and Christians also suffered from this Shi’i inquisition. In 1715, the Ghilzai leader Mir Wais died of natural causes, but his example kept the Ghilzai resistance alive. Even the Abdali tribe in Afghanistan, which had tried to maintain its neutrality, revolted against the Persians in the city of Herat, which would be contested by Afghans and Persians for decades. When Mil Wais’s brother seemed willing to come to terms with the Persians, his son, Mahmoud, killed his uncle and in 1719 invaded Persia itself. In 1722, Mahmoud defeated Hussein and became ruler of Iran. Then he unleashed a reign of terror among the Persians, which soon caused his own supporters to fear for their lives. Consequently in 1725, his Ghizais assassinated him in the Persian capital of Isfahan and his cousin Ashraf became shah, attempting to legitimize his rule by marrying a Safavid princess. By this time the weakened Safavid Empire proved a tempting target for its enemies. In 1723, Ottoman Turkish troops of the sultan Ahmed III struck from the west, launching damaging raids as far as Hamadan. At the same time, the Russian forces of Peter the Great, who had just won the Great Northern War (1700–1721), attacked Persia from the north. The once-powerful Safavid Empire was so weakened that it agreed to a peaceful settlement and dividing Iran’s northwestern provinces. In the beginning of the Afghan invasion of Persia, Nadir had supported Mahmoud and the Ghilzais. But when they ceased paying him and his bandits, he changed loyalties to the son of the Safavid sultan Hussein, who had succeeded his father as Shah Tahmasp II. With Tahmasp II’s support, Nadir began what today would be called a war of national liberation to free the Persians from their foreign oppressors. He began his revolt in his home province of Khousan, where he knew he could count upon the support of his clansmen. With a growing army he was able to expel Ashraf from Isfahan, but not before he massacred thousands of Persians in revenge. Nadir relentlessly pursued Ashraf, who was overtaken during his retreat and killed in 1730. Strategy Nadir pursued a cautious attack strategy and concentrated his efforts on first removing the weakest of his enemies, the Ghilzais. However Tahmasp II foolishly attacked the Turks, losing Georgia and Armenia to them. Nadir, now the preeminent Safavid general, deposed Tahmasp and put upon the throne the young Abbas III. Although careful to keep up the legitimacy of the Safavid dynasty, there was no doubt now that Nadir was the true ruler of Persia, although Abbas III was officially shah from 1732. In a series of lightning campaigns Nadir struck back at the Russians, now under the czarina Anna, and at the Turks. The Turks were driven out of the territories they had conquered, and the Russians by 1735 had also been expelled from Persia. By this time, a successful warlord, Nadir overthrew Abbas III and became ruler of Persia in his own right, the first of the Afshar dynasty, in 1736. Having consolidated his position at home, as Genghis Khan and Timurlane before him, Nadir embarked on a campaign of conquest that took him first into Afghanistan. His diplomatic cunning was shown at its greatest when, apparently with the promise of much booty, he was able in 1739 to enlist the Ghilzais and Abdalis into his army, only nine years after he had chased them out of Persia. Moreover, in a show of bravura, he allowed the Afghans to join his personal bodyguard troops. Nadir swept aside any Afghan resistance at the cities of Kabul and Kandahar. It was now that he revealed the real target of his invasion— the riches of the Mughal Empire of India. Nadir was able to enter the capital of the now-decrepit Delhi almost unopposed by the emperor Mohammed Shah. Nadir had already destroyed the main Mughal army at Karnal in the Punjab. On the pretext of an attack on the Persians, Nadir ordered the massacre of thousands of citizens of Delhi. Some estimates put the number as high as 20,000. For 58 days, Nadir pillaged Delhi. When he finally grew tired, he took back with him a treasure trove of riches. He even took the priceless Koh-i-noor Diamond and the Mughal emperor’s own Peacock Throne. Until the fall of the Persian (Iranian) monarchy in 1979, the Peacock Throne would be used by the reigning shahs of Persia. On his way back to Afghanistan and then Persia, Nadir was attacked at the Khyber Pass by the Pashtun tribes, either urged on by the Mughals or tempted by the sheer size of Nadir’s treasure train. The attack, however, was defeated by the Persian forces in a counterattack. Undeterred by the attack in the Khyber Pass, Nadir resumed his campaigns of conquest by sweeping north over the Amu Darya and attacking the rich cities of the Silk Road that reached throughout Central Asia. Bokhara, Khiva, and Samarkand, the city of Timurlane, all fell before him. However, in his later years, Nadir seems to have fallen victim to a form of dementia and began to think that his closest supporters were turning against him and coveting his power. Fearing that his own son, Reza Qouli, was plotting against him, Nadir had him blinded, presumably in the Persian way, with daggers thrust into both eyes. Nadir’s end came in his camp at Quchan, when he ordered his Abdali guard to kill his army commanders. Apparently some of the Abdalis, perhaps Ahmad Shah himself, carried the news to the Persians. In June 1747, Nadir was assassinated and beheaded by his own troops. Ahmad Shah was able to retreat to Afghanistan, where he founded the Durrani dynasty. In Iran, Nadir was succeeded by his nephew Adil Shah, who had most of Nadir’s offspring, including the unfortunate Reza Quoli, killed to assure his title to the throne. The Afshar dynasty would rule in Persia until Karim Khan seized control in the midst of anarchy, launching the Zand dynasty. See also Abbas the Great of Persia; Ottoman Empire (1450–1750). Further reading: Keay, John. India: A History. New York: Grove Press, 2000; McCauley, Martin. Afghanistan and Central Asia: A Modern History. London: Pearson, 2002; Rashid, 262 Nadir Shah Ahmed. The Resurgence of Central Asia: Islam or Nationalism? New York: Oxford University Press, 1994; Tanner, Stephen. Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the Fall of the Taliban. New York: Da Capo, 2002; Wolpert, Stanley. A New History of India. London: Oxford University Press, 2004. John Murphy Nagasaki The city of Nagasaki is situated on the southeastern coast of the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. Nagasaki is port of entry for vessels coming from the south and the west. Nagasaki was opened as an important trading port for the Portuguese in 1571 by Omura Sumitada, a major daimyo (feudal lord) of the area. Earlier, Francis Xavier, a Spanish Jesuit priest, had reached Nagasaki as the first Christian missionary to Japan. Initially, Oda Nobunaga, the military leader of Japan, tolerated Christianity. However, his successor, Toyotumi Hideyoshi, banned Christianity in 1587 because he was afraid of the intense rivalry among the Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, and English and feared the success of Christian missionaries in winning converts. Tokugawa Ieyasu, the successor of Hideyoshi, was initially friendly toward the Christians. In 1614, however, he banned Christianity, as he too was afraid his authority could be challenged by the growing influence of the missionaries. One of the most infamous massacres took place in Shimabara, Nagasaki Prefecture, in 1638; 30,000 Japanese Christians were massacred. The Dutch, whose Protestant faith was considered safer than the Catholicism of the Portuguese, were however allowed to continue trading in Japan. But Dutch activities were confined to the artificial island of Dejima in Nagasaki harbor under severe restrictions. As Japan’s only window to the Western world, Dejima became the center for Western or Dutch learning for two centuries. Chinese ships however were allowed to trade in Nagasaki. Ships came to Nagasaki harbor from all parts of China and imports from China to Nagasaki included silk, sugar, metals, medicine, and books. Japan’s main export to China was copper, primarily through Mitsui, Mitsubishi, and Sumitomo companies. During the 17th century, the number of Chinese settlers in Nagasaki rose to 10,000. See also Jesuits in Asia; Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty, rise and zenith. Further reading: Fukasaku, Yukiko. Technology and Industrial Growth in Pre-War Japan: The Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard 1884–1934. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francs, 1992; Holdstock, Douglas, and Frank Barnaby. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis, 1995; Kawano, Martin, and Paul Miller. Memoirs of a Japanese Christian from Nagasaki. Notre Dame, IN: Cross Cultural Publications, 1997. Mohammed Badrul Alam Nahua (Nahuatl) While Nahua, or Nahuatl, is the primary Mesoamerican linguistic group, its origins are actually in North America, where the first speakers of the language originated. It is from the general linguistic family known as the Uto-Aztecan, one of several language groups spoken by Native Americans. Among related languages are those spoken by the Hopi, the Comanche, Shoshone, and Ute in the current United States. It is also spoken by the Tarahumara, Huichol, and Yaqui peoples today in Mexico, among other tribes. In what is known as the Classical period, before the Spanish conquest of 1519– 21, it was the language spoken by the imperial Aztecs of Mexico. The Athabascan language group, in the American Southwest, includes languages spoken by many of the Apache clans, such as the Chiricahua, Jicarilla, Mescalero, Lipan, and Western Apache. It is also spoken by the Kiowa, who are related to the Apache but took to the southern Great Plains of America, where they rode with the Comanche. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Athabascan- speaking Indians came after the Uto-Aztecans. Some archaeological sites point to what could have been savage warfare between Athabascans like the Navajo and Apache and the Uto-Aztecan Hopi. There is a theory that the Hopi took to their high mesa homes as a refuge from these more warlike people. An indication of this situation is that there is evidence that the Hopi first called themselves the Hopituh, or “the peaceful ones.” Even today, there is rivalry between the Navajo and the Hopi for land in the Southwest United States. language As with all languages, much effort has been made to classify the Nahua, or Nahuatl, branch of the Uto-Aztecan language group. While the Aztecs (Mexica) are no doubt the most well-known Mesoamerican (Central American) speakers, Nahuatl really made its first appearance around the seventh century c.e., when the Toltec came from the Nahua 263 north and began to expand at the expense of settled people like the Mayas of Guatemala and the Yucatán in Mexico. The warrior cultures of both the Toltecs and the Aztecs, including their common language, could lead to the theory that both were from the same general area in North America, the present day United States or Canada, and that the Toltecs were the first wave of conquerors. The Aztecs made their dramatic appearance in the Valley of Mexico in about the 14th century, and perhaps represented the last wave of conquering immigrants from the north. Chicano (Mexican-American) activists have placed Aztlan in the southwestern United States, in the region that was seized from Mexico by the United States during the Mexican-American War of 1846–48. This may be, archaeologically speaking, a more accurate assessment. As discussed, the Aztecs and the other Uto-Aztecans may have originated farther north, even with the migration of Asiatic tribes from Siberia, the traditional route of Native Americans into the Americas. The Indians already settled in Mexico called the newcomers like the Toltecs and Aztecs, the Nahuatl speakers, Chichimecas, a term loosely translated as “barbarians.” Aztec legend recounts there were seven Aztec tribes, including the Tepenecs and the Acolhuas. The Aztecs were the last to arrive in Anahuac, as they called the Valley of Mexico. The arrival of the Spanish in the 16th century with Hernán Cortés, who landed at Vera Cruz in 1519, was the end of Aztec independence, and ultimately that of all the peoples of Mesoamerica. Early Spanish missionaries, after viewing the blood sacrifices of the Aztecs, made it their goal to eradicate the Aztec culture and with it their Nahuatl language. However, there were scholars among the missionaries who saw that the culture of the Aztecs merited preservation. Thus rather than being destroyed, Nahuatl was preserved in considerable measure by enlightened members of the religious orders whose majority attempted to destroy it. Today some 1.5 million Mexicans still speak Nahuatl, although the language of the Classical period ended with the defeat of the Aztecs. Today Nahuatl is enriched by a large vocabulary of Spanish “loan words,” as Spanish and English have been enlivened by Nahuatl words. Geographically speaking those who use Nahuatl also include those as far south as the Pipil of El Salvador, thus embracing the whole of Mesoamerica. Considering its influence on English, one can say that today perhaps a larger area is influenced by Nahuatl than at any other time in the history of the language. See also Aztecs, human sacrifice and the; Mexico, conquest of; natives of North America. Further reading: de Sahagún, Fray Bernardino. Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain (Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva España), Vols. I–XII. Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson, trans. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2002; Karttunen, Frances. An Analytical Dictionary of Náhuatl. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992; Leon-Portilla, Miguel. The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992. John Murphy Nantes, Edict of The Edict of Nantes was the royal decree of Henry IV that ended the French Wars of Religion in 1598. In 1562 the massacre of a Huguenot congregation in Vassy, carried out by Francis, duke of Guise, triggered the French Wars of Religion. The Catholic noble houses led by the duke, a religious fanatic, escalated the nationwide violence against the so-called Huguenot (Calvinist) heresy. In response, the Huguenots, with Henry of Navarre as their leader, retaliated by devastating Catholic communities under their control. The ongoing religious conflict was complicated by political struggles within the royal court. After the death of Henry II in 1559, his three sons, Francis II, Charles IX, and Henry III, would successively wear the crown. Their mediocre political and military skills left a vacuum at the heart of royal authority, which enabled the House of Guise to make a move. Queen Catherine de Médicis, their mother and a Machiavellian stateswoman, was determined to defend the hereditary rights of her three sons and preserve the Crown for her family. After three major military confrontations and two failures to sustain negotiated peace in the 1560s, the two sides reached the third peace at St. Germain in 1570, which offered more favorable deals to the Huguenots. On August 23, 1572, the Huguenots from all over France gathered in Paris to celebrate the marriage of their leader Henry of Navarre, now a converted Catholic, to Margaret, the queen’s daughter. The reconciliatory event, however, turned into a massacre of the Huguenots by the Catholic faction of the court. It remains murky whether or not Catherine de Médicis personally conspired in or ordered such a senseless bloodshed. The havoc of St. Bartholomew’s Day, however, killed an entire generation of Huguenot leaders, claimed more than 15,000 innocent lives, and, thereafter, prolonged the Wars of Religion for another two decades. 26 4 Nantes, Edict of The turning point of the domestic crisis came with the Wars of Three Henries (1584–89), Henry of Guise versus Henry of Navarre versus Henry III, who had ascended to the Crown in 1574. During the war, Henry of Guise, whose ambition now was to succeed Henry III, conspired with Philip II of Spain, who needed the French support for checking England and suppressing the Netherlands’s Protestant rebellion. In 1588, Henry of Guise and his Catholic League marched into Paris, besieged Henry III, and pressed him to abdicate the throne. While being still free, Henry III, a pious and militant Catholic, allied with Henry of Navarre, who converted back to the Huguenot faith after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. After the king made his own brother-in-law the heir to the throne, the two Henries marched against Henry of Guise and the Catholic League. Soon, the bodyguards of Henry III assassinated Henry of Guise. Shortly thereafter, the aged queen died and a Dominican monk murdered Henry III. Henry of Navarre, the only survivor, succeeded to the throne of France as Henry IV in 1589. It took a full decade for the first Bourbon king, Henry IV, to end the religious wars and to reconstruct peace. He solemnly adjured his Huguenot faith again to become a Catholic in 1593. This compelled Pope Clement VIII to grant him absolution in the same year. The peace with Rome enabled him gradually to dissolve the Catholic League in France and pacify Spain overseas. State Religion On April 13, 1598, Henry IV promulgated an edict in Nantes, Brittany. It ordained that Catholicism would be restored and reestablished as the religion of the state, and the Catholic Church would preserve its privilege of collecting tithe, observing holidays, and enforcing restrictions regarding marriage. Meanwhile, it permitted Protestants to live in the kingdom without being questioned, annoyed, or compelled to change their faith against their conscience. Moreover, the edict offered Protestants rights to property, to public offices, to education in a few designated Protestant colleges, to holding their own synod, and to having cases involving breaches of the edict to be adjudicated by special courts composed of half Catholic and half Protestant judges. It further bestowed on Protestants freedom of worship in about 100 fortified towns and cities outside the city of Paris, where they retained right to selfdefense for eight years. The Edict of Nantes appeared unpopular among both the Catholics and the Protestants at the time, but Henry IV had the personal charm and the political strength to implement and enforce it. While Europe was engulfed by religious wars, the edict defied the existing ideal of universal faith: “one faith, one law, one king” (une foi, un loi, un roi) and experimented with a policy that was more tolerant than the principle of “as the ruler, so the religion” (cuius regio, eius religio) embodied in the Peace of Augsburg of the Holy Roman Empire in 1555. However, a fanatic Catholic assassinated Henry IV, the first tolerant monarch in the age of Reformation, in 1610. The edict, observed for about 90 years, was revoked by Louis xiv, the grandson of Henry IV, in 1685. See also Calvin, John; Medici family. Further reading: Baumgartner, Frederic. France in the Sixteenth Century. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995; Diefendorf, Barbara. Beneath the Cross—Catholics and Huguenots in Sixteenth Century Paris. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991; Holt, Mack P. The French Wars of Religion, 1562–1629. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; Horne, Alistair. La Belle France: A Short History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005; Salmon, John H. M. Society in Crisis, France in the Sixteenth Century. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975. Wenxi Liu Natives of North America Perhaps no other group in human history has experienced as extreme a change in its circumstances as did the indigenous inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere between 1450 and 1750. The so-called Columbian exchange, set off by Christopher Columbus’s 1492 voyage from Spain, completely altered the ecology, economy, and web of social relationships among the diverse peoples that Columbus (inaccurately) named “Indians.” The people who populated North and South America between 40,000 and 15,000 years ago crossed what was then a land bridge between Siberia and modern Alaska and gradually settled the hemisphere. When a worldwide Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago, the land route between Asia and the Americas disappeared. By the time of Columbus’s first voyage, historians and anthropologists have estimated that the hemispheric population stood between 10 million and 75 million, most living in Central and South America. The peoples of North America were diverse in almost every possible way except biologically. Experts argue about the extent of North America’s precontact population— the range is 1 million to 18 million—but most agree that populations began declining several hundred years before Europeans showed up. By 1450, some large Natives of North America 26 5 Indian communities in the Southwest, Pacific Northwest, and middle Mississippi Valley had vanished or dispersed, abandoning sophisticated buildings and artifacts. Factors that have been proposed to explain these declines include climate change, warfare, and disease. By 1450, there were dozens of tribal groups and alliances speaking diverse languages and following very different religious and social customs. There were some commonalities: Most Indians were animists, believing in the spiritual power of their natural surroundings. They devised elaborate rituals to placate these spirits, especially those of animals they had killed. In many areas human burials were placed in elaborate and extensive earthen mounds. Most tribes respected shamans (healers) and believed that a Great Spirit oversaw the natural world. Because tribes were likely to move often in search of better land or more abundant game—or to avoid other hostile tribes—property ownership in the European sense was all but unknown. Archaeologists have found abundant evidence of trade routes that spanned the continent, bringing tribes together in the process of barter and exchange. In most North American tribes, women were in charge of agricultural production, while men hunted for game. Maize (corn), first cultivated in Mexico, was by the time of contact a basic crop in much of North America. Squash and beans were also staples of most tribes’ diets. While by no means environmentalists in any modern sense, most North American tribes were well adapted to their surroundings and were often helpful to inexperienced Europeans. For example, natives taught French explorers how to build lightweight birchbark canoes to travel where their clunky wooden ships were useless. Others helped Europeans identify strange plants and animals, learning which were edible and which poisonous. Most famously, Squanto, a Patuxet who had been kidnapped by an English slave trader in 1614, returned to America in time to teach the Pilgrims how to fish and grow corn, keeping them alive to hold a Thanksgiving in 1621. Warfare was a constant among various Indian groups both before and after European contact. Early on, some tribal groups welcomed alliances with Europeans as a way to overpower their traditional rivals, in part by acquiring the foreigners’ goods and technologies, especially their superior weapons. But as the trickle of Europeans became a flood, especially in British-claimed regions, some tribes forged alliances with traditional friends and even enemies to counter European threats to Indian survival. For example, Algonquian chief Powhatan, head of a strong confederacy, at first welcomed Jamestown settlers, even allowing his daughter, Pocahontas, to marry Englishman John Rolfe. But in 1622, Powhatan’s brother Opechancanough, now leader of the Powhatan Confederacy, launched a surprise attack on settlers, killing more than three hundred of them and capturing women and children. Ultimately, the Virginians rallied, using trickery and even poison to reclaim their holdings. In this early war, as in later conflicts, tribes were responding to growing white populations. Whites were no longer perceived simply as traders who would soon move on; they had become settlers using—and claiming as their own—traditional tribal lands. Disease did even more damage than European land grabs and weapons of war. Because Indians were genetically very similar, and because they had been isolated in the New World for many centuries, they were at the mercy of pathogens carried by the invaders. The worst of these was smallpox, with measles and influenza also sowing death. These diseases killed Europeans, too, but ravaged the Indian population. Long before germs were known to cause disease, Europeans praised God for 266 Natives of North America Algonquian village on the Pamlico River estuary, showing Native structures, agriculture, and spiritual life smiting Indian enemies, thus making it easier to colonize America. Some Europeans “assisted” this process by purposely distributing to Indians smallpox-infected blankets and other tainted goods. Smallpox epidemics could and did change the course of battles and negotiations between natives and Europeans. Southwest Descendants of the Anasazi, whose complex civilization came to a puzzling end in about 1300 c.e., the Pueblo Indians, including Hopi and Zuni, for centuries had lived in settled agricultural communities in today’s southwestern United States. The Spanish, who had already made a fortune exploiting Central and South America, in the 17th century also began aggressively exploring the southern reaches of North America, with terrible consequences for the native population. In 1598, Juan de Oñate marched four hundred soldiers, priests, and colonists into New Mexico, killing almost half the residents of the cliff city of Acoma and forcing most of the rest into slavery. In 1680, Popé, a Pueblo religious leader who had been punished for rejecting Franciscan priests’ attempts to convert him, led the Pueblo Revolt, the most successful native retaliation in this era of European occupation. Indian ranks had thinned through disease and compelled labor, but they still outnumbered the Spanish colony of about three thousand. The Pueblo peoples spoke several different languages, yet they managed to unite, with the help of traditionally hostile Apache, to expel the Spaniards and destroy symbols of Catholicism. Although internal native strife, including raids by Apache and Navajo enemies, soon resumed, and the Spanish retook New Mexico in 1692, the Pueblo were treated with greater respect, becoming one of the few tribal groupings in North America to mostly retain ancestral homelands. Southeast and Florida In 1513, Hernán Ponce de León invaded Florida in search of slaves, wealth, and promises of eternal youth but was repulsed by local Calusa Indians. More sustained and far-ranging efforts led by Hernando De Soto and others in the 1540s explored the Gulf coast and penetrated as far as the Great Plains. Not until 1565 did King Philip ii authorize what was essentially a Florida military base to deter British, French, and Dutch piracy of Spanish gold. In the process, the Spanish massacred a tiny colony of refugee French Huguenots and built a fort at St. Augustine, the oldest U.S. site continuously peopled by Europeans. Efforts to convert the local Guale tribe sparked an uprising in 1597. The tiny Spanish colony put down the uprising in 1602 but never attracted more than a few thousand settlers. In other sections of the Southeast, a confederacy among four tribes—the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Creek—preceded the European invasion. They would be tested by European incursions that forced these tribes to relocate, sometimes competing among themselves for territory. By 1745, the Cherokee were allied with the British in their effort to contain France and Spain, focusing on lands between Florida and the recently established colony of Georgia. In this period, Creek began migrating to Florida under pressure from both Europeans and members of their own tribe. In the 19th century, they would call themselves Seminole. British and French AmericaN Alliances The five (later six) tribes that became the Iroquois Confederacy (Haudenosaunee) centered in what became New York State, had also, prior to European contact, initiated a Great League of Peace in response to destructive warfare among tribes. These “people of the longhouse” included the Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Oneida tribes, joined in the early 1700s by Carolina’s Tuscarora. The Iroquois were not nomadic but lived in large villages. Their longhouses were wood and bark structures that might be 400 feet long and accommodated many family groups. Skilled negotiators, the tribes individually and confederacy as a whole for a time held their own against Dutch, British, and French claims and demands. Some among the Iroquois hoped to remain neutral, but they soon were edging toward the British. By the 1670s, the Iroquois and British had pledged mutual friendship. After a sneak attack by French forces in 1687, the Five Nations retaliated by attacking New France settlements on behalf of British objectives in what was known in North America as King William’s War. They fought both the French and France’s Indian allies, including the Huron and Abenaki and Algonquian people of the Great Lakes region. Both groups of Indians inflicted and suffered terrible casualties; by 1701, the Iroquois were promising their people to remain neutral in future European conflicts. By 1750, eastern and Great Lakes Indians of many tribes, displaced by white settlement, were seeking new lands in the Ohio Valley, on the frontier between British and French territorial claims and control. The Iroquois, as well as Shawnee, Delaware, Cherokee, and Chickasaw, were all trying to use this no-man’s-land to enhance trade and perhaps prevent both the British and French from expanding even farther into the continent. Natives of North America 26 7 In 1749, Virginia awarded some of its favored citizens development rights to almost 8,000 square miles of the Ohio Valley. The ensuing French and Indian wars would set off a series of events that ultimately made hundreds of Native tribes—survivors of 258 years of warfare, land loss, and disease—strangers in their own land. Further reading: Axtell, James. Beyond 1492: Encounters in Colonial North America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992; Brandon, William. The Rise and Fall of North American Indians: From Prehistory through Geronimo. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2003; Knaut, Andrew L. The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance in Seventeenth-Century New Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995; Richter, Daniel K. The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992. Marsha E. Ackermann Neo-Confucianism in Japan Neo-Confucianism was the revival and reinterpretation of the thoughts and principles of the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius (551–479 b.c.e.) in China in the 11th century. Neo-Confucianism was used as state policy by the Tokugawa Ieyasu Shogunate (1603–1867) as a means of social control. It emphasized paternalism and promoted a strong central government. The studies promoted by Neo-Confucianism also led to an increase in the practice of traditional Shinto and the study of Japanese historical texts. Its central tenet was that harmony could be established and maintained in society only through creating and nourishing proper relationships between superiors and inferiors. Superiors have the duty to behave in a wise and benevolent manner toward social inferiors, who in return should behave with restraint, propriety, and, above all, obedience toward their superiors. When Tokugawa Ieyasu rose to prominence, Japan was decentralized and power was divided among feudal domains. It was questionable whether the shogunal government would be able to enforce its will over the outlying regions. Tokugawa drew from the teaching of Fujiwara Seika (1561–1619) in utilizing Neo-Confucianist ideas to draw the country together. Though ultimately successful it required a long and complex struggle over the regional nobility. The promotion of Bushido, or the Way of the Warrior, also reinforced the bonds between patrons and followers in a code of honor as a meaningful objective in life. Three schools of Thought There were three schools of Neo-Confucianist thought in Japan. They were the Kogaku, the Oyomeigaku, and the Shushigaku schools. Of these, the most influential was the Shushigaku, which was promoted by the Tokugawa Shogunate; it was based on the work of the Chinese philosopher Zhu Xi (Chu Hsi 1130–1200). Zhu Xi was the principal founder of Neo-Confucianism in China. He emphasised the role of the thought of Confucius and his follower Mencius. He also integrated the concept of human nature (li) with matter (chi) as the essence of the nature of humanity. Zhu and his followers stressed the need for the rigorous investigation of ethical conduct and personal actions as part of the systematic evaluation of the universe. This was found to be of great use in Tokugawa Japan and helped to support the bakuhan system of social hierarchies because it was interpreted to promote stability. The Oyomeigaku school was based on the thought of the Chinese philosopher Wang Yangming (Wang Yang-ming 1472–1529), who combined an idealistic interpretation of Confucianism with a career of military and governmental service. Wang stressed the need for the intuitive understanding of the world and the importance of self-knowledge and self-study. This strongly contradicted Zhu’s attempt to understand the world through the study of existing, external texts. The Kogaku school was dedicated to resurrecting the original thought of Confucius and Mencius, which its proponents held had been contaminated by the interpretation of Neo-Confucianists. The return to “Ancient Learning,” which is central to Kogaku, would bring a return to a better time than the present. The person most credited with formulating the Kogaku school was Ito Jinsai (1627–1705), who established the School for the Study of Ancient Meaning, which has lasted into the 20th century. Ito Jinsai established a reputation for a humanitarian approach to the world and promoted a life of selfless diligence. These contending schools of thought in Japan conflicted with each other. However Neo- Confucianism provided a means of legitimation for the shogunate established by Tokugawa Ieyasu and ensured its success as the central control of Japan. See also Bushido, Tokugawa period in Japan; Tokugawa bakuhan system, Japan. Further reading: Huang, Siu-Chi. Essentials of Neo-Confucianism: Eight Major Philosophers of the Song and Ming 268 Neo-Confucianism in Japan Periods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999; Najita, Tetsuo, ed. Tokugawa Political Writings. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Nosco, Peter, ed. Confucianism and Tokugawa Culture. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997. John Walsh Nerchinsk, Treaty of The Treaty of Nerchinsk, 1689, was China’s first treaty with Russia and was important because it settled the boundary between the two empires and began diplomatic relations on an equal footing. In the mid- 17th century, Russia’s eastward conquest across Siberia reached the Amur River region on the boundary of the newly established Qing (Ch’ing) Empire in China. In 1675, Russia sent Nicolai G. Spathary as ambassador to the Chinese court, and he was received by the Kangxi (K’ang-hsi) emperor; he learned all he could about China but otherwise returned home empty-handed. Kangxi’s early years were focused on suppressing a serious revolt in southern and southwestern China (called the Revolt of the Three Feudatories, ended in 1681) and the Ming loyalist movement on Taiwan (ended in 1683). Next he dealt with Russia’s advance to areas claimed by China by ordering General Pengcun, at the head of 10,000 soldiers, 5,000 sailors, and 200 pieces of artillery, to take on the small Russian force at Albazin in 1685, which he captured and then returned home. The reinforced Russians however returned, rebuilt their fort at Albazin, and continued to raid the Amur region. China did not wish to continue a protracted conflict that might drive the yet unpacified Olod Mongols to the Russian fold. Thus the two countries agreed to negotiations at Nerchinsk in 1688. The Chinese delegation was headed by Prince Songgotu and had two Jesuit priests, Jean- François Gerbillon and Thomas Pereira, as interpreters. The Russian delegation was led by Fedor A. Golovin. Each delegation was supporter by a large contingent of soldiers, the Chinese one being much larger. The Treaty of Nerchinsk was signed on September 7, 1689. It had six articles and was in five languages, Chinese, Manchu, Mongolian, Russian, and Latin, with the Latin version being the official text. The treaty delineated the boundary between Russian Siberia and Chinese Manchuria along the Argun and Amur Rivers to the mouth of the Kerbechi, and along the Outer Xingan (Hsing-an, Stenovoi in Russian) to the sea. The Russian-built fort at Albazin was to be demolished and Russian residents there were to be repatriated. It also provided for the right of residence and trade between peoples of the two countries, the issuing of passports, and the extradition of fugitives. The Treaty of Nerchinsk was negotiated between two equal countries. Russia gained 93,000 square miles of hitherto disputed territory that included Nerchinsk while China secured Albazin and peace with Russia that would allow it to deal with and eventually defeat the western or Olod Mongols. Most significantly it regularized Chinese- Russian relations and began the periodic exchange of diplomatic missions between the two countries. See also Jesuits in Asia; Kaikhta, Treaty of; Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty, rise and zenith. Further reading: Mancall, Mark. Russia and China: Their Diplomatic Relations to 1728. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971; Sebes, Joseph S. The Jesuits and the Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk, 1689: The Diary of Thomas Pereira. Rome: Institutum Historicum, 1961. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Nerchinsk, Treaty of 269 A portrait of the Kangxi emperor in court dress, from a silk scroll hanging in the Palace Museum in Beijing Netherlands, revolt against Spanish rule in the The revolt of the Netherlands, often known as the Dutch Revolt, or the Eighty Years’ War, started in 1568 and was only finally resolved by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It began with 17 provinces in the Netherlands rising up against the rule by the Spanish royal family, the Habsburgs. The reasons for the revolt were threefold. The transformation of Spain under the Habsburgs, from a European power to a major world empire with extensive colonies in the Americas led to involvement in numerous wars, and the taxes imposed on the Netherlands to help pay for these wars were greatly resented. Many of the towns and cities in the Netherlands also resented Habsburg moves to centralize the administration of the region. By the 1560s, Protestantism had become popular in parts of the Netherlands, with the Habsburgs being keen to restore Roman Catholicism. When friction started between Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, the French statesman whom Philip II of Spain appointed to the Netherlands, and the many burghers in the Netherlands, it rapidly led to religious tensions. In August 1566, a small Catholic church was stormed and images of Catholic saints were destroyed. It was quickly followed by similar moves elsewhere, and Philip II responded by sending in soldiers. When some of his opponents were executed, a rebellion broke out, with William of Orange, an influential Protestant politician, becoming its figurehead. The Battle of Rheindalen, on April 23, 1568, marked the start of the revolt. Initially the Spanish were able to crush the rebellion, but when the rebels launched a naval assault in 1572 and captured the town of Brielle (Brill), the Protestants quickly rallied to support the rebels. Soon the northern provinces of the Netherlands were effectively independent of Spanish rule, and when Spanish soldiers tried to reimpose Imperial rule, the fighting escalated. There were some who wanted the younger brother of the French king—Hercule François, duke of Anjou—to become the new king of the Netherlands, but this idea fell through after two years, as did one to make Elizabeth I of England the queen of the Netherlands. The ruthless manner in which the Spanish commander, the duke of Alba, tried to retake the Netherlands led to an intense hatred of the Spanish. The action that earned the duke his reputation came after a sevenmonth siege of the city of Haarlem. In July 1573, Alba’s victorious soldiers massacred the entire garrison. In October 1575, the Spanish slaughtered many people in Antwerp, the largest city in the region, and large numbers of its inhabitants fled. In 1585, Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, brought 6,000 English soldiers to fight alongside the Dutch rebels. Two years later, the English withdrew, but not before many important English, including Sir Walter Raleigh, had fought against the Spanish. As the stakes rose, the Spanish gathered together their armada for a naval attack on England in 1588, but this failed. In the following year, Maurice of Orange, the son of William of Orange, took the offensive and captured Breda in 1590. By this time, the north of the Netherlands was enjoying effective independence, with fighting continuing until 1609. It was during the mid-1590s that the Englishman Guy Fawkes fought on the Spanish side, gaining some experience in the use of explosives, which resulted in his recruitment for the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. From 1609 to 1621 there was a 12-year truce, with fighting starting again in 1622 and merging with the Thirty Years’ War, which ended in 1648. Further reading: Geyl, Pieter. The Revolt of the Netherlands 1555–1609. London: Williams & Norgate, 1932; Parker, Geoffrey. The Dutch Revolt. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1977. Justin Corfield New France Although arriving late to the European scramble for North America, France for a time claimed the largest portion of today’s United States and Canada, stretching from Newfoundland to Louisiana and including the Great Lakes and Mississippi Valley. However, New France failed to attract a large population and, by 1750, France was near losing much of its territory to an ascendant British North America. In 1524, Italian explorer Giovanni di Verrazano was hired by France’s King Francis I to find a passage through North America to Asia, a route that, after many nations failed to find this “Northwest Passage,” was eventually confirmed to be mythical. However, Verrazano did bring back information about Atlantic coastal regions from Carolina to Nova Scotia. A decade later, seeking gold and the elusive sea passage to the Orient, Jacques Cartier, who may have been part of Verrazano’s expedition, commanded three voyages. He sailed into the St. Lawrence River, planting a cross bearing the king’s coat of arms to claim a region that included sites 270 Netherlands, revolt against Spanish rule in the that became Québec and Montreal. Returning in 1541, Cartier and his crew established the tiny and short-lived colony of Charlesbourg-Royal, near Montreal, causing tension with the Iroquois and other local tribes. Scurvy and fierce winter weather soon ended the colonial experiment. After a series of exploratory trips, Cartier returned to France carrying what he believed were gold and diamonds; his booty proved to be iron pyrite (fools’ gold) and common quartz. Although Crown-sanctioned explorations faded after Cartiers’s inauspicious final voyage, fishermen from France (and many other European countries) maintained a robust presence in North America as did traders in furs who dealt with local native tribes. It was New France 271 A late 17th-century French map of “Canada ou Nouvelle France.” Although the territory of New France dwarfed that of the other colonizing powers in North America, there were few French citizens willing to come to the New World. these opportunities that reawakened French interest in North America. New France Beginnings Samuel de Champlain was a map maker employed by a fur-trading company, not a military man, but his leadership abilities during renewed French explorations in the early 1600s made him New France’s “father” and its first governor. In 1608, Champlain and his associates chose a location on the St. Lawrence River at Québec as their fur-trading settlement. Champlain forged alliances with many Indian tribes, including the Huron of the Great Lakes, and also championed the idea of more permanent French settlement along the St. Lawrence. In 1633, two years before his death, Champlain was appointed New France’s governor by Cardinal Richelieu, top minister to King Louis XIII. Eastern Canada was not the only focus of French interest in North America. As fur traders penetrated deeper into the continent in search of the best pelts and cooperative native suppliers, their efforts led to further exploration and land claims. In 1673, Canadian-born Louis Jolliet and French Jesuit missionary Père Jacques Marquette used information from natives to trace the oceanward course of the Mississippi River in hopes, soon dashed, that it flowed into the Pacific Ocean. Father Marquette, who was a missionary to tribes in what is now Michigan, died soon after this exhausting expedition on the banks of a river later named the Père Marquette in his honor. Jolliet, who had early on given up the priesthood for fur trading, later explored Hudson Bay and mapped the Labrador coast. Four years after this Mississippi expedition, Frenchborn René-Robert Cavelier, sieur de LaSalle, who had relocated to New France in 1667, pushed French territorial claims yet further. Arriving at the huge river’s mouth in 1682, LaSalle claimed the vast Mississippi Valley for France, naming this territory Louisiana, for King Louis XIV. LaSalle’s ambitions, fueled by greed and possible mental illness, did not stop there. Promising to claim Spanish Mexico for France, the adventurer ran out of supplies and was murdered in 1687 by his own hungry men. Born into a wealthy Montreal family, Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne, sieur de Bienville in 1701 became acting governor of France’s new southern claims and for 40 years fought to keep his small French colony safe amid Indian, Spanish, and British hostility. In 1718, Bienville spearheaded the creation of New Orleans as an administrative center and port. Unlike the British in their early colonial years, France did not have excess population at home and provided little incentive for its citizens to brave a stormy Atlantic and face a harsh climate and often-hostile Native population in the New World. Early on, the tiny French presence in Canada was 80 percent male and consisted mainly of fishermen, fur traders, and Franciscan and Jesuits priests. Known by the Indians as the “Black Robes,” the priests intended to convert Indians to Catholicism. An early religious mission, called Sainte- Marie, among the Hurons, was built in 1615. Located on Ontario’s Wye River, by 1639, it was home base for 13 priests. When fighting broke out in 1648 between the Huron and their Iroquois enemies, the priests set fire to their mission, fearing its desecration. From 1627 to 1663, a centralized commercial company created by Cardinal Richelieu struggled to squeeze profits out of New France, succeeding only with furs. There were barely 3,000 colonists in 1663, when King Louis XIV intervened, making New France an official French province. Troops were sent to protect settlements with fortifications, and to project French power to native tribes and European rivals. A royal shipment of 850 prospective brides, known as filles du roi, or “the king’s young women,” helped to stabilize the colony and assure natural increase in its population. By 1700, New France had 19,000 white inhabitants. Under this new regime, St. Lawrence River estates were set aside for nobles and military officers. A nearfeudal setup, it was called the seigneurial system. New France’s habitants, or ordinary settlers, mostly farmed land owned by some two hundred seigneuries granted by the Crown. This tenant farming system of rents and allotments outlasted French control (and the French monarchy), surviving into the 19th century. Although agriculture would occupy the energies of the great majority of French Canadians, the voyageurs— fur traders who traveled to French outposts like Detroit (founded in 1701 by Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac) and Prairie du Chien (Wisconsin)—had a more romantic image. Generally, voyageurs were licensed by the authorities; their rivals were the socalled coureurs de bois, unlicensed traders who aggressively explored the farthest reaches of French America, including New Orleans, in pursuit of valuable furs, especially beaver pelts, and markets for their animal skins and other goods. Challenges to French Compared to the British and Spanish in this era, French colonists treated Native Americans with great respect. Friendly relations with local Indian tribes were crucial to French success in the fur trade; colonists were 272 New France also well aware that their numbers were too small to deter major attacks. From the Indian viewpoint, the fact that Frenchmen were not arriving in huge numbers assured some tribal leaders that they could coexist with these interlopers. On the other hand, good intentions on both sides did little to spare the Indians from deadly smallpox and other European diseases. Jesuit pressure on Indians to adopt Catholicism, along with European clothing and behavior, although attracting quite a few converts, was generally met with suspicion. There was a significant level of intermarriage, mostly between French men and Indian women, creating a group known as Métis. The Huron and other Great Lakes and eastern tribes began forging strong alliances with the French in 1615, but wars with the powerful Iroquois Confederacy, allies of Britain, punctuated the history of New France. New France’s huge landholdings were a noose that encircled Britain’s Atlantic Seaboard colonies, leading to a number of altercations between the two European superpowers, both at home and in North America. The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht that ended the 12-year-long War of the Spanish Succession gave Britain dominion over a large sector of eastern French Canada including the rich agricultural lands of Acadia and destroyed much of France’s overseas trade. By the time war again broke out in 1754, the population of British North America was 20 times larger than New France’s and France’s grip on North America was near its end. When French emperor Napoleon I sold Louisiana to the new United States in 1803, New France was a memory, although its French Canadian and Cajun cultures would survive and flourish. Further reading: Eccles, W. J. The French in North America, 1500–1783, 3rd ed. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1998; Greer, Allan. The People of New France. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997; Podruchny, Carolyn. Making the Voyageur World: Travelers and Traders in the North American Fur Trade. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006. Marsha E. Ackermann New Netherland This Dutch colonial outpost existed along the Hudson River from 1609 to 1664. A relatively small and ineffectual colony, it was known for its trade and diversity. It was eventually captured by the English and became the colony of New York. Following its independence from Spain in the 1570s, the Netherlands began constructing a worldwide empire due in large part to its powerful navy and savvy traders. In one of the country’s first colonial ventures, Dutch merchants in 1609 financed Henry Hudson to explore North America and Hudson discovered the river that bears his name. In 1614, the Dutch established their first permanent settlement at Fort Nassau, later relocated and renamed Fort Orange (present-day Albany). This northerly settlement never grew very large and existed primarily to trade with Iroquois Indians for furs. In 1625, the Dutch West India Company established New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island to control access to the Hudson River. This southerly settlement soon attracted a variety of settlers to farm. New Netherland was beset by a series of problems for most of its history. Relations with Native Americans were generally poor. Fort Orange was largely dependent on the Iroquois for its survival, while colonists in the south drove Algonquians from their lands and fought four wars in 20 years with them. Of more pressing concern, however, were the colony’s mismanagement and ineffective leadership. The colony never produced a profit for its investors, while its most effective governor was the autocratic Peter Stuyvesant (1647–64), who barred the colonists from participating in their own governance. Because of these problems, New Netherland had trouble attracting colonists. The Dutch West India Company did offer patroonships, large land grants with manorial rights, to anyone who took 50 settlers to the colony. New Netherland 273 Peter Stuyvesant prepares to defend New Amsterdam against the English fleet, seen in the background. However, Kiliaen Van Rensselaer was the only person to take up the company’s offer seriously. Lacking Dutch settlers, New Netherland opened its borders to dissenters from New England including Anne Hutchinson as well as emigrants from Belgium, France, Scandinavia, and Germany and African slaves. As one visitor noted of New Amsterdam: “There were men of eighteen different languages.” Very quickly the Dutch became a minority in their own colony. Ethnic diversity invited religious differences and although Stuyvesant attempted to privilege the Dutch Reformed Church, the company insisted upon a policy of religious toleration. Puritans, Quakers, and Lutherans were common in New Netherland, and Jews received greater religious freedom than anywhere else in America. Ultimately, New Netherland suffered the most from foreign competition. A Swedish colony on the Delaware River proved a distraction to the Dutch and, in 1655, Stuyvesant engineered a military takeover of New Sweden. However, Dutch hegemony proved short-lived as in 1664 an English fleet under the command of Richard Nicolls arrived off New Amsterdam. Although Stuyvesant attempted to mount a defense of his colony, “a general discontent and unwillingness to assist in defending the place became manifest among the people.” On August 27, Stuyvesant surrendered New Netherland to Nicolls, who granted the colonists generous terms, including the preservation of their property rights, inheritance laws, and religious liberty. Further reading: Kammen, Michael. New York: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975; Rink, Oliver A. Holland on the Hudson: An Economic and Social History of Dutch New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986. John G. McCurdy New Spain, colonial administration of In order to administer their vast holdings in the New World, the Spanish Crown devised an exceedingly intricate bureaucratic system intended to exert royal authority, to protects its economic and political interests, to maintain order and stability, and to prevent the formation of cohesive interest groups that might challenge royal authority. In theory, all political and legal authority in Spain’s overseas holdings ultimately derived from the Crown. This system of what has been called “Hispanic absolutism” stood in sharp contrast to the situation in British North America, where various forms of local authority, including colonial and town assemblies, mingled with and effectively limited the exercise of royal authority. Not so in Spain’s dominions, at least in theory, although in practice there quickly emerged substantial self-rule. Nor was there any legal or functional separation of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. While some bodies were more concerned with judicial matters, others with legislative and executive, effective distinctions among these functions did not exist. Nor was there a clear separation between royal and ecclesiastical authority, though in theory the Crown was the supreme authority in the colonies in consequence of the Patronato Real (Royal Patronage), which derived its legal basis from papal bulls of 1501 and 1508. Habsburg Spain’s political culture was highly legalistic and placed a premium on the generation of paperwork, demonstrated by both the quality of the paper (still crisp after more than four centuries) and its quantity, most housed in the massive Archive of the Indies in Seville. A key characteristic of the byzantine administrative hierarchy that governed Spain’s New World holdings was the functional overlapping of jurisdictions, as discussed later. Some have proposed that the confusion and conflicts thus generated were part of an intentional strategy of “divide and rule” on the part of the Crown, a mechanism meant to ensure that subordinate administrative bodies would squabble among themselves, thus permitting the Crown to stand above the fray and act as the ultimate arbiter whenever serious conflicts arose. If this was not an intentional strategy—and opinion is divided on this point—it nonetheless worked in practice to that effect. Hierarchical Str uct ure At the pinnacle of authority stood the king. Directly subordinate to him in the royal chain of command was the Council of the Indies (Consejo de Indias), established in 1524, modeled on the Council of Castile, and exercising supreme executive, legislative, and judicial authority in the day-to-day running of the American “kingdoms.” The Council of the Indies, which comprised a dozen or so members, drafted and issued laws, interpreted laws, and nominated appointees to secular and religious offices, all subject to the king’s final approval. “Its tendency was meticulous and bureaucratic. It operated through lengthy, deliberative sessions surrounded by massive quantities of reports, laws, opinions, briefs, and other types of contemporary record.” 274 New Spain, colonial administration of Within the colonies, the highest royal authority was the viceroy, conceived as the direct representative of the Crown in the colony. Viceroys were responsible for enforcing law, collecting revenues, administering justice, and maintaining order—virtually everything having to do with governing the viceroyalty. The viceroyalty was the largest administrative unit. Until 1717, all of Spain’s American holdings fell under the jurisdiction of two viceroyalties: the Viceroyalty of New Spain (created in 1535, capital Mexico City, embracing all of Southwest North America through Central America to Panama, with much of Central America under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Guatemala), and the Viceroyalty of Peru (or New Castile, created in 1542, capital at Lima, embracing all of South America not claimed by Portugal). In 1717, a third viceroyalty, that of New Granada (Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador), was carved out of the Viceroyalty of Peru, and in 1776, a fourth, the Viceroyalty of La Plata (Argentina). Partially subordinate to the viceroy were the audiencias, established before 1550 in Santo Domingo, Mexico City, Guatemala, New Galicia (in New Spain), and Panama, Lima, and Bogotá (in Peru), with more added later, and with much shifting of boundaries, jurisdictions, and status over the next 250 years. Judicially subordinate only to the Council of the Indies, the audiencias served as a kind of appellate court and legislative body, subject to royal approval. Described as “the most durable and stable” of the many branches of colonial government, audiencias were composed of the colonies’ most prominent men: ecclesiastics, captainsgeneral, encomenderos, merchants, landowners, and others, appointed by the council and king. The boundaries between viceregal and audiencia authority were never clearly delineated, resulting in much disagreement between them. A similar situation obtained for local officials subordinate to the audiencias and viceroys, most notably alcaldes mayores, corregidores, and gobernadores, among whom leading authority Charles Gibson has discerned “no appreciable functional distinction.” Each exercised administrative, judicial, and some legislative authority within its districts. Alcaldes were superior to regidores, while municipal councils (ayuntamientos and cabildos) were generally associated with corregidores. Municipal councils were the only form of collective self-governance in the Spanish American colonies. There was nothing akin to colonial assemblies of British North America, for example. All authority was vested in individual officials and corporate bodies directly subordinate to royal authority. The other major corporate body charged with overseeing Spain’s New World colonies was the House of Trade (Casa de Contratación), founded in 1503 and located in Seville, which was to trade, commerce, and finance what the Council of the Indies was to politics, law, and governance. The Crown, through its Seville-based mercantile guild (consulado), worked to maintain a royal monopoly on a wide variety of goods, from precious metals to tobacco to many other export commodities. But despite the Crown’s efforts to maintain a relationship of mercantilism with the colonies, in everyday practice smuggling, contraband, and similar efforts to avoid royal monopolies and royal controls became very common. Absol utist System At no level of government did there exist any degree of democratic decision making. In theory, the system was absolutist: All authority flowed from the top down, and nothing but compliance from the bottom up. In practice there existed a substantial degree of local selfgovernance by individual authorities, and considerable deviation from royal laws and decrees, most commonly expressed in the phrase obedezco pero no cumplo (“I obey but I do not fulfill”). In other words, officials universally acknowledged the Crown’s supreme authority while very often balking at the enforcement of specific laws, usually premised on the belief that it was necessary to respond sensibly and pragmatically to realities on the ground. Selective enforcement of the New Laws of 1542, intended to place limits on the institution of encomienda, ranks among the most prominent examples of this strong tendency to disobey or only selectively enforce royal laws and decrees. Scholars continue to debate the consequences of this structure and style of colonial governance for postcolonial Spanish America. Key questions include the longterm implications of the institutionalization of endemic conflict among various branches of government, with the many claimants to political authority vying for supremacy, as expressed in the abundant lawsuits, appeals, and related forms of litigation that marked the entire colonial period. Another concerns the cultural legacy bequeathed by the structural tendency toward disobedience to royal authority and the formation of a political culture in which practical deviation from the letter of the law became the norm. Another key area of investigation focuses on the ways in which subordinate individuals and collectivities, particularly Indian communities, learned to use this elaborate legal structure to defend and advance their interests, as they did throughout the colonial period. New Spain, colonial administration of 275 Some scholars argue that the Spanish American tradition of vesting local authority in individual officials, combined with the absence of substantial collective authority and democratic institutions, over time generated a political culture that emphasized executive authority far more than legislative or judicial authority, provoking sharp conflicts and diverse syntheses with republican and representative forms of governance and Enlightenment notions of citizenship in the postcolonial period, with many variations in time and space. Further Reading. Gibson, Charles. Spain in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1966; Lynch, John. Spain under the Hapsburgs, 2 vols. New York: New York University Press, 1984; Morse, Richard. New World Soundings. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. Michael J. Schroeder New Spain, Viceroyalty of (Mexico) For 300 years (1521–1821), the Viceroyalty of New Spain, the richest and most important political jurisdiction in Spain’s American holdings, expanded from its original boundaries in central Mexico south and west to the Pacific Ocean; south and east to include the Yucatán Peninsula, Florida, the Caribbean, northern South America, and Central America to contemporary Panama (the latter in a jurisdictional subdivision called the Kingdom of Guatemala); and north to include significant portions of what later became the U.S. Southwest. At the political, economic, and demographic center of this vast colony was the Basin of Mexico, at the heart of which lay Mexico City, built atop the ruins of the aztec capital of Tenochtitlán. consequences of colonial rule Three hundred years of colonial rule bequeathed to New Spain an enduring legacy whose consequences remain amply apparent in Mexico and Central America today. Most fundamentally, the new colonial order created new social and racial hierarchies, with Spaniards dominant, Indians subordinate, and, as time passed, mestizos (“mixed-race” Spaniards and Indians) occupying a widening middle ground. During the first century of colonial rule, the colony’s major social institutions can be identified as the following: the colonial state and its byzantine administrative apparatus; the Roman Catholic Church, both its “regular” and “secular” branches; encomienda; Indian communities; and the patriarchal family. From around the mid-1600s, hacienda, generally accompanied by debt peonage, displaced encomienda as the principal institution governing land-labor relations between Spaniards and Indians, largely in consequence of steep population declines among Indians resulting from the ravages of epidemic diseases, which effectively rendered encomienda obsolete. Secular church’s power grows During the same period, the so-called secular church (the ecclesiastical hierarchy emanating from Rome, with the pope at its head) grew in power relative to the regular church (composed of quasi-independent missionary or “mendicant” orders such as the Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, Jesuits, and others, each governed by specific reglas or rules). This growing power of the secular church, densely entwined with the colonial state, was especially apparent in the most densely populated core regions, while the missionary orders remained strong in the colony’s peripheral zones, such as Yucatán, the northern deserts, and elsewhere. The overall trend of the colonial period was for the regular church to initiate the process of conversion in peripheral areas, and, over time, as populations grew and the state extended its reach, to cede ecclesiastical authority to the encroaching secular church. Far from a monolithic institution, the colonial church was wracked by division and conflict, both within and between its major branches. By the end of the colonial period, the Roman Catholic Church, both regular and secular, was not only one of the colony’s most important social institutions, but also far and away its largest landowner. Contrary to a popularly held view, surviving Indian communities in New Spain and elsewhere retained various forms of collective (or “corporate”) landownership throughout the colonial period. This too became a crucial colonial legacy, especially evident in liberal efforts to privatize landownership in the decades after independence in 1821, efforts fiercely resisted by both the church and Indian communities. Industry The Basin of Mexico became and remained the colony’s breadbasket and major source of grain, meat, and other foodstuffs, as well as domestic industry such as obrajes, with expanding market relations especially important in the fertile and well-watered zones north and west of Mexico City. In the 1540s, the discovery of large depos- 276 New Spain, Viceroyalty of (Mexico) its of silver northwest of the Basin of Mexico, centered on the province of Zacatecas, provided the colonial state with a steady supply of silver bullion, fueling a price revolution in Iberia and the rest of Europe and transforming the regional colonial economies of Zacatecas, Guanajuato, and other mining regions. By the mid-1600s, the sprawling colony sank into what one scholar dubbed “New Spain’s century of depression,” though the nature and extent of that “depression” remain the subject of scholarly debate. Compared to the thriving colonies of British North America and elsewhere, however, New Spain did experience a prolonged period of relative economic stagnation. The imperial state’s efforts to redress its colonies’ relative economic decline, launched after the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–13), are known collectively as the Bourbon Reforms, named after the ruling dynasty that assumed power in Spain after the fall of the Habsburgs. In a process similar to that unfolding elsewhere in the Americas, as time passed, the “creoles” (or criollos, i.e., Spaniards born in the Americas) became an increasingly important and powerful group, despite its relatively small size—a gradual shift that by the late 1700s led to a growing sense of American identity and the first stirrings for independence from Spain. Indian and “mixed-race” rebellions and uprisings occurred throughout the colonial period, but most remained local and regional and focused on redress of specific grievances relating to colonial governance or perceived abuses by individual authorities. demographics The demographic makeup of the colony changed markedly over time, from its initial overwhelming preponderance of Indians and tiny number of Spaniards, to steep Indian population decline, to increasing number of mestizos and others of “mixed race,” Africans, and a small but growing number of creoles. New Spain’s population at the end of the colonial period is estimated at around 6 million—around 50 percent Indian, 30 to 40 percent “mixed race,” 10 to 20 percent Spanish and creole, and less than 1 percent African. In sum, 300 years of colonial rule left a profound and lasting legacy across New Spain, in every realm of society. Grappling with the nature of that legacy remains one of the most challenging and central tasks facing scholars of postconquest Mexico and Central America. See also Aztecs (Mexica); Dominicans in the Americas; epidemics in the Americas; Franciscans in the Americas; Habsburg dynasty; honor ideology in Latin America; Loyola, Ignatius of, and the Society of Jesus; race and racism in the Americas; silver in the Americas. Further reading. Bakewell, Peter. Silver Mining and Society in Colonial Mexico: Zacatecas, 1546–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971; Cook, Sherburne F., and Woodrow Borah. Essays in Population History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971–79; Farriss, Nancy M. Maya Society under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Survival. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984; Hu-Dehart, Evelyn. Missionaries, Miners, and Indians: Spanish Contact with the Yaqui Nation of Northwestern New Spain, 1533–1820. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1981; Seed, Patricia. To Love, Honor, and Obey in Colonial Mexico: Conflicts over Marriage and Choice, 1574–1821. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988; Taylor, William B. Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1972; Van Young, Eric. Hacienda and Market in 18th-Century Mexico: The Rural Economy of the Guadalajara Region, 1675–1820. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Michael J. Schroeder Newton, Isaac (1642–1727) mathematician Isaac Newton was born in 1642 at Woolsthorpe, near Grantham, Lincolnshire, England, three months after his father, yeoman farmer Isaac, died. Newton’s mother, Hannah Ayscough, married the Reverend Barnabas Smith and left Newton with his grandparents at age three. He grew up to hate his stepfather and never psychologically recovered from his mother’s abandonment. By the time Smith died in 1653, Newton’s personality had been forged; he became distrustful, hesitant in dealing with others, and emotionally unstable; these would be lifelong traits. Newton attended day school in the nearby village and the Kings’s Grammar School at Grantham. He worked on his mother’s farm at age 14 but returned to school in 1660 to prepare for entrance to Trinity College at Cambridge University in 1661. His mother refused to pay his tuition so Newton served as a subsizar, who performed a variety of jobs for fellow students. Newton did not distinguish himself at Cambridge, but he privately studied and mastered the esteemed works of René Descartes and Euclid. Newton, Isaac 277 Dr. Isaac Barrow, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, became his mentor and brought out Newton’s genius. Avoiding the Plague Newton returned to his mother’s farm to avoid the plague rampant in Cambridge from 1665 to 1666. Without access to his books, Newton discovered differential calculus, which he called “direct and inverse method of fluxions,” and expansions into infinite series. He used common arithmetical elements to make them universals. Newton also queried the nature of gravity but realized his experiments required more work and left the problem until 1685. Upon his return to Cambridge in 1667, Newton was shown the work of Nikolaus Mercator (1620–87), who had recently published Logarithmotechnia. This contained some of the methods Newton had used while experimenting on the farm. Newton showed Barrow his own ideas, and this work was published as De analysi per aequationes numero terminorum inifitas in 1711. After painstaking experiments in 1668, Newton discovered the spectrum, which he deduced was white light made up of colored lights when exposed to a transparent medium. This idea led Newton to perfect a reflecting telescope in 1668; it was six inches long and could magnify 30 times. Prior to Newton’s telescope, only refracting telescopes were used. Barrow resigned from Cambridge, and Newton obtained the Lucasian Chair in 1669 at age 27 after he earned a master’s degree. He presented lectures on optics that were not published until 1728. By this time, Newton’s work was noticed by such scientific luminaries as Robert Hooke, Christiaan Huygens, James Gregory, and Sir Christoper Wren among others. Newton became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1671. Controversy erupted over claims by Hooke, who was a powerhouse at the Royal Society, that he was first to invent the “pocket tube” (telescope) in 1664. Gregory the Scot claimed he had discovered calculus. Newton removed himself from the controversy and only published his work Opticks in 1704 after Hooke died. Newton suffered a mental breakdown in 1675; it took him four years to recover. He then found mathematical proof of planetary ellipses around the Sun. Hooke had also realized these laws but failed to prove them. Edmund Halley (1656–1742), the astronomer and mathematician, met with Newton in 1684. Halley urged him to publish his findings and financed the book entitled Philosphiae naturalis principia mathematica, better known as Principia, which included his three laws of motion. The third book of Principia appeared in 1687 and turned the natural sciences upside down. Newton’s theories were taught at Edinburgh by his disciple David Gregory and Cartesian theory was dropped at Cambridge and Oxford; the French would not accede to Newton’s theories until 50 years later. Newton grew tired of life at Cambridge, so he embarked on a career of public service in 1687. He became a member of Parliament for Cambridge University in 1689. He had another nervous breakdown in 1696. Upon recovering, Newton accepted the job of warden of the Mint in London. He was promoted to master in 1699 and revised Britain’s coinage. Newton was reelected to Parliament in 1701 but soon lost interest in the position. He became president of the Royal Society in 1703, a position to which he was reelected for 25 years. He was a tyrannical and autocratic president who had favorites and made life torturous for those who dared to disagree with him. Queen Anne knighted him in 1705. controversies Newton was engaged in two major scientific controversies. The first was from 1705 to 1712 with Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed (1646–1719), whose notes Newton conspired to publish against Flamsteed’s wishes. The second was from 1704 to 1724 with Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646–1726), a German mathematician. Leibniz claimed he had discovered calculus before 278 Newton, Isaac Reproduction of rough sketch by Isaac Newton showing a reflecting telescope and its components Newton. It has been proved that Newton discoverd calculus first but did not publish it, while Leibniz did. Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli (1667–1748), who mastered calculus, sent Newton problems they believed no one could solve in months, yet he solved them within hours. As Newton aged, he spent time rewriting his notes. He had written over 1 million words on fourth- and fifth-century c.e. church history and on the Bible that were never published. His focus was to date biblical events using his mathematical calculations. Newton died in London on March 31, 1727, after suffering through numerous infirmities and various illnesses. He received a magnificent funeral and is buried in Westminster Abbey, London. See also Copernicus, Nicolaus; Galileo Galilei; scientific revolution. Further reading: Christianson, G. E. In the Presence of Creation: Isaac Newton and His Times. New York: Free Press, 1984; Cohen, I. Bernard. The Newtonian Revolution: With Illustrations of the Transformation of Scientific Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980; Fauvel, J. R. Flood, M. Shortland, and R. Wilson, eds. Let Newton Be! Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995; Hall, A. R. Isaac Newton: Adventurer in Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996; Westfall, Richard S. Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Annette Richardson northwestern South America, conquest of Before the Spanish invasions of the early 16th century, the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean littoral of northern South America were divided into a number of polities and a host of ethnolinguistic groups. Their states and material culture were not as advanced as those in highland Peru or Mexico, so the native peoples of this variegated land had no large cities, used stone tools, produced fine gold work and pottery, and cultivated potatoes, quinoa, maize, beans, squash, and many fruits and vegetables, combined with hunting, gathering, and fishing. Native populations are estimated to have been in the millions. One major population center was in the mountain valleys surrounding present-day Bogotá and extending northeast to the coast near present-day Caracas, the homeland of the Muisca or Chibcha peoples, divided into two large confederations. Other villages, settlements, and communities were spread across the region. The first European contacts with the region came in 1498 when the third expedition of Christopher Columbus skirted the Venezuelan coast. Over the next two decades, Spanish encounters with the local inhabitants consisted of slave raiding and trading expeditions. The most important consequence of these early encounters was the implantation of deadly European diseases, which rapidly spread west across Colombia and south into the Andes, causing millions of deaths. By the late 1520s, only a few small permanent settlements had been established between the isthmus of Panama and the mouth of the Orinoco River. In 1528, Charles V contracted with the Wesler banking house of Ausburg for exploration and settlement of the mountainous region of Venezuela and Colombia. After six expeditions inland, the Wesler incursions found no large cities and very little gold. Nor did they found any towns, while committing many abuses against the natives. In 1548, the Crown cancelled the contract. In 1530, two years after the Wesler agreement, Diego de Ordas, a former captain of Hernán Cortés, received royal authority to explore the Orinoco Basin, whose mouth lay far to the east of the northern Andes. His expedition of some 600 Spaniards also ended in failure. In 1535, the discovery of golden objects in native tombs prompted further Spanish interest in the region. Several expeditions followed. The most important was led by Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada, who in 1536 led his 800-strong force up the Magdalena Valley. By the time he reached the Chibcha settlements, fewer than 200 of his men survived. Subjugation of the zone took more than a year, as native arrows, slings, and clubs once again proved no match for Spanish horses and steel. Combining warfare and threats with diplomacy and subterfuge, by 1538 Quesada had largely subdued the Chibcha. The loot proved substantial: some 150,000 pesos of gold, hundreds of emeralds, and other precious objects, divided unevenly among Quesada and his men, the governor of Santa Marta, and the Crown. Toward the end of the Chibcha campaign, two other expeditions converged on the zone: a Weslerfinanced expedition led by Nikolaus Federmann and the remnant of the Andean force of Sebastián de Benalcázar, leader of the Quito expedition under Francisco Pizarro in the Conquest of Peru. Quesada called the region New Granada and founded a northern South America, conquest of 279 town, Santa Fé de Bogotá, on the site of the former Chibcha capital. Meanwhile, most of the interior lay unexplored. A final series of expeditions took place in the 1540s and 1550s, most in search of the mythical kingdom of El Dorado. The year 1541 saw three such efforts: one headed by Gonzalo Pizarro, another by Hernán Pérez de Quesada (brother of Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada), and a third by Philip von Hutten, the last of the Welser explorers. Benalcázar followed in 1543. All ended in failure. One result of this string of failed expeditions was the journey and journal of Francisco de Orellana, one of Gonzalo Pizarro’s lieutenants, who floated down the Amazon River to its mouth. A final expedition in 1559 under Pedro de Ursúa ended in mutiny and a failed rebellion against the Spanish Crown under commoner Lope de Aguirre. Caracas was founded in 1567, while the region did not become a viceroyalty (the largest colonial-era political jurisdiction, as in Mexico and Peru) until the Crown created the Viceroyalty of New Granada, with its capital at Santa Fe de Bogotá, in 1739.Throughout the colonial period, Spanish, Dutch, and English settlements in the region were limited mainly to the Caribbean littoral and the northwestern Andes, while vast areas of the interior remained terra incognita and outside the orbit of European control. See also Caribbean, conquest of the; Central America, conquest of. Further reading: Calero, Luis Fernando. Chiefdoms under Siege: Spain’s Rule and Native Adaptation in the Southern Colombian Andes, 1535–1700. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997; Hemming, John. The Search for El Dorado. London: Michael Joseph, 1978; Markham, Sir Clements. The Conquest of New Granada. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1971. Michael J. Schroeder Nurhaci (Nurhachi) (1559–1626) Manchu tribal chief, dynastic founder Nurhaci was given the posthumous title Taizu (T’aitzu), which means “grand ancestor,” because of his role in lifting his people from obscurity and giving them the military and political organization that would culminate in his grandson’s becoming the first emperor of the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in China. The people who later called themselves Manchus were Jurchen nomads descended from the Jurchens who founded the Jin (Chin) dynasty that ruled northern China between 1115 and 1234. Early in the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), the Jurchens lived in southern Manchuria amid agricultural Han Chinese. The Ming government divided the region into three commanderies (provinces), encouraged agriculture among all the population, and held the tribal chief of the non-Han people accountable to the commanders appointed by the court. The Ming government also fixed tribal territories and controlled the succession of the chiefs, who rendered tribute at court at regulated intervals. As Ming power weakened in the late 16th century, so did its control over the tribes, enabling the Jurchens to consolidate into a tribal-feudal state. Nurhaci was a minor tribal chief in the Jianzhou (Chienchow) commandery. He knew Chinese and traveled to Beijing (Peking) on tribute missions. Early in his career he waged war against and defeated other Jurchen chiefs expanding his power. In 1599, he had a new alphabet created for writing Jurchen (the Jin had created a writing system that died with the dynasty). In 1601, he created a “banner system” for organizing his military, loosely based on the Ming frontier military system called the wei, which militarized the Jurchens into a war machine. All Jurchen men were grouped into eight banners, which Nurhaci, his relatives, and allies commanded. The banners also functioned as rudimentary administrative units that controlled taxation, conscription, and mobilization. Its members farmed in peacetime, and its men were called up to arms when needed. With success in war, conquered lands were granted to the banners and the original cultivators became serfs to the banners; however the land allotments were not granted in cohesive units to prevent regionalism. Thus the banner system also became the nucleus of a bureaucratic state. Because the captives became bondservants and serfs, bannermen were able to focus on military duties. In 1616, Nurhaci announced the creation of a state called the Later Jin, proclaimed himself its “heavendesignated emperor,” and renounced allegiance to the Ming. He was successful in capturing important cities in Manchuria, including Liaoyang and Shenyang (Mukden), where he established his capital and welcomed defecting and captured Ming officials to join his government. Nurhaci was wounded in an unsuccessful battle against the Ming in 1626 and died as a result later that year. Nurhaci was a talented leader who transformed his tribal people and organized them into a frontier state, in part by adopting Chinese techniques and methods 28 0 Nurhaci of administration. He capitalized on the problems of a weakening Ming dynasty to build the foundations that would enable his descendants to rule all China. See also Ming dynasty, late; Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty, rise and zenith. Further reading: Elliott, Mark C. The Manchu Way, The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001; Michael, Franz. The Origin of Manchu Rule in China, Frontier and Bureaucracy as Interacting Forces in the Chinese Empire. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1942; Peterson, Willard J., ed. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 9, Part One: The Ch’ing Empire to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Nzinga Mbandi (1580–1663) African military strategist and leader Between 1623 and 1663, Nzinga Mbandi, the Muhongo Matamba of what is modern-day Angola, led her people in major revolts against the Portuguese and served alternately as a valuable ally and a fearsome enemy to neighboring kingdoms. Nzinga, who was also known as Jinga, Singa, and Zhinga, was an excellent military strategist. Her sisters served as commanding officers in Nzinga’s army, which also included a number of other women warriors. Several women also served in Nzinga’s cabinet. Above all, Nzinga was a pragmatist who knew when to attack and when to ally herself with stronger forces. The Muhongo Matamba was fiercely protective of her own territory, but she was also willing to suspend battling with neighboring monarchs over disputed territory when she deemed it necessary to join forces. Despite her loyalty to her own people, Nzinga had no compunctions in advancing the slave trade by selling other Africans from remote areas. Nzinga unsuccessfully joined forces with the Dutch to try to oust the Portuguese from southern Africa. Port uguese invasion In 1576, the Portuguese invaded Luanda, a remote but strategically important area of southern Africa, and began extending their reach into surrounding areas. Initially the Ngondo people repelled the Portuguese advance but were ultimately overwhelmed by brutal Imbangala warriors who attacked from the rear. The Imbangala, like the Portuguese, viewed the Ngondo as an obstacle to establishing of a trade route on the coast and to the wealth generated by foreign trade. Over the following century, the Mdongo continued to lose ground, but the rise of Queen Nzinga in 1663 proved to be a turning point in the history of the area. Using her gift for military strategizing that had been fostered by observing the military advances of her neighbors and the guns and gunpowder procured through her trading partners, Nzinga retreated from the contested area and traveled inland, where she laid claim to Matamba, which was in a vulnerable state after the death of its sovereign. In Matamba, Nzinga founded a new state and extended her territory into nearby Luanda in the Kongo. She subsequently announced ownership of ngola a kiluanji, but the right to rule both this area and Luanda continued to be hotly contested. Nzinga developed Matamba as a major trading center, focused on long-distance slave trading. To cut down on competition, she also blocked the trading route that had developed in Kasanji in Luanda. In the past, Queen Nzinga had paid tribute to the Kongo kingdom in exchange for European goods. By the end of the 16th century, however, Nzinga broke all ties with the Kongo and began exchanging gifts with ngola a kiluanji out of her desire to establish a more direct slave-trading route to the coast. At the same time, Nzinga gave the kambole, her chief consort, permission to launch a series of campaigns that broadened the reach of her kingdom. In response to a new conflict between Luanda and ngola a kiluanji, the ever-practical Nzinga chose to support ngola a kiluanji. Her support included dispatching her considerable forces to Mbaka, where they succeeded in routing the Portuguese. By 1591, Nzinga and ngola a kiluanji had strengthened their position against the Portuguese by joining forces with Caculo, a neighboring warlord. However, as the war progressed, Nzinga determined that her interests were better served by selling slaves directly to the Portuguese via the chiefdom of Ndembu. By 1641, Nzinga was exporting 12,000–13,000 slaves a year. She also became extremely adept at siphoning off slaves bound for other trading routes. Dutch and Port uguese deals In 1641, Nzinga joined forces with Garcia II, who had declared himself the king of Luanda, and with other neighboring kingdoms to repel a Dutch invasion. Over the course of the next year, however, Garcia decided that the Portuguese constituted a greater threat to independence and determined to oust them Nzinga Mbandi 28 1 by allying himself with the invaders. Ultimately, however, the Dutch undercut Garcia and his African allies by negotiating a treaty with Portugal. This treaty fell apart after several local revolts broke out, but the Dutch continued to seek cooperation with Portugal, which controlled essential access to slave trading routes. As long as the Dutch had controlled Luanda, Nzinga’s slave-trading route had been blocked, despite repeated efforts to establish trading relations with the Europeans. Consequently, Nzinga again allied herself with Garcia, even though both claimed ownership of Matamba and ngola a kiluanji. In fall 1643, in an effort to bypass the Portuguese blockade of her slave trade, Nzinga led a troop of some 80,000 bowmen into the Kongo kingdom along the upper Dande. With the aid of the Ndembu and 100 Dutch troops, Nzinga overwhelmed the Kiteshi Kandambi, who attempted to stop her. Aghast at her encroachment, Garcia lobbied the Dutch for help in preventing Nzinga from laying claim to additional territory. Ultimately, however, he came to believe that Nzinga’s goodwill was more important than that of the Dutch, who had signed a new treaty with the Portuguese. In 1645, Nzinga’s forces were defeated by the Portuguese, who followed up their triumph by invading Luanda. Queen Nzinga subsequently announced that she was old and tired of making war. She set out to rescue Barbara, her sister and heir, who had been imprisoned in Luanda. Nzinga’s efforts to negotiate her sister’s release were unsuccessful, and she threatened to settle the issue by military force. Instead, a shaky alliance was negotiated. Twice over the next few years, Nzinga further extended her territory by invading neighboring kingdoms and enslaving their inhabitants. She died three years later at the age of 83. See also Kongo kingdom of Africa; slave trade, Africa and the. Further reading: Birmingham, David. The Mbundu and Their Neighbors: Under the Influence of the Portuguese, 1483–1700. New York: Oxford, 1966; Friedman, Kajsa Ekholm. Catastrophe and Creation: The Transformation of an African Culture. Philadelphia: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1991; Hilton, Anne. The Kingdom of Kongo. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985; Iliffe, John. Africans: The History of a Continent. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995; Miller, Joseph C. “Nzinga of Matomba in a New Perspective.” Journal of African History 11 (1995); Ogot, B. A. General History of Africa. Volume V: Africa from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Elizabeth Purdy

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900

Naoroji, Dadabhai (1825–1917) Indian nationalist Dadabhai Naoroji, known as the Grand Old Man of India, was a leading Indian nationalist and critic of the British economic exploitation of India. He was born into a Parsi (Zoroastrian) family in Bombay. The Parsi had fl ed Persia in the seventh century to avoid forcible conversion to Islam and established a colony in Bombay where they prospered through trade with the British and Portuguese. This background was helpful to Naoroji, as he spent much of his adult life in Great Britain and established the fi rst Indian business fi rm in that country. He was also the fi rst Indian (in fact, the fi rst Asian) to be elected to the British parliament. When taking his seat he was allowed to swear on a book of Avesta (Zoroastrian scripture) instead of the Bible. Naoroji was educated in mathematics and natural science at Elphinstone College and taught there before moving to Great Britain in 1855. In Britain he worked as a businessman and was involved in politics and also became a professor of Gujurati at University College, London. Naoroji continued to travel between Britain and India and remained active in Indian politics, serving as the prime minister of Baroda state (an Indian princely state) and as a member of the legislative council of Bombay. Naoroji founded the Indian National Association, which later merged with the Indian Nation Congress (INC) and served three times as president of the INC. Naoroji was a tenacious critic of British economic policy in India. He developed the drain theory, which charged that Britain was draining money and resources from India to Britain. To amass evidence for this theory, he examined import and export fi gures for India for 37 years and demonstrated that there was an annual discrepancy of about $135 million in favor of Britain. Although economic exploitation of colonies was a common practice at the time (indeed opportunity for such exploitation was a principal reason why countries acquired colonies), Naoroji continued to write and speak against it, appealing to the British self-image as a nation that engaged in “fair play.” Naoroji died in 1917, but left a legacy of infl uence that touched such great Indian fi gures as Mahatma Gandhi. Further reading: Ambirajan, S. “Dadabhai Naoroji: The First Economist of Modern India.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, Vol. 16, 1998; Cumpston, Mary. “Some Early Indian Nationalists and their Allies in the British Parliament, 1851–1906.” English Historical Review 76 (1961); Naoroji, Dadabhai. Speeches and Writings of Dadabhai Naoroji. Madras: G.A. Natesan, 1906; Ganguli, Birendranath. Dadabhai Naoroji and the Drain Theory. Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1965; Schneer, Jonathan. “Dadabhai Naoroji and the Search for Respect,” in London 1900: The Imperial Metropolis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999. Sarah Boslaugh N Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte) (1769–1821) French emperor and military leader Napoleon Bonaparte is regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in history, changing the map of Europe and developing new laws, civil codes, and educational systems that continue to the present day. He is recognized as one of the most famous men in history, being the subject of countless biographies, with one writer suggesting that only Jesus and Adolf Hitler have had more biographical studies written about them. Napoleone Buonaparte, as his name was known in Italian, was born on August 15, 1769, at Ajaccio, Corsica, shortly after the island was ceded to France by Genoa. He was the fourth child, and the second surviving one, of Carlo Buonaparte, a lawyer, and his wife, Letizia (née Ramolino). The Buonapartes were descended from Tuscan nobility who had moved to Corsica in the 16th century, with Carlo Buonaparte marrying his wife when she was 14. In an interesting twist, Carlo Buonaparte disliked the idea of French rule over Corsica and joined the nationalist resistance movement of Pasquale Paoli. When Paoli fl ed after his defeat at the Battle of Ponte Novo on May 8, 1769, ending Corsica’s brief experience of independence, the Buonapartes made an accommodation with the French, and Carlo became the assessor for the judicial district of Ajaccio in 1771. Seven years later, he managed to get his eldest two sons, Joseph and Napoleon, into the Collège d’Autun. Napoleon was nine years old. EDUCATION AND EARLY CAREER Although Napoleon Bonaparte was a Corsican by birth and ancestry, in later life he never felt a huge affi nity for the island; indeed he only visited it once after his rise to power. After the Collège d’Autun, Bonaparte spent fi ve years at the Brienne Military College and then a year at the military academy in Paris. While he was at the military academy his father died, on February 24, 1785, leaving the family in diffi cult fi nancial straits. Bonaparte graduated in September ranked 42nd in a class of 58, having assumed the position as head of the family, although he was not the oldest son. Bonaparte had become interested in mathematics and science. His fi rst military posting was as a second lieutenant in the artillery, being sent to Valence. There he became extremely interested in military strategy, writing his fi rst book, Lettres sur la Corse, which expressed some of his early feelings for the island of his birth. He returned to Corsica soon afterward and in June 1788 rejoined his regiment. By this time he had also become fascinated by many of the ideas of the Enlightenment, especially those of Rousseau and Voltaire. With the calling of the National Assembly in Paris in 1789, Pasquale Paoli had been allowed to return to Corsica, and Bonaparte wanted to go and join him. The Corsican nationalist, however, was upset that Bonaparte’s father had deserted his cause, and Bonaparte returned to France, where, in April 1791, he was appointed fi rst lieutenant of the 4th Regiment of Artillery at Valence. He also became active in politics, joining the Jacobin Club. However, his emotional attachment was still with Corsica, and he returned there but had a falling out with Paoli, returning to metropolitan France, where he had been briefl y listed as a deserter. In April 1792 war with Austria broke out, and Bonaparte’s skills were needed by the artillery. Although he was promoted to captain, Bonaparte went back to Corsica yet again. There he sided with the Corsican Jacobins who were trying to prevent Paoli from getting Corsica to break away and become independent. Condemned by Paoli, the entire Buonaparte family fl ed to the French mainland, adopting the spelling “Bonaparte.” Bonaparte went to Nice, where the Jacobins had gradually come to dominate the republican movement. The monarchy had been abolished, and Bonaparte went to Marseille with his soldiers from the National Convention. To get to Marseille, he took them to Toulon, where he was appointed commander of the National Convention’s artillery with the support of Antoine Saliceti, who was also from Corsica and a longtime family friend. In September Bonaparte was promoted to major and in October became adjutant general. He was involved in fi ghting at Toulon in December and forced the British troops there to evacuate the city. On December 22, 1793, at age 24, Bonaparte became a brigadiergeneral, one of the youngest generals in modern history, a feat subsequently bettered only by Francisco Franco. AFTER THE FRENCH REVOLUTION When Maximilien Robespierre fell from power in Paris in July 1794, Bonaparte was arrested on a charge of conspiracy and treason. As a Jacobin, Bonaparte had been seen as a follower of Robespierre, and even though he managed to get his freedom, he was not restored to his command but, instead, in March 1795, he was sent to La Vendée, where he was placed in command of the artillery of the Army of the West. Bonaparte was unhappy at the demotion and sought military preferment and even considered, albeit briefl y, leaving France 294 Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte) altogether and serving under the sultan of the Ottoman Empire. However, Bonaparte decided to stay, and with a new constitution being introduced, royalists hoped that they would be able to seize power in Paris. The National Convention was worried but felt that they could trust Bonaparte. He was placed second in command of the troops in Paris and used them to shoot hundreds of royalists who were trying to storm the National Convention. This move earned him the gratitude of the politicians, and he was hailed as the savior of the French republic. He was immediately appointed commander of the army of the interior and an adviser to the Directory, as the new government was called. It was during this period that Napoleon met Josephine Tascher de la Pagerie, the widow of General Alexandre de Beauharnais, who had been executed during the Reign of Terror. She was from Martinique in the Caribbean, and Bonaparte fell in love with her. Bonaparte was then involved in cracking down on a protocommunist conspiracy launched by François Babeuf and sought to get command of the Army of Italy, the French army that was about to invade the Italian Peninsula. Filippo Buonarroti, an Italian who had known Bonaparte in Corsica, was appointed commander in chief of the Army of Italy in March 1796. It was a great disappointment for Bonaparte, who married Josephine on March 9 and two days later had to leave home to lead the army on March 11. RISE TO MILITARY PROMINENCE When Bonaparte took command of his soldiers in Nice, he found that there were only 30,000 soldiers instead of the 43,000 he had been promised. Their morale was low, as they had been badly fed and not paid properly. He managed to turn them around and inspire them in battle. At Lodi he was fi rst given the nickname le petit caporal (the little corporal). In early 1797 Bonaparte led his men to victory over the Austrians, forcing them to evacuate Lombardy. He then crushed the troops of the Papal States but decided against following up the order from Paris to dethrone the pope. As it was, Pius VI, who had condemned the execution of Louis XVI, was to die in French captivity in the following year. Bonaparte invaded Austria and forced the Austrians to sign the Treaty of Campo Formio. This gave France control of the Low Countries (modern-day Belgium and the Netherlands) and also northern Italy and the Rhineland. Bonaparte then captured the city of Venice and forcing the abdication of the doge, Lodovico Manin, on May 12, 1797, ending its independence, and reorganized the map of Europe to create the pro-French Cisalpine Republic in northern Italy. Bonaparte had taken 160,000 prisoners and had captured 2,000 cannons and 170 standards. In March 1798 Bonaparte suggested putting together a military expedition to seize Egypt, then a part of the Ottoman Empire. The Directory were worried about the cost of this expedition but happy that it would take Napoleon a long way from France. On his way to Egypt, the French captured Malta on June 9, 1798, but were unable to find the great treasure they had expected to find. On July 1, the French reached Alexandria, after eluding the British navy. In the Battle of the Pyramids, fought some four miles from the pyramids, a French force of 25,000 held off 100,000 Egyptians. By the end of the battle, the French had lost 300 men, and the Egyptians had lost 6,000. However, although the French were successful on land, the British under Admiral Horatio Nelson attacked the French at sea and destroyed the French navy. Napoleon then moved into Palestine and Syria, where the French captured Gaza, Jaffa, and Haifa. They killed large numbers of people in these attacks, but the French army itself was badly weakened. RISE TO POWER Bonaparte had his eye on developments at home, and on August 29, 1799, he suddenly left the Middle East for France. In October he returned to Paris, where people were beginning to be dissatisfi ed with the Directory. Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès, one of the members of the Directory, asked whether Bonaparte would support a coup d’état. On November 9 (18 Brumaire of the revolutionary calendar), Bonaparte led his soldiers into the Legislative Assembly and ejected the members, and Bonaparte, Sieyès, and Roger Ducos were declared the three provisional consuls. Sieyès hoped to run the new government but Bonaparte who had drafted a new constitution managed to make himself the First Consul, and then the First Consul for life. There was no mention in the new constitution of “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” The Consulate was a period when Bonaparte tried to introduce many long-lasting reforms, a number of which continue to the present day. In 1801 he negotiated the Concordat with the Roman Catholic Church, leading to a reconciliation between the church and the state. He also introduced the Napoleonic Code, whereby legal experts reformulated the entire legal system, codifying criminal and civil laws. There was also a meritocratic system by which Bonaparte himself Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte) 295 appointed ministers, members of the Council of State, generals, and civil servants. It profoundly changed the nature of France forever. CONQUEST OF EUROPE While this was taking place, Bonaparte returned to Italy, which had been taken back by the Austrians while he had been preoccupied in Egypt. He entered Italy leading his men across the Alps, through the Great St. Bernard Pass. He met the Austrians at the Battle of Marengo and in one of his fi nest battles victory was eventually his. The Treaty of Lunéville of February 1801 not only confi rmed the Treaty of Campo Formio but also extended French control. France was extended to cover the frontiers chosen by Julius Caesar in his creation of Gaul: the Pyrenees, the Alps, and the River Rhine. The Treaty of Amiens in March 1802 resulted in peace between the British and the French. The British withdrew some soldiers, but there was a disagreement over Malta, with Britain, in support of French royalists, declaring war on France in 1803. The French had used the period to sell the French possessions in North America to the United States. The Louisiana Purchase resulted in the United States’s doubling in size after paying less than 3 cents per acre. In January 1804 Bonaparte discovered that the royalists were plotting his assassination. He sent his soldiers several miles over the French border into the German state of Baden, where the duc d’Enghien from the house of Bourbon was seized and brought back to France. He was quickly tried and then shot. By this time Napoleon seemed to have decided to confi rm himself in power by becoming an emperor, and the Empire was proclaimed on May 28, 1804. On December 2 at Notre-Dame de Paris, the imperial regalia was blessed by the pope, and Napoleon then crowned himself and Josephine. On May 26, 1805, in Milan Cathedral, he was crowned king of Italy. There were no major changes in the way France was run, except that succession was not hereditary, and some princely titles were handed out to members of his family, with an imperial nobility created in 1808. Napoleon was involved in fi ghting the British from 1803 until 1805, hoping to be able to land troops on the British mainland. Initially the French moved many troops to Boulogne but they did not have control of the sea, which had prevented their previous planned attack in 1798. The French managed to persuade the Spanish to declare war on the British, with the hope that the Franco-Spanish fl eet might be a match for the British. However, on October 21, 1805, at the Battle of Trafalgar, the British under Admiral Horatio Nelson defeated the Franco-Spanish fl eet, ending any real chance of an invasion of the British Isles. Nelson himself was killed in the battle despite the Royal Navy’s victory. With his failure at sea, the French decided to attack Austria again, and on November 13, 1805, Napoleon led his men into Vienna, the Austrian capital. On December 2 he defeated the combined Austrian and Russian forces at the Battle of Austerlitz, one of his greatest victories. The Treaty of Pressburg saw the Austrians give up all claims to infl uence in Italy and also cede Venetia and Dalmatia (Croatia) to the French, as well as giving land in Germany to France’s ally Bavaria. In July 1806 Napoleon established the Confederation of the Rhine, placing western Germany under French protection and control. Napoleon then turned his attention to the Prussians, and he defeated them at the Battles of Jena and Auerstädt. He then defeated the Russians at Eylau, and took the city of Warsaw, where he met and fell in love with Countess Marie Walewska, a Polish woman who hoped that she might persuade Napoleon to re-create Poland. Soon after this the Russian czar Alexander I met with Napoleon at Tilsit in northern Prussia, and this summit led to the re-creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. Napoleon was developing his concept of the continental system that would strangle the British economy by forbidding Britain to export goods to any European country, and this in turn would result in mass unemployment, making Britain collapse from within. While most countries agreed to this, Portugal, Britain’s oldest ally, refused to cooperate, so Napoleon decided to invade Portugal. He sent General Junot against the Portuguese, with Charles IV of Spain allowing French troops to go through his country. The French quickly captured Lisbon, and the Portuguese monarchy fl ed to Brazil. However, many Spanish were unhappy about the presence of French soldiers, and, Charles IV abdicated in favor of his son, who became Ferdinand VII. Napoleon saw this move as a perfect opportunity to remove the Spanish Bourbon family, and both Charles and Ferdinand, under pressure, abdicated. Napoleon put his brother Joseph Bonaparte on the throne of Spain. Although Spanish revolutionaries welcomed this, it was very unpopular in most of Spain and guerrilla war broke out. With the British aiding the Portuguese and now the Spanish royalists united under the command of Arthur Wellesley—later the fi rst duke of Wellington—the French started losing what became known as the Penin 296 Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte) sular War. Although Napoleon met with Czar Alexander I at the Congress of Erfurt from September to October 1808, the czar would give no fi rm commitment. However, it removed the prospect of war with Russia. Napoleon sent huge forces into Spain and was about to win the war when Austria attacked Bavaria. Napoleon had to send his armies against Austria, defeating them and forcing them to sign the Treaty of Schönbrunn on October 14, 1809. FIRST EXILE Napoleon was upset that Josephine had been unable to give him an heir, and he divorced her to marry Marie-Louise, the daughter of Austrian emperor Francis I. Their son was born on March 20, 1811, and was given the title the king of Rome. Napoleon was now at his most powerful. He controlled the French Empire, which included the Illyrian provinces, the Papal States, Tuscany, the Netherlands, and parts of Germany. It was surrounded by the Kingdom of Westphalia, ruled by his youngest brother, Jérôme Bonaparte; the Kingdom of Spain, ruled by older brother, Joseph Bonaparte; the Kingdom of Italy (ruled by Eugène de Beauharnais, Josephine’s son, as the viceroy); the Kingdom of Naples (ruled by Napoleon’s brother-in-law, Marshal Joachim Murat); and the Principality of Lucca and Piombino (ruled by another brother-in-law, Félix Bacciochi). With the Swiss Confederation linked to France by alliance, there were also two other French allies, the Confederation of the Rhine and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. With Napoleon’s marriage to Marie-Louise, Austria was also an ally. However, the fi ghting on the Iberian Peninsula continued, and in spring 1812, Napoleon moved his army to Poland to threaten Czar Alexander I of Russia. The Russians retreated, and Napoleon, intent on engaging them in battle, invaded Russia with 650,000 men. As the Russians retreated, the French were drawn further and further into Russia, with the French fi ghting an indecisive two-day battle at Borodino on September 7. A week later Napoleon entered Moscow, which had been abandoned by the Russians. However, a fi re broke out later the same day destroying much of the city, and Napoleon had to withdraw. Harassed by Russian soldiers, Cossacks, and others, by the time Napoleon’s troops left Russia, there were scarcely 10,000 men left. The Prussians and the Austrians suspected that the French army had been broken in Russia, and after a false report that Napoleon had died in Russia in October, morale declined. When Napoleon returned to Paris, he found France in a bad state, economically and militarily. He was still able to defeat the Russians and the Prussians, respectively, at the Battles of Lützen and Bautzen. Austria offered to allow the French to return to their original borders, but with the dissolution of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and the Confederation of the Rhine. The Prussians offered to return to the frontiers of 1805. Napoleon hesitated, and Austria declared war. At the Battle of Leipzig on October 16–19, 1813, known also as the Battle of Nations, the French forces were badly mauled. With the French facing defeat in Spain, Napoleon ordered his troops to return to France, and he faced his opponents who declared that their war was not against the French people but specifi cally against Napoleon himself. While Napoleon wanted to continue fi ghting, he was forced to accept the Treaty of Fontainebleau, whereby he abdicated and moved to the island of Elba with 400 guards and an annual income of 2 million francs. Napoleon bid Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte) 297 A portrait of Napoleon I at Fontainebleau in 1814. The emperor had “extended the boundaries of glory” for France. farewell to his old guard at Fontainbleau and went to Elba. Louis XVIII, brother of the executed Louis XVI, then became the king of France. RETURN TO FRANCE Although Napoleon was initially quite happy to reform the government of Elba, he soon became bored, and some of the French were upset at the Bourbon Restoration, with Louis XVIII effectively put into power by foreign countries. With Napoleon worried about being sent into a more remote exile and without his allowance, which was supposed to have been paid by the French government, Napoleon decided to risk everything on returning to France and trying to regain power. On March 1, 1815, he landed at Cannes with some guards and rapidly gained more and more support, reaching Paris on March 20. Louis XVIII announced that he would not hold the French command to their oaths of loyalty, in a great gesture to prevent a civil war, and Napoleon was back in power. Some of the men who had pressured Napoleon to abdicate at Fontainebleau and who had taken up appointments under Louis XVIII returned to support Napoleon, who magnanimously appointed Marshals Ney and Soult to senior command positions. The British and the Prussians were angered by Napoleon’s return to Paris and immediately massed armies in the Netherlands (modern-day Belgium). Louis XVIII had ended conscription, and Napoleon was eager not to reintroduce the draft, so he mustered as many soldiers as he could and then marched them into the Netherlands, where he defeated the Prussians at the Battle of Ligny on June 16, 1815. At the same time the French under Ney drove back the British at Quatre Bras. Napoleon then made a crucial mistake in detaching a third of his army to cut off the Prussians, whom he thought had fl ed eastward. In fact they soon found that they were following the Prussians of Field Marshal Gebhard von Blücher. When Napoleon and his soldiers met the British at Waterloo, Napoleon was ill but launched a series of attacks against the British lines before having to retire as his condition worsened. When he recovered, he found that the French cavalry had launched a number of futile charges against the British. He salvaged much of the situation by advancing the artillery. With the British forces driven back, and some of their allies having fl ed in disorder, Napoleon launched an all-out attack. However, at that moment the Prussians arrived on the battlefi eld, and the French were defeated, with Napoleon fl eeing back to France. He abdicated on June 22, 1815, and tried to make for the United States but eventually surrendered to the British, who decided to send him into exile on the remote South Atlantic island of St. Helena. EXILE ON ST. HELENA Napoleon spent the last six years of his life on St. Helena, where he wrote his memoirs and amused himself with his small number of followers who went with him into exile. He was well looked after but soon became ill. It has been suggested that he was poisoned by arsenic given off by his wallpaper and, alternatively, even more bizarrely, that he had developed female characteristics. It also seems that he might have succumbed to cancer. He died on May 5, 1821, on St. Helena and was buried there, although his body was repatriated to France in 1840 and lies in the Hôtel des Invalides in Paris. Many people have marveled at Napoleon’s military genius. He was a good tactician, but his strengths lay in campaigning strategies in which he often went into a war outnumbered by his opponents but was often able to match them on the battlefi eld. He also relied heavily on the artillery, most likely from his original background. His ability to risk much on single battles served him well until Borodino, with him making mistakes at both Leipzig and at Waterloo. At the latter battle he asked an aide how he would be remembered, and the man replied that Napoleon had “extended the boundaries of glory.” See also French Revolution; Napoleon III; Napoleonic conquest of Egypt. Further reading: Aronson, Theo. Napoleon and Josephine: A Love Story. London: John Murray, 1990; Cronin, Vincent. Napoleon. London: Collins, 1971; Kemble, James. Napoleon Immortal: The Medical History and Private Life of Napoleon Bonaparte. London: Murray, 1959; Ludwig, Emil. Napoleon. Garden City, N.Y.: Boni & Liveright, 1927; Weider, Ben, and Hapgood, David. Assassination at St. Helena Revisited. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982. Justin Corfi eld Napoleon III (Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte) (1808–1873) emperor of the French Louis-Napoleon was born on April 20, 1808, at the apogee of the empire of his uncle, Napoleon I. Louis- Napoleon was the son of Napoleon’s brother Louis, whom Napoleon had made the king of Holland, and 298 Napoleon III (Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte) Hortense de Beauharnais, the daughter of Josephine de Beauharnais. In April 1814 Napoleon I was forced to abdicate his throne, bringing to an end the Napoleonic adventure, except for the Hundred Days in 1815, when Napoleon suddenly won back his imperial crown only to lose it again permanently at the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815. With the fall of the Napoleonic empire and the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty in the person of King Louis XVIII, Louis-Napoleon found refuge with his mother in Switzerland and Germany. From an early age, Louis-Napoleon sought to emulate the martial glory of his uncle, and he joined the Swiss army, where he rose to the rank of captain. Louis-Napoleon was also animated with the revolutionary spirit that Napoleon and the French had brought across Europe. Following in his uncle’s bootsteps, Louis-Napoleon would become involved in the revolutionary ferment that swept Italy, once Austrian power had been reestablished following the defeat of Napoleon. In 1830 revolutions swept over Europe, in spite of the efforts of the Great Powers to end political liberalism after the defeat of Napoleon and his subsequent death in 1821. Louis-Napoleon became involved in the revolutionary ferment in Italy. In France, the last of the Bourbons, Charles X, was forced to abdicate in favor of Louis-Philippe, the “Citizen King.” Louis-Napoleon’s personal ambitions were given an unexpected boost with the death of Napoleon’s only son, Napoleon II, in the cholera epidemic of 1832. With the death of Napoleon II, Louis-Napoleon became the standard-bearer of the Napoleonic cause, and his political ambition gradually emerged to take the place of his illustrious uncle. He thus became a direct threat to the rule of Louis-Philippe in France. As a political conspirator for most of his adult life, Louis-Napoleon must have realized that France was still content under the reign of the “Citizen King.” Thus he lived the life of an English gentleman, biding his time for another chance at imperial glory. He had only two years to wait. In 1848, when liberal revolutions swept over Europe again, Louis- Philippe fell from power. The new provisional authorities gave Louis-Napoleon permission to settle in France. Presenting himself as a reformist candidate, Louis-Napoleon was elected to sit in the new assembly. However, it was soon evident he was not content with only that. Louis-Napoleon set about imprisoning his opponents and waging a coup d’état. Given the bloodiness of the Paris revolution of 1848, most Frenchman received Louis-Napoleon as their new emperor with a measure of relief, as an earlier generation had his uncle after the chaos of the French Revolution. Napoleon III, as he was now named, and his empress Eugénie attempted to bring to life again the glamour of the First Empire of his uncle, with the imperial eagles prominent in Paris again for the fi rst time since Napoleon I’s fi nal defeat at Waterloo in 1815. FOREIGN ADVENTURES Like Napoleon I, his nephew could not resist being drawn into foreign adventures. In 1854 Napoleon III entered the Crimean War to defend Turkey from Russian aggression. The idea of France and England being allies after the long Napoleonic Wars was a surprise for many on both sides. Together they helped bring about the Russian surrender at the Treaty of Paris in 1856. Remembering his earlier attempts to liberate Italy, in 1859 Napoleon III invaded Italy, where, allied with the Kingdom of Piedmont under Victor Emmanuel II, he was determined to break the hold of Austria on northern Europe, as his uncle had done in 1796–97. On June 24, 1859, the Austrians were defeated decisively at the Battle of Solferino, leading the way to the unifi cation of Italy under Victor Emmanuel. Henri Dunant, a Swiss, was so appalled by the suffering of the wounded on the battlefi eld that he took the initial steps that would lead to the foundation of today’s Red Cross and Red Crescent associations. However, the growing might of France alarmed the British and created a war scare that led to many volunteer regiments who feared Napoleon III would invade England. If Louis-Napoleon desired to imitate his imperial uncle in all things, he also did so by reaching beyond his ability. As Napoleon I was permanently weakened by his invasion of Spain in 1808, so too was Napoleon III by his adventure in Mexico. From 1857 to 1860 Mexico was embroiled in a civil war, which endangered the investments of foreign countries there. On October 31, 1861, England, France, and Spain occupied Mexican fortresses to guarantee repayment of Mexican debts. The new Mexican president, Benito Juárez, was compelled to agree. MEXICAN INTERESTS However, when England and Spain withdrew in April 1862, Napoleon III, taking advantage of the American Civil War, attempted to establish a Mexican empire ruled by the Austrian archduke Maximilian. Juárez was able to unite Mexico against the French occupiers, and the Mexicans never viewed Maximilian as more than Napoleon III (Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte) 299 Napoleon’s puppet. After four years of guerrilla war, Napoleon III was forced to evacuate Mexico in 1866 when the United States, with its civil war won, deployed a large army under General Phillip Sheridan on the border with Mexico. Maximilian, who did not leave with the French, was shot by a Mexican fi ring squad. Napoleon III was now confronted by the growth of Prussia, under the leadership of its chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was determined to unite Germany under Prussia’s king, Wilhelm I. In 1866, in a mere six weeks, Prussia defeated Austria, the only other real claimant to power in Germany. Napoleon III felt that a united Germany under Prussia represented a clear threat to France. The two countries fi nally clashed over Bismarck’s attempt to put a relative of the Prussian king on the throne of Spain. On July 19, 1870, Napoleon’s France declared war on Prussia and the North German states supporting it. In the war that followed Napoleon proved no match for the Prussian troops. He himself and Marshal MacMahon were surrounded at the fortress city of Sedan and forced to surrender to the Prussian army on September 1, 1870. Napoleon III was forced to undergo the humiliation of imprisonment at the hands of the Prussians, after which he was permitted to leave for exile in England in 1871. He would die there on January 9, 1873. Any hopes of a Bonapartist resurgence ended when his son, Louis Eugène, the prince imperial, was killed in a minor skirmish by Zulus as he accompanied British troops during the Zulu War of 1879. See also Mexico: from La Reforma to the Porfi riato (1855–1876). Further reading: Cronin, Vincent. Napoleon. New York: HarperCollins, 1995; Howard, Michael. Franco-Prussian War: The German Invasion of France 1870–1871. London: Routledge, 2001; Jordan, David. The History of the French Foreign Legion from 1831 to the Present Day. Guilford, CT: Lyons Press, 2005; Lefebvre, Georges. Napoleon. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970; Thorburn, W. A. French Army Regiments and Their Uniforms. London: Arms and Armour Press, 1976. John F. Murphy, Jr. Napoleonic conquest of Egypt Napoleon I’s 1798 expedition to Egypt aimed to increase French imperial holdings and to prevent British overland communications with Asia. The Directory agreed to the mission because the conquest of Egypt would be a victory for France, while Napoleon’s possible defeat would prevent him from further meddling in French politics. Consequently, a large armed force led by Napoleon set sail for Egypt in the spring of 1798 and took Malta on the way. The English navy under Nelson gave chase but failed to capture the French fl eet. The French landed in Egypt in July; in spite of the summer heat, Napoleon had his troops immediately march toward Cairo, where they defeated the local Mamluk forces at the Battle of the Pyramids. Styling himself as a “friend of Islam and Egypt,” Napoleon entered Cairo to establish French control. He established a local diwan, or council, with a few elite Egyptian members to act in a purely advisory capacity. Napoleon had also brought along a number of savants, or French scholars, to provide assistance to the occupation and to collect as much information as possible on all aspects of Egypt. However, rather than have it cruise in the open sea, Napoleon had instructed the French navy to lay anchor outside Alexandria, where it was soundly defeated by the English at Battle of Aboukir Bay. This left Napoleon’s troops at a distinct disadvantage in terms of reinforcements and supplies. They also faced a major insurrection in Cairo in the fall. The insurrection took the French by surprise and threatened their occupation of the city; however, within days the French had successfully crushed the rebellion. Seemingly undaunted by these setbacks, Napoleon continued his plans for the conquest of Greater Syria in 1799. He easily took the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, and Jaffa, but stalled in northern Palestine at Acre. The city was staunchly defended by Jazzar Pasha and the French troops were ill with malaria and other diseases brought on by the summer heat and lack of clean water and other provisions. With the loss of military momentum and hearing of troubles back in Paris, Napoleon abandoned his troops, most of whom died on the battlefi eld or on the retreat back to Egypt. Escaping capture by the British navy, Napoleon returned to France as a military hero and following a coup d’état became fi rst consul of the French government. General Kléber replaced Napoleon as commander in chief and under the Convention of El-Arish with the English in 1800, the French agreed to evacuate Egypt as soon as possible. But Kléber was assassinated in the 300 Napoleonic conquest of Egypt summer of 1800 by an Egyptian nationalist, Sulayman al-Halaby, who was then executed for the crime. General Menou, who had married an Egyptian woman, then took command, but he was highly unpopular with French troops. Menou then entered into protracted negotiations with the English regarding the terms of the French withdrawal. Negotiations dragged on as the two sides argued over possession of the many antiquities that the savants had taken from Egypt. Ultimately almost of these artifacts, including the famous Rosetta Stone, were taken by the British and placed in the British Museum in London, where they remain today. The French troops and the savants returned to France by 1801. In 1801 the English temporarily occupied Egypt. At the time, they saw Egypt only as a way station for their more important holdings in the Indian subcontinent. Under the Treaty of Amiens in 1802 the British withdrew from Egypt. The Ottoman sultan promptly sent a new contingent of Janissary troops to reestablish his sovereignty over Egypt, but for a short period the Mamluks continued to remain an important political force as well. Napoleon’s Egyptian expedition had long-lasting effects in Europe. Largely owing to the popular publications by the savants, European society became acquainted with ancient Egyptian history and a new fi eld, Egyptology, or the study of ancient Egypt, developed. Europeans added Egypt to their itineraries for the Grand Tour, and a new tourist industry, including package tours, developed in Egypt. The expedition also increased the awareness of European governments regarding the geostrategic importance of Egypt and the region, thereby contributing to western imperial designs for control of the area. Although Napoleon’s expedition infl uenced a very small number of urban Egyptians, the modernization of Egypt began several decades later under the rule of Muhammad Ali. See also British occupation of Egypt; savants/ Rosetta Stone. Further reading: Al-Jabarti, Abd al-Rahman. Napoleon in Egypt: Al-Jabarti’s Chronicle of the French Occupation, 1798. Princeton: NJ: Markus Wiener, 1993; Bierman, Irene A., ed. Napoleon in Egypt. Reading, UK: Ithaca Press, 2003; Charles-Roux, F. Bonaparte: Governor of Egypt. London: Methuen & Co., 1937; Herold, J. Christopher. Bonaparte in Egypt. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Janice J. Terry Native American policies in the United States and Canada Since the foundation of the fi rst permanent English settlement in North America in Jamestown in 1607, the relationship between Euro-American politics and the continent’s indigenous inhabitants has comprised a major chapter in British-American, French-American, U.S., and Canadian history. Imperial, colonial, national, state, and provincial government policies toward Native peoples varied widely and went through a number of distinct phases. In the broadest terms, the process was one in which aggressively expansionist states—spurred by massive European immigration, settlers’ land hunger, efforts to enhance states’ fi scal capacities, and racist expansionist ideologies—successfully implemented a range of strategies intended to appropriate the lands of Native peoples. In the mid-1700s indigenous peoples exercised effective dominion over most of North America, particularly the interior and the West. By 1900 they had been defeated and marginalized, their lands seized in a long series of wars, treaties, laws, and court rulings, and their communities relegated to reservations comprising less than 1 percent of the continent’s landmass, most on lands inadequate for subsistence and often on lands unfamiliar to them. COLONIAL PERIOD During the colonial period, many Indian peoples in eastern North America were able to maintain a signifi - cant degree of economic, political, and cultural autonomy by playing off different European powers against each other (this despite the ravages of epidemic diseases, which severely weakened Native peoples before sustained interactions with white people had even begun). Emblematic here was the diplomatic strategy pursued by the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy (Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Oneida), the dominant political power throughout upstate New York and much of the Great Lakes region, which shrewdly avoided strong alliances with any European power or colonial government. With the French defeat at the hands of the British in the Seven Years’ War, Indian peoples in areas conquered by Britain lost an important counterweight to British power. French fur traders and Jesuit missionaries, more interested in trade and saving souls than in acquiring land, on the whole were far more tolerant of Indians than the English. After 1763 the balance of power strongly favored the British, diminishing the Native American policies in the United States and Canada 301 diplomatic and political leverage of Native peoples in the Northeast. Further west, a series of attacks launched by a Native alliance under the leadership of the Ottawa chieftain Pontiac in 1763 exposed Britain’s weaknesses west of the Allegheny and Ohio River valleys and in the Great Lakes region. The unsettled conditions prompted the British government to issue the Proclamation of 1763, forbidding further settler expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Settlers largely ignored the proclamation, setting the stage for further confl ict on the western frontier. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION A similar dynamic unfolded in the aftermath of the American Revolution. The war split the Iroquois Confederacy, with the Mohawk, Seneca, and Cayuga allying with the British. The victorious Americans retaliated, compelling large numbers of Iroquois to abandon their lands and migrate west or north to Canada. In the South, the Cherokee and others took advantage of the fi ghting between the British and Americans to launch a series of attacks on frontier towns and settlements, prompting harsh retaliation after the war. Overall, the Revolution severely weakened the position of Native peoples vis-à-vis the new American republic, while also opening Appalachia and the Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee River valleys to white settlement and, south of the Ohio, to the expansion of African slavery. In the early republic, under the intellectual leadership of Thomas Jefferson in particular, U.S. policy toward the Indian problem gelled into an eitheror proposition: either Indians east of the Mississippi River could assimilate into white society and become civilized, or they could migrate west of the Mississippi. Either way, the U.S. government would assume dominion of their lands. As events unfolded, even eastern tribes’ adoption of all the hallmarks of civilization did not prevent the land seizures and forced migrations. In the Old Northwest, the Treaty of Greenville of 1795 with the Shawnee, following the armed confl icts between the U.S. Army and Shawnee in 1790–91, ceded most of present-day Ohio and parts of Indiana in exchange for the promise of a permanent boundary between Indian territory and the zone of white settlement, a pledge not enforced in subsequent years. After 1815 with the 1812 U.S. defeat of the coalition of tribes cobbled together by the Shawnee chieftain Tecumseh and defeat of the British in the War of 1812, the U.S. government was in a position to enforce the Jeffersonian assimilate-or-migrate policy. A series of Supreme Court rulings, beginning with Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), provided constitutional backing for the policy, based mainly on the Indian commerce clause of the Constitution. The rulings further defi ned Indian tribes as sovereign political entities subject only to the authority of the federal government and not state governments, largely resolving a key issue in the constitutional principle of federalism. In 1824 the Indian Offi ce was established under the administration of the War Department; in 1849 it became the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the authority of the Interior Department. INDIAN REMOVAL AND DISPLACEMENT With the election of Andrew Jackson to the presidency in 1828, the U.S. government embarked on an aggressive policy of Indian removal. In 1830 Congress passed the Removal Act, which required Indian tribes east of the Mississippi to relinquish their ancestral lands and either become citizens of the states in which they resided or migrate west. In the Northwest, the Sac and Fox under Black Hawk resisted and were defeated in the Black Hawk War of 1832. In the Southeast, the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw) responded to white encroachment in a variety of ways, including armed resistance, the adoption of farming and Christianity, and the appropriation of nationalist discourses and practices. In the 1820s a Cherokee nationalist movement under the leadership of John Ross and others, building on Sequoyah’s 1809–21 invention of an 85-character Cherokee syllabary, published the newspaper Cherokee Phoenix, the year after formally establishing a new nation-state in the Cherokee constitution of 1827, modeled on the U.S. Constitution. Under President Jackson, however, the pressures for Indian removal proved too great. From 1830 to 1838 in the infamous Trail of Tears, upward of 30,000 members of the Five Civilized Tribes were forcibly removed and resettled in Oklahoma’s Indian Territory, a policy supported by the Supreme Court’s rulings in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). By 1840 virtually all the lands east of the Mississippi River had been opened to white settlement, south of the Ohio River accompanied by African slavery. WESTERN EXPANSION From the 1840s to the 1870s with the U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War, the Homestead Act of 1862, the victory of the Union in the Civil War, the 302 Native American policies in the United States and Canada Indian Wars in the West from the 1860s to the 1880s, and the building of the railroads during the same period, the process of land dispossession was carried all the way to the Pacifi c. In New Mexico Territory, the Taos Rebellion of 1847 was quickly suppressed and its leaders executed. In California, the gold rush from 1849 led to the enslavement and virtual genocide of California’s linguistically diverse and politically disunited Native peoples. The early 1850s saw the coalescence of a new reservation policy favoring concentration, in which the federal government negotiated individual treaties with reputed representatives of specifi c tribes. Such treaties most commonly forcibly imposed an exchange of Indian land for cash. Treaties also required tribal members to concentrate on reservations that comprised a small fraction of their former holdings. With the outbreak of the Civil War, many Plains Indians seized the opportunity to try to regain their lost lands, as in the Great Sioux Uprising of 1862 and its aftermath across Dakota Territory to Montana and beyond. Similarly, from 1860 to 1864 the Navajo War in New Mexico Territory ended with the defeat of the Navajo and the Navajo Long Walk, or forced migration, out of their ancestral homeland 300 miles east to Bosque Redondo reservation in northwestern New Mexico. In the postwar years, Plains Indians’ resistance to white encroachment intensifi ed. Their lifeways dramatically transformed by their adoption of the horse from the 1700s, and fi rearms in the 1800s, the Dakota, Cheyenne, Apache, and many other Plains and western tribes presented the federal government with a formidable adversary. A pivotal moment in the mounting confl ict came in the aftermath of the systematic violation of the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868, which guaranteed in perpetuity Sioux dominion over the Black Hills of present-day South Dakota. The Black Hills gold rush from 1874 prompted swarms of white prospectors to enter the region, violating the treaty and stiffening Indian resistance, and culminating in the annihilation of George A. Custer’s 7th Cavalry in the Battle of Little Bighorn in southern Montana in summer 1876 by a coalition of tribes led by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. The defeat shocked the nation and steeled the federal government’s determination to resolve the Indian problem once and for all. After a complex series of aggressive U.S. military campaigns, which included the systematic slaughter of the region’s vast buffalo herds, by 1890 all organized armed resistance had been crushed. THE DAWES ACT The effort to eliminate Indians’ collective landownership was codifi ed in the Dawes Act (General Allotment Act) of 1887, which required remaining Indian reservation lands to be broken up into individual parcels to male heads of households. Efforts to implement the law by the Bureau of Indian Affairs became riddled with corruption and malfeasance and its enforcement was only partial. It is estimated that from its passage in 1887 until its repeal in 1934, the Dawes Act resulted in the privatization of 90 million acres, shrinking reservation lands from 138 million to 48 million acres. The ostensible goal of the Dawes Act was to facilitate the civilization of Indian peoples by their gradual assimilation into white society. This goal was also pursued by the government’s establishment of Indian boarding schools in various parts of the country, in which Native children were forcibly subjected to assimilation, most famously at the Carlisle Indian School in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, founded in 1879. By 1900 the Native American population in the United States had shrunk to 237,196 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), from a conservatively estimated 3 to 5 million people four centuries earlier, a demographic decline of around 95 percent. CANADA A similar set of processes unfolded in what remained of British North America after 1815, which after 1867 became the quasi-independent Dominion of Canada. Through a series of wars, treaties, laws, and court rulings, First Nations peoples (as Native peoples are offi cially known in contemporary Canada) were systematically stripped of their ancestral lands in ways very similar to those implemented by Canada’s southern neighbor, though with less episodic violence overall. In the words of one eminent scholar, compared to their southern neighbors, First Nations peoples in Canada were shot less but starved more often. In 1885 the Métis leader Louis Riel launched a major rebellion in Manitoba with the aim of ensuring the ancestral rights of the Métis peoples centered on Winnipeg and the Red River Valley. The rebellion was crushed by the Canadian government, and its leader executed. With the formation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, most First Nations peoples in the Canadian West recognized the futility of armed resistance and reluctantly consented to treaties relinquishing their land rights in exchange for reservations (often small and in marginal zones), cash, the promise of future annuity payments, hunting and Native American policies in the United States and Canada 303 fi shing rights, and similar mechanisms mostly adopted from U.S. treaties. Further reading: Calloway, Colin. The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Community in Native American Communities. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995; Dickason, Olive Patricia. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2002; Hoxie, Frederick E. ed. Encyclopedia of North American Indians: Native American History, Culture, and Life from Paleo-Indians to the Present. New York: Houghton Miffl in, 1996; Kupperman, Karen Ordahl. Indians and the English: Facing Off in Early America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000; Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black: The Peoples of Early North America. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000; Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: St. Martin’s Press, 1995; Wallace, Anthony F. C. Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999; White, Richard. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Michael J. Schroeder Netherlands East Indies The Netherlands East Indies was a political unit controlled by the Dutch, covering what is now Indonesia. Consisting of a vast archipelago of over 2,000 islands, it had been taken over piecemeal by the Dutch over several centuries. The center of their rule was on the island of Java and their capital was Batavia (now Jakarta), located on the north coast of Java. Their main reason for initially taking the islands had been to control the trade with the Spice Islands, and the Dutch therefore exerted great control over the eastern islands in the archipelago, the Moluccas, especially the island of Ambon. Gradually the Dutch established military bases throughout the islands and in the early 17th century began to cultivate plantations. On the island of Java, they fi rst took over Batavia and the area around it in 1619, adding the Preanger districts to the south of Batavia in 1677. Two years later they annexed Cheribon and then Semerang, taking Bantam, the westernmost part of Java in 1684. The Dutch then took control of the northern coast in 1741 and the island of Madura two years later. Some areas in south-central Java remained in the control of the sultans of Yogjakarta and Surakarta (Solo). Outside Java the Dutch had reached agreements to trade and establish bases on many islands but did not have control of northern Sumatra, which was under the control of the sultans of Aceh (or Atjeh) and the island of Bali. By the 1770s they had control over much of the coastal regions of Borneo and the Celebes (now Sulawesi). On an administrative level, the Dutch ruled through the Dutch East India Company, which, outside Java, made no attempt to control the people, working through native rulers—with the exception of the islands of Ambon, Ternate, and Banda in the Moluccas. However, from 1770 the company was faced with bankruptcy. Its employees had made huge fortunes but the main company itself was in a disastrous fi nancial position. When war broke out with England in 1781—the American Revolution—the Netherlands government had to intervene fi nancially to prevent the company going bankrupt. However, the debt burden increased and in 1783 the company ceased paying dividends to shareholders. In 1790 the Dutch government appointed a committee to overhaul the company—the government itself was the chief creditor. While a rescue package was being arranged, war with France broke out in 1792 and three years later the Netherlands was invaded. The National Assembly, under French revolutionary control, then proclaimed the Batavian Republic and enacted a new constitution by which the state took over the Dutch East India Company, and the company was formally dissolved in 1798. The Batavian Republic was eager to get funds from its colonies and decided to institute a different administrative structure for the East Indies. By the nature of the various treaties with the different sultans and rulers, it was necessary to totally overhaul the entire system, and in 1803 a report was submitted to the new republican government. Most of its recommendations were actually academic because in 1795 when William V had fl ed the Netherlands ahead of the French, he had taken refuge in England and ordered all his colonial governors to welcome British troops and merchant ships. Thus the British had taken control of Malacca— also ruled by the Dutch at the time; and the bases at Padang (which had been sacked by the French in 1793 and was unable to resist), Ambon, Banda and even Ternate in 1799. The latter was particularly important for the trade in sandalwood. In 1802, by the Treaty of Amiens, all these places were to be restored to the Dutch; however, with war breaking out so soon afterwards, the British decided to keep them all and prepare to invade Java. 304 Netherlands East Indies Java and in particular Batavia had been going though a period of semi-independence at the time. With the British controlling most of the seas, little control was exerted from the new Batavian Republic or from France. The governing authorities in Java were even able to conclude commercial treaties with Denmark and the United States. However, this whole situation changed in 1806 when the Batavian Republic was swept away and Louis Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon i, became king of the Netherlands. On January 28, 1807, he appointed Herman Willem Daendels, a Dutch Jacobin, to be the new governor- general of the Netherlands East Indies. DETERMINED CHANGE Daendels arrived in the Netherlands East Indies determined to change the whole administrative structure. He was anxious to regularize and standardize commercial arrangements, codify the laws, operate through a more formal judiciary, and reduce the infl uence of Chinese businessmen. At the same time he had to overcome the appalling sanitary conditions of Batavia. He did this by demolishing sections of the old city, Kota, and moving the old cemetery, which was close to the water table, to a new site outside the city walls. The large square in front of the governor’s residence in Batavia was also his creation. Daendels also had the task of fortifying the city to prevent an imminent British attack. He moved much of the army out of Batavia, where it was in range of British ships, to a garrison base at Meester Cornelis, just south of the city. There work began on massive fortifi cations. Although many of the decisions made by Daendels were needed, his reforms did create much resentment among the businessmen in Batavia who complained regularly to the Netherlands. By this time Napoleon had decided to annex the Netherlands, incorporating it into France. Daendels was recalled and replaced by Jan Willem Janssens, who was far more conciliatory in his approach, and also less decisive. BRITISH ATTACK Unfortunately for Janssens, soon after he arrived, the British attacked. Lord Minto, the governor-general of India, had wanted to capture Java. A British East India Company agent, Thomas Raffl es, had long urged him to do so. Finally in 1811 Minto led a massive expeditionary force, with 9,000 soldiers, to Malacca, and then they sailed for Batavia, landing at Ancol, just east of the city. As well as soldiers, Minto had brought with him teams of agronomists, botanists, and scientists. Minto’s massive and well-armed force frightened Janssens, who immediately retreated to Meester Cornelis, leaving Batavia as an open city. The British took it, marveling at its wealth. They then surrounded Meester Cornelis, which had been reinforced by some French soldiers, and after a short battle stormed it. Janssens then fl ed south with the British in pursuit. Facing them north of Yogjakarta, the British again easily defeated the Franco-Dutch forces, and Janssens surrendered. The British also stormed the sultan’s palace at Yogjakarta, where they looted. With the British in control of Java, they dispatched ships to seize outlying Dutch bases: Palembang, Macassar, and Kupang (or Koepang) in West Timor. The British East India Company then split their new possessions into four: Java, Malacca, West Sumatra, and the Moluccas. Raffl es was appointed lieutenantgovernor and took up residence in Batavia, but preferred the summer residence in Bogor, set in the middle of the botanical gardens. Raffl es pushed through many of the reforms that Daendels had tried to introduce. These actions were generally quite popular. However, Raffl es was under pressure to increase the revenue base of his administration. Most of his moves were free of trouble, but in May 1813, the sale of land at Probolinggo, in eastern Java, resulted in massive protests as Chinese businessmen had increased their control in the region. Local farmers marched on the British, who were visiting the Chinese community leader at the time and demanded that the British offi cers acknowledge the local titles to the land and disregard Chinese attempts to evict them. The Chinese had hired local bodyguards, but these fl ed, and two highlanders, trying to calm the demonstrators, were both “barbarously murdered,” as described on their gravestone. CONVENTION OF LONDON Raffl es was fi nally making inroads into the land problem when the Convention of London, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, returned to the Dutch all lands held by them after 1803. This was delayed by Napoleon’s return from Elba, but after his defeat at Waterloo, instructions arrived at Batavia to this effect. The British in Java were angered by this arrangement, as they had actually increased the size of the colony during their rule. However, they relented, holding onto Malacca, and Raffl es went on to found a British base on Singapore. The Dutch, returning to the Netherlands East Indies, were told to be as liberal as they could, to reestablish Netherlands East Indies 305 their rule without opposition from the locals. In 1830 they succeeded in gaining control of the rest of Java and set about building a new administrative structure. At the heart of this was a school to train Dutch civil servants who would form the administrative class in the Netherlands East Indies. To this end in 1834 they established a school in Surakarta (Solo). After nine years this project was abandoned and a new school was established at the Royal Academy at Delft, Netherlands. There a two-year (later three-year) course was introduced to ensure civil servants had a good understanding of the culture and history of the East Indies. The island of Java and its satellite island, Madura, were to form the economic and administrative core of the colony. They were the most densely populated islands in the region—in fact one of the most densely populated parts of the entire world—and were divided into West Java, Central Java, and East Java, with the cities of Yogyakarta and Surakarta having a degree of autonomy. The rich farming lands provided vast quantities of rice and were also good in the raising of livestock, and the seas around Java were rich in fi sh. To the west of Java was the island of Sumatra. The British eventually gave up their base at Bencoolen (modern-day Bengkulu) in exchange for holding onto Malacca, but the Dutch were never able to develop high-intensity agriculture on the scale that was the case in Java. With the rubber boom in the late 19th century, extensive rubber plantations were established in Sumatra. The island of Bangka, and to a lesser extent, the neighboring island of Billiton, off the east coast of Sumatra, was found to have extensive deposits of tin, and Dutch mining companies established large ventures, leaving much of the island covered by a moonscape. The north of Sumatra, under the control of the sultans of Aceh, only fi nally became a part of the Netherlands East Indies after the Acehnese War, which lasted from 1873 until 1904. To the east of Java, the island of Bali was occupied by the Hindu princes who had ruled Java before the arrival of Islam. They managed to maintain their independence, but when the Dutch took the island of Lombok in 1894, it was obvious that the Dutch were going to move on Bali, which they invaded in 1906. Prior to that there had been constant problems over Dutch merchant vessels running aground on the islands and being looted by the locals. During the Dutch invasion, the Balinese nobility charged the Dutch lines and were massacred. In Borneo, the Celebes, and the rest of the Sunda islands, the Dutch controlled trade with Dutch administrators, merchants, and businessmen living in towns, but not exerting much control over events in the countryside and the hinterland. This was also the case in Dutch New Guinea. In contrast to this, in the Moluccas, the Dutch exerted a much greater control over the population. The Dutch built schools and hospitals and many people joined the Dutch Reformed Church. Many Moluccans, especially Ambonese (or Amboinese as they were known at the time), served in the Dutch colonial forces and made up a large section of the Dutch colonial police used throughout the archipelago. The society in the Netherlands East Indies was stratifi ed with the Dutch ruling class generally living in particular parts of cities, close to churches, and maintaining their own social life and clubs, and being buried in Christian cemeteries apart from most of the rest of the population (who were mainly Muslim). There were other Europeans, including a sizeable British trading community in Batavia and also some Britons running plantations in Sumatra. The Chinese formed the merchant class of the archipelago and although they never numbered more than 3–5 percent of the population, they dominated business in almost every town in the Netherlands East Indies. Of the locals, the rulers enjoyed the prosperity that Dutch rule brought, and gradually a small middle class emerged, aiding the Dutch in their colonial rule and also producing the nationalists who worked against the Dutch in the 1930s. For the rest of the peasantry, life hardly changed. See also Napoleon III. Further reading: Heuken, A. Historical Sites of Jakarta. Jakarta: Cipta Loka Caraka, 1983; Jaypal, Maya. Old Jakarta. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1993; Taylor, Jean Gelman. The Social World of Batavia: European and Eurasian in Dutch Asia. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983; Vandenbosch, Amry. The Dutch East Indies. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1944. Justin Corfi eld Newman, John Henry (1801–1890) theologian and church leader, cardinal John Henry Newman’s life can be divided neatly into two almost equal parts: as an Anglican from 1801 to 1845 and as a Roman Catholic from 1845 to 1890. Newman was born in London on February 306 Newman, John Henry 21, 1801, to a conventional Anglican family, neither too high church nor too low church. Although it was a religious household, there was little to suggest the extraordinary career Newman would have in his later years. In 1816 Newman entered Trinity College, Oxford. Thus began what would become almost three decades of educational, pastoral, and intellectual work in that celebrated university. In 1822 Newman won a fellowship to Oriel, at that time Oxford’s most prestigious college. Becoming vicar of the University Church of St. Mary the Virgin in 1828, he began to attract a large following who came to listen to his sermons. Preached in a soft, melodious voice, Newman’s sermons appealed to Oxford students and High Street shopkeepers, to intellectuals and common folk. These would be collected in later years in the multivolume Plain and Parochial Sermons. In Oriel’s senior common room, Newman came into contact with some of the men who would become the most important leaders of the Oxford Tractarian Movement, which was launched in 1833. The immediate catalyst for this religious movement (more commonly known as the Oxford Movement) was the coming to power of a new parliament in 1831. With the threat of government interference in ecclesiastical affairs, coupled with a poorly educated clergy and lukewarm congregations, some Oxford intellectuals began to speak out in pulpit and on the printed page. The movement’s chief weapon was the published tract, hence the name for its proponents, Tractarians. Meanwhile, Newman was touring Europe. Falling ill at sea in the summer of 1833, he penned the verses for which he is famous: Lead, Kindly Light. He hastened back to Oxford in time to hear John Keble preach a sermon On the National Apostasy, which for Newman was to signal the beginning of the Oxford Movement, a movement forever associated with the name of Newman. In all, 90 Tracts for the Times were published from 1833 to 1841, of which he wrote 29. It was his Tract 90 that provoked a storm of controversy and ended the series. Newman’s association with such high church Anglicans as Keble and Edward Pusey was to shape his theological orientation. In his own words, it checked his drifting toward the liberalism of the day. Newman was against liberalism in religion, not in politics. Liberalism was, to him, “the anti-dogmatic principle,” the principle that “there is no positive truth in religion, but one creed is as good as another, and all are to be tolerated since all are matters of opinion.” Newman’s fi rst book, The Arians of the Fourth Century (1833), is notable for his insistence on the necessity of dogma. Indeed, it was his study of early church history that provoked his own intellectual and spiritual crisis. What began as a study of the early church fathers, with a view toward justifying the Anglican via media (middle way) between Catholicism and Protestantism, was turning into, fi rst, unease over the Anglican position, and then a positive doubt. In the spring of 1839 the Oxford Movement was at its height, but Newman himself was on the verge of a change of heart. He penned the tract The State of Religious Parties, which would be (in his own words) “the last words which I ever spoke as an Anglican to Anglicans.” This article ended with the rhetorical question: “Would you rather have your sons and daughters members of the Church of England or of the Church of Rome?” But from then on, until 1843, he “wished to benefi t the Church of England, without prejudice to the Church of Rome.” The year 1841 saw the publication of Tract 90, which argued that the Anglican 39 Articles could be interpreted in a Roman Catholic sense. The storm of indignation from many quarters that this tract produced eventually led to Newman’s resignation as head of the Oxford Movement. Preferring silence and withdrawal, Newman retired to the village of Littlemore, just outside Oxford, where he continued his reading and study. By 1843 he made a formal retraction of his verbal polemics against the Roman Catholic Church and resigned the vicarship of St. Mary’s. For two more years, he quietly lived as an Anglican layman. He was received into the Roman Catholic Church in October 1845 by Dominic Barberi, an Italian passionist. He left Oxford for good the following year; it would be many years before he would see the old university again. In 1846 Newman was in Rome to study, before his ordination to the Catholic priesthood the following year. Returning to England, he would spend most of the remainder of his life in the house of the Oratorians in Birmingham. If Newman was a controversialist and outspoken theological adversary in his Anglican period, he was no less so as a Catholic priest. In 1850, for example, England was in a no popery period, which was a reaction to the restoration of the English Catholic hierarchy by Rome. Awarded a papal doctorate of divinity for his Lectures on Certain Diffi culties Felt by Anglicans in Submitting to the Catholic Church, he was henceforth to be called Dr. Newman until the time he was made cardinal. Newman, John Henry 307 Such writings, however, were not Newman’s lifework, although posterity remembers him chiefl y for his writings. He preferred to live, until his death in 1890, the simple and obscure life of an Oratorian priest, engaged in liturgical, educational, and charitable activities. Nonetheless, he was an exceedingly effective writer, though only an occasional one. Except for a few monumental, indeed astonishingly erudite, theological works that were far ahead of their time, such as An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent (1870), and The Idea of a University (published only in 1873), much of Newman’s literary output as a Catholic consisted of responses to those who either maligned or misunderstood him or Catholic teaching. Thus, his Letter to Pusey (1866) was a defense of Catholic devotion to Mary, the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875) was a carefully nuanced theology of papal infallibility (defi ned by the Vatican I Council in 1870), and most famously, his autobiographical Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864) was a response to writer Charles Kingsley’s gratuitous and published attack on the Catholic clergy and Newman in particular. These works had the cumulative effect of establishing Newman as a fi rst-rate intellectual and a modern-day Catholic apologist. With such accomplishments, one would not have imagined Newman undergoing years of suspicion and setbacks from his Catholic superiors. In an article entitled “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine,” Newman had articulated his vision of a church in which laypeople actively participate even in doctrinal matters, since they have the spirit of truth in them. Such ideas (which the Second Vatican Council adopted in its teaching on the sensus fi delium, the “spiritual sense of the lay faithful”) were deemed dangerous and heretical. From 1859 onward, Newman was held in suspicion by prelates in Birmingham, London, and Rome. It was only in 1879, when he received the cardinal’s red hat, that he felt that the cloud was lifted from him forever. Cardinal John Henry Newman died on August 11, 1890, and was buried in Rednal, eight miles out of Birmingham. One paper wrote: “No peer, or prince, or priest, or merchant who ever walked the crowded streets of Birmingham is so missed or mourned as the Roman Cardinal.” Cardinal Henry Manning, preaching at the London Oratory, declared that “the history of our land will hereafter record the name of John Henry Newman among the greatest of our people, as a Confessor for the Faith.” Newman’s enduring contributions are diffi cult to measure. In his Anglican period, he awakened the church to a clearer grasp of Christian doctrine and a more energetic practice of the faith. As a Catholic, he published timely apologias and seminal theological treatises remarkable for their scholarship, balance, and farsightedness. Throughout his long life he sought to live virtuously, honestly, and charitably. A man of deep prayer and unassuming humility, he once wrote in his private journal: “Those who make comfort the great subject of their preaching seem to mistake the end of their ministry. Holiness is the great end. Comfort is a cordial, but no one drinks cordial from morning till night.” The cause for his heroic sanctity is presently being pursued with the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints. See also Great Awakening, First and Second. Further reading: Bouyer, Louis. Newman: His Life and Spirituality. London: Burns & Oates, 1958; Gilley, Sheridan. Newman and His Age. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990; Ker, Ian. John Henry Newman: A Biography. Oxford: OUP, 1988; Newman, John Henry. Apologia Pro Vita Sua. David J. DeLaura, ed. New York: Norton, 1968; Reynold, E. E. Three Cardinals: Newman, Wiseman, Manning. London: Burns & Oates, 1958. Jake Yap newspapers, North American Emerging almost simultaneously with the appearance in Europe of new forms of printed communication, Britain’s North American colonies propelled newspapers to new heights of political clout, popular appeal, and fi nancial success in the 18th and 19th centuries. New technologies, including the telegraph and steam printing press, and an evolving connection between growing urban publics and their newspapers made this medium the communication choice of its era. COLONIAL BEGINNINGS Early colonial newspapers tended to be small and mainly devoted to commercial information. Papers like the Boston Gazette, founded in 1719, published commodity and stock prices, ship arrivals, and notices for goods available in town. Printers needed to be literate; a printer who had opinions also had the means to express them. As early as 1721 James Franklin, elder brother of Benjamin Franklin, opposed smallpox vaccinations in his New England Courant. The ability of a news sheet to include controversial topics or political views tended to 308 newspapers, North American wax and wane, depending on the forbearance of British and local offi cials. As relations between the American colonies and Britain deteriorated after the Seven Years’/French and Indian War, newspapers’ political engagement increased signifi cantly. Publishers spearheaded opposition to Britain’s 1765 Stamp Act, which threatened both their expression and their profi ts. This act imposed a tax on every printed page. Printers counterattacked, using their presses to circulate anti–Stamp Act articles while often refusing to pay the tax. Newspapers not only helped kill the Stamp Act but forged colonial linkages that would eventually help bring on the American Revolution. The oldest surviving paper from this era, the Hartford Courant, was founded in 1764. In 1791 the U.S. Bill of Rights would enshrine freedom of the press. U.S. PRESS CHALLENGES Establishing press freedom soon proved much easier than actually dealing with a free press. It was one thing for colonial newspapers to ridicule the hated British, but U.S. politicians soon found themselves targets of both fair and unfair abuse. As political parties emerged, newspapers became a favored way to broadcast their achievements and belittle their foes’ programs in highly partisan fashion. One such party mouthpiece was the New-York Evening Post, founded by Federalist Alexander Hamilton. A major challenge to press freedom emerged in 1798 when a Federalist Congress approved and President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. A key target of these repressive laws was the Philadelphia Aurora, published by Benjamin Franklin Bache, grandson of Benjamin Franklin. Bache was a ferociously Republican journalist who spared no Federalist from his printed assaults. Bache died of yellow fever before his sedition trial; his wife defi antly continued to publish. When Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801, he made sure the Sedition Acts died. THE PENNY PRESS REVOLUTION In the early 19th century, neither the partisan press nor a growing number of newspapers dedicated to business issues were widely circulated by modern standards. These papers were expensive, about six cents an issue, and many were available only by long-term subscription. It was the wealth or importance of readers rather than their number that concerned the owners of such newspapers. Even so, by 1825, the United States was believed to circulate more newspapers than any other country. Visiting in 1831, French observer Alexis de Tocqueville saw this outpouring of printed speech as a means of uniting and stabilizing American society. Newspaper circulation soared dramatically when, in 1833, Benjamin Day, using the slogan “It Shines for All,” launched his New-York Sun, priced at just a penny. In 1835 James Gordon Bennett began publishing the New-York Herald. Although its price was raised to two cents the next year, the Herald circulated 20,000 copies a day. This new penny press focused on crime, human interest, and scandal, although political issues of special concern to working-class readers were not ignored. In 1841 Horace Greeley, an abolitionist and promoter of westward expansion, founded the infl uential New-York Tribune, another penny paper. The penny press was made possible by the growing populations of American cities and the rise of steam-powered presses. The old hand press, not much changed from the days of Gutenberg, turned out about 125 copies per hour; by 1851, Day’s Sun was printing 18,000. Another important leap was the introduction, in 1844, of the fi rst telegraph connections. No longer stuck printing stories days or weeks old, received by mail or messenger, newspapers became considerably more timely and enterprising. Transatlantic telegraph connections in the 1860s extended this real-time benefi t to foreign news. NEW PROFESSIONALISM AND “YELLOW” JOURNALISM As newspapers became wealthier, many owners committed their publications to new kinds of journalism, and new kinds of clout for themselves. In 1851, backed by two friends who were bankers, Henry J. Raymond, a veteran of Greeley’s Tribune, founded the New York Times. The Times caused a stir in 1871 with pioneering investigative journalism that brought down the corrupt political organization of New York City boss William Marcy Tweed. In 1855 Joseph Medill, a Canadian immigrant who helped create the U.S. Republican Party, took over the Chicago Tribune. After the disastrous Chicago Fire of 1871, he served a term as mayor. Although some newspapers sent staffers to gather news from Washington, D.C., and state capitals as early as the 1820s, not until the Civil War did the necessity of having reporters cover live events become generally recognized. Bennett had sent just one observer to the Mexican War; he sent 63 to Civil War battlefi elds, where they competed with reporters from the Tribune, Times, and others. In the late 19th century newspapers, North American 309 fi erce competition between publishers Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst reshaped journalism in many American cities. Pulitzer founded the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1865 and moved to New York in 1883 to spectacularly resuscitate the ailing New York World. Pulitzer used a combination of sensational stories, important local issues, and populist politics to attract urban readers. His effort to raise donations from World readers to install the Statue of Liberty succeeded after other fundraising efforts had failed. Hearst trained at Pulitzer’s World after he was expelled from college. In 1887 Hearst returned to California to revive his father’s San Francisco Examiner. His rivalry with Pulitzer truly began in 1895 when Hearst bought the New York Morning Journal, cutting its price to one cent and luring away many World staffers, including the artist who drew an early comic called “The Yellow Kid.” The battle between the two publishers for circulation and stature, often at the expense of journalistic accuracy, became known as yellow journalism. As the United States and Spain tangled over the status of Cuba in the 1890s, Hearst sent celebrity writer Richard Harding Davis and renowned artist Frederic Remington to Cuba to collect news. Although Pulitzer and Hearst were soon enmeshed in their own war over which newspaper was telling the truth about Cuba, both the World and Hearst’s Journal used huge headlines and scare stories to help foment and cheer on the 1898 Spanish-American War. By the end of the century, U.S. newspapers were riding high. Across the nation, advertising revenues rose with circulation, staffs increased in numbers, skill, and specialization, and larger cities supported an array of daily and weekly newspapers. New techniques, including woodcuts and etchings, were making both news content and advertising copy more colorful and easier to read. By 1897 a new kind of rotary press made it possible for many papers to include actual photograph on their pages. Outside the mainstream, smaller presses used similar techniques of writing and presentation to bring news to non-English-speaking immigrants and African Americans. Although the fi rst African- American journal appeared in 1827, and Frederick Douglass began publishing his North Star in 1847, black-owned newspapers like the Philadelphia Tribune of 1884 and Baltimore Afro-American of 1892 provided their readers the full newspaper experience. CANADIAN NEWSPAPERS With a smaller population and continuing colonial rule by Britain until 1867, Canada’s journalism followed a trajectory similar to that of U.S. newspapers, but at a somewhat more gradual pace. In Canada, as in the United States, political fi gures played major roles in publishing and used their newspapers to shape the political discourse. In 1752 the Halifax Gazette, Canada’s fi rst newspaper, was established with the help of a Boston printer who brought the fi rst press to what was still a wilderness outpost. France had strongly discouraged newspapers in its New France colony; not until Britain triumphed in the French and Indian War did French-language publications begin to emerge. The fi rst was the Quebec Gazette, founded in 1764 with the assistance of Philadelphia printers. In 1778 Fleury Mesplet founded the Montreal Gazette as a Frenchlanguage journal. After a period as a bilingual paper it became English only in 1822. Mesplet, who had received some encouragement from American patriots, was jailed, along with his editor, by outraged local authorities soon after the Gazette appeared. In 1766 British authorities closed down the Halifax Gazette and removed its editor for allowing publication of an article attacking the Stamp Act. In 1835 publisher Joseph Howe was charged with seditious libel for writing in his Novascotian that local magistrates were pocketing fi nes with tacit approval from the province’s lieutenant governor. Although he was not allowed to claim truth as his defense, Howe was acquitted by a jury in just 10 minutes. Between 1813 and 1857, the number of Canadian newspapers, mainly weeklies, rose tenfold. Politics was a major impetus as old Tory elites faced challenges from new reform parties in both French- and English-speaking areas. William Lyon Mackenzie’s Colonial Advocate was one of the most outspoken of these new papers. When Tory sympathizers smashed his presses in 1828, Mackenzie used the incident to build support and was elected to a reform Upper Canada assembly soon thereafter. George Brown, who had published an antislavery paper in New York, launched the Toronto Globe in 1844. Brown, a proponent of Canadian western expansion, used his paper to push this and other reform causes, becoming an initiator of Canadian Confederation in the 1860s. Brown died in 1880 after he was shot in his offi ce by a disgruntled former Globe employee. Like their U.S. counterparts, Canadian papers expanded their size, circulation, advertising, and newsgathering techniques in the late 19th century, although they were slower to adopt such innovations as huge headlines. They did experiment earlier than many U.S. 310 newspapers, North American papers with rotary presses and half-tone photographs, the fi rst of these, a photo of the new Montreal Customs House, appeared in 1871. As Canadians expanded west, so did their newspapers. By 1900 Canada had 121 dailies, up from 23 in 1857. See also political parties in Canada; political parties in the United States. Further reading: Kesterton, W. H. A History of Journalism in Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1967; Nord, David Paul. Communities of Journalism: A History of American Newspapers and Their Readers (History of Communication). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2001; Stephens, Mitchell. A History of News: From the Drum to the Satellite. New York: Viking, 1988. Marsha E. Ackermann Nian Rebellion in China (1853–1868) The word nian means “a band” and referred to the outlaw secret society bands or gangs along the lower Yellow and Huai River valleys in borderlands between Shandong (Shantung), Henan (Honan), Jiangsu (Kiangsu), and Anhui Provinces. This area had long harbored bandits and salt smugglers. Although they existed since the 18th century, fl oods in the early 1850s and the famine that followed abetted their growth. In 1853 a man named Zhang Luoxing (Chang Lo-hsing) became leader of the Nian and titled himself the Great Han Heavenly mandated King. He organized his followers after the Manchu banner system and initiated them with pseudo-religious rites. At the peak of his power in the late 1850s the Nian controlled approximately 100,000 square miles of territory. However, the Nian never developed a centralized government capable of administering cities or organizing a coordinated military action, resorting mainly to guerrilla warfare and fast but uncoordinated cavalry raids, seldom holding on to towns and cities, but retreating to their earthen-walled strongholds. They scorched the earth to deprive government forces of supplies. The Nian also sporadically cooperated with the Taiping rebels in the Yangzi (Yangtze) River valley. Early Qing (Ch’ing) efforts to defeat the Nian met with failure, in part because of the hostility of many peasants toward the government. Even the capture of Nian leader Zhang in 1863 did not end the rebellion because in 1864 some followers of the defeated Taiping Rebellion joined their cause. In 1865 the court appointed Zeng Guofan (Tseng Kuo-fan), the statesman-general who led the defeat of the Taiping Rebellion, to suppress the Nian. He approached the task by reforming the local government and winning over the population in contested areas. But the aging Zeng had disbanded most of the Hunan army that he had organized and led after the defeat of the Taiping Rebellion and pleaded to be allowed to retire. The task was given to one of his lieutenants in 1867. He was Li Hongzhang (Li Hung-chang), the organizer and commander of the modern armed and well-disciplined Huai, or Anhui, Army. With the assistance of Zuo Zongtang (Tso Tsung-t’ang), another statesman-general who had contributed to defeating the Taiping Rebellion, Li ended the Nian Rebellion in 1868. The suppression of the Nian and other rebellions in the 1860s and 1870s was the triumph of warfare and civil government by capable leaders who rallied to the Qing dynasty. It was a genuine pacifi cation in the traditional manner by scholars-generals-administrators committed to Confucian moral principles, who stressed political and economic reforms in combination with hard fi ghting. They had to recruit the armies that they commanded because the Qing regular army had deteriorated to ineffectiveness. See also Tongzhi (T’ung-chih) Restoration/Self- Strengthening Movement. Further reading: Chiang, Siang-Tseh. The Nian Rebellion. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1954; Teng, S. Y. The Nian Army and Their Guerrilla Warfare, 1851–1868. Paris: Mouton and Co., 1961. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Nightingale, Florence (1820–1910) health care pioneer Florence Nightingale came from a wealthy English family and received a classical education in languages, history, and mathematics from her father. Much to her parents’ dismay, she rejected several marriage proposals and was determined to become a nurse, a profession that was held in low esteem by the upper classes in the 19th century. With an annual income from her father, she traveled to Egypt and elsewhere. In Germany she studied new Nightingale, Florence 311 health care practices. Returning to England, Nightingale became superintendent at a Harley Street hospital for women in 1853. After she learned about the deplorable lack of health care for the soldiers in the Crimean War, Nightingale traveled to Scutari (in present-day Turkey), where, in spite of considerable prejudice against women working in the fi eld, she and her assistants worked tirelessly to improve sanitary conditions and hygiene. As a result, mortality rates dropped from over 40 percent to around 2 percent. Because she carried an oil lamp while caring for the wounded at night, Nightingale became known as the lady with the lamp. After the war, Nightingale used her considerable skills in the mathematical fi eld of statistics to improve health care in general; she funded a training school for nursing in London as well and wrote a detailed report providing recommendations on health care in the army. Nightingale was bedridden, perhaps with a psychosomatic illness, for the last years of her life and died in 1910. She received numerous awards for her work in the fi eld of health care. Clara Barton and others followed her example by volunteering as nurses during the U.S. Civil War. Nightingale was perhaps the most famous woman, after the queen, in Victorian England. Further reading: Dorsey, Barbara Montgomery. Florence Nightingale: Mystic, Visionary, Reformer. Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, 2000; Nightingale, Florence. Notes on Nursing: What It Is and What It Is Not. London: Harrison, 1860. Janice J. Terry

Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950

NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) Founded in 1909, the NAACP is an organization whose purpose is to use the legal system of the United States to force the government to provide civil rights equitably to U.S. blacks. It came into being in reaction to the violent racism that plagued the United States at the time. After the end of Reconstruction allowed the imposition of de facto and then de jure segregation, African Americans lost many of the legal protections established by laws and amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Violence against blacks became common as lynching reached epidemic proportions. Economic and social discrimination increased. Blacks found themselves second-class citizens or worse in white America. Black leaders were in a quandary over how their people should handle the deteriorated situation. In 1895 educator Booker T. Washington, the most prominent black of his time, proposed that African Americans should accommodate. They should allow segregation to continue while they used self-help to develop their own society and to improve their economic condition. Washington hoped that U.S. society would notice the gradual improvement and come to accept black participation in the white political and social systems. Washington established the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama as a segregated vocational school to teach blacks practical skills they needed for everyday life. Not all black leaders agreed with Washington’s accommodationism. Some looked at the increase in poverty and the backwardness of a Jim Crow system as separate and blatantly unequal. They also noted the outrageousness of hundreds of lynchings a year. They regarded Washington as a tool of the white system. Among the critics who engaged Washington in a long debate was the intellectual W. E. B. DuBois. For over a decade the debate continued as black Americans suffered. Then in 1905 DuBois and William Monroe Trotter called a meeting at Niagara Falls, Canada. The meeting led to the formation of the Niagara movement, which rejected Washington’s gradualist accommodationism and called for vigilance and protest. The Niagara movement was premature. Washington was too powerful. By 1908 the movement was history. Its message, however, lingered: There would be no more appeasement of white racism by black Americans. The NAACP came into being in 1909, formed by DuBois and other blacks and whites dedicated to legal resistance of Jim Crow discrimination and segregation. Among the founders was Oswald Garrison Villard, the editor of the New York Evening Post and grandson of the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. A charter member was Mary Church Terrell, the fi rst president of the National Association of Colored Women. Also among the founders were the lawyer Clarence Darrow and Jane Addams, social worker, peace activist, and founder of Hull-House. The NAACP campaign against the decades-old plague of lynching set the approach it would take—long, N deliberate, and diffi cult campaigns that would entail fi rst bringing attention to the problem through its newspaper, The Crisis, then issuing lengthy and detailed reports and lobbying Congress for changes in the laws. The U.S. House of Representatives passed federal antilynching laws in 1922, 1937, and 1940, but each time the legislation died in the Senate, falling victim to actual or threatened fi libusters. The NAACP persisted, but the federal government never passed such legislation. The NAACP did not spend all of its time on the antilynching effort. It also investigated other civil rights abuses and litigated discrimination cases in areas including the segregation of streetcars and railroad trains, residential restrictive covenants, segregated schools, and general abuses of civil rights and liberties including the ban on blacks on juries and the denial of voting rights. Civil rights action through the mid-1930s included work on behalf of accused criminals who rarely enjoyed juries of their (black) peers. The NAACP was also active in working to get equal salaries for black public school teachers. Sometimes it won. Often it lost. Always it kept the issues in the public awareness. FAIR TRIALS On the matter of fair trials, a signifi cant success occurred in 1919 in Arkansas. That year black farmers tried to form a union. In retaliation, a white mob killed more than 200 black men, women, and children. Local authorities arrested 79 black sharecroppers and charged them with murder. The trial featured coerced testimony and a defense that called no witnesses. A white mob threatened during the trial to lynch any found not guilty. After a single hour of deliberation, the jury declared 12 of the defendants to be guilty of crimes warranting a sentence of death. Others received long prison terms. The NAACP appealed the case for four years before the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In Moore v. Dempsey the court overturned the convictions. The NAACP attempted to fi ght restrictions on the black vote. In Guinn v. United States the NAACP successfully convinced the Supreme Court to overturn Oklahoma’s grandfather clause, which allowed the vote to only those persons whose grandfathers had voted and effectively excluded all but a handful of blacks. Southern states found new methods of disenfranchising blacks. A popular choice was defi ning political parties as private and allowing them to select their members, which meant that the parties and their primaries would be white only. In the one-party South the primary was the election, so the white primary denied blacks access to the ballot. Decades later, in 1945, Smith v. Alright, brought by the NAACP, eliminated the white primary. The NAACP had early on developed a somewhat schizophrenic character, with DuBois, as editor of The Crisis, stressing publicity and lobbying, and the legal staff continuing the slow and tedious work of litigation. DuBois became more radical as he aged. He was more concerned with civil liberties and the working class across race lines, and he thought that the NAACP’s preoccupation with segregation was excessive. He also thought that the NAACP was becoming increasingly conservative, moving toward Washington’s accommodationism. When the NAACP shifted its focus from The Crisis to the courts in the 1930s as it took up segregation as its major target, it completed the split. In 1934 DuBois left the NAACP and established the National Negro Congress, a union of 600 black organizations with a focus on economic justice. LITIGATION With DuBois and the economic radicals out of the picture, the NAACP under president Walter White used the resources of the NAACP legal department, especially Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall. For two decades the NAACP focused strongly on ending school segregation, lynching, and the Jim Crow system. The process entailed litigating against one city, state, or county at a time, forcing the party sued to show that it was complying with Plessey v. Ferguson. The NAACP forced those it sued to either upgrade their black facilities to the white standard or abandon the separate but equal myth of Plessey. In the 1930s and 1940s the NAACP began eroding the legal basis for segregated educational systems, and in 1954 it won its most important victory in Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which ruled that separate was inherently unequal and opened the door to the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. The “Second Reconstruction” occurred thanks to, but largely without, the NAACP. After white backlash and timid enforcement of the laws by the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, black Americans began forcing the battle in the early 1960s with sit-ins, freedom rides, and other methods of peaceful confrontation. The NAACP was hamstrung by state efforts such as one that occurred in Alabama. There the state used anticommunist legislation to demand the membership rolls of the NAACP. Because the NAACP was a locally based rather than a national organization, the release of its membership rolls would have proved fatal. But the 262 NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) case kept it in court and unable to be an effective part of the Civil Rights movement. Further reading: Guterl, Matthew Pratt. The Color of Race in America, 1900–1940. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001; Jonas, Gilbert. Freedom’s Sword. New York: Routledge, 2005; NAACP.org. “NAACP Timeline.” http:// www.naacp.org/past_future/naacptimeline.shtml(2003); Rhym, Darren. The NAACP. White Plains, NY: Chelsea House Pub, 2002; Wolters, Raymond. DuBois and His Rivals. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press 2002. John H. Barnhill Naidu, Sarojini (1879–1949) Indian nationalist leader Sarojini Naidu was born on February 13, 1879, to Aghornath Chattopadhyaya and Varada Sundari in the city of Hyderabad, India. She began studying at the King’s College of England in 1895. Her childhood love for poetry resulted in the publication of collections of poems including The Golden Threshold (1905), The Birds of Time (1912), and The Broken Wing (1917), written in English but with an Indian ethos. Her poetry earned her the name of “India’s Nightingale.” A strong believer in the philosophy of Brahmo Samaj, Sarojini took the bold step of getting married to Govindarajulu Naidu outside her caste at the age of 19 per the Brahmo Marriage Act (1872). A powerful orator, she gave speeches on themes like the emancipation of women, youth welfare, and nationalism. Sarojini Naidu plunged into the nationalist movement in 1903 and came into contact with leaders who were fi ghting for an India free of British colonial rule. Mohandas K. Gandhi and Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1866–1915) infl uenced her political career. At the behest of Gokhale she devoted herself to the cause of Indian nationalism. Naidu met Gandhi in 1914 and became his disciple. During her tour to Great Britain with Gandhi, she criticized colonial rule openly among the British intelligentsia. Naidu and Gandhi opposed the British government’s Rowlatt Act, enacted in March 1919 to counter Indian protests. She also supported the Indian Home Rule League. Naidu also worked for Hindu-Muslim unity. She became infl uential in the Indian National Congress (INC) and was elected its delegate to the East African Indian Congress in January 1924. She was elected president of the INC in the Kanpur session of 1925 and was the fi rst woman to become its president. She went to the United States in October 1928 as an emissary of Gandhi, preaching his doctrine of nonviolence. Naidu joined the second civil disobedience movement that had begun in March 1930. She was arrested and released in January of the next year. She went to London along with Gandhi to participate in the Round Table Conference. During the Quit India movement of August 1942 she was imprisoned for 21 months. After India’s independence on August 15, 1947, Naidu was appointed the governor of Uttar Pradesh. She died on March 2, 1949. Further reading: Mishra, L. N. The Poetry of Sarojini Naidu. New Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, 1995; Naidu, Sarojini. The Broken Wing: Songs of Love, Death & Destiny 1915–1916. New York: John Lane Company, 1917; ———. The Sceptred Flute: Songs of India. Allahabad: Kitabistan, 1943; Naravane, Vishwanath S. Sarojini Naidu: An Introduction to Her Life, Work & Poetry. New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1996; Sengupta, Padmini. Sarojini Naidu: A Biography. New Delhi: Asia Publishing House, 1966. Patit Paban Mishra National Congress of British West Africa The National Congress of British West Africa (NCBWA) displayed the relatively moderate, reformist spirit of many black African professionals and intellectuals of the interwar period. Without challenging British control over their territories, the congress pressed for an increase in African representation in advisory councils, the creation of a West African university, and a respect for traditional forms of land ownership. The group’s leaders, particularly Joseph Ephraim Casely Hayford, promulgated a Pan-African ideology and attempted to build a sense of shared interests among the inhabitants—or at least the native-born black political leaders—of the four British colonies in West Africa: Nigeria, Gold Coast (now Ghana), Sierra Leone, and the Gambia. The congress achieved a few of its goals, as it encountered opposition from the majority of traditional elites, from radicals in and outside the NCBWA, and from the Aboriginal Rights Protection Society, which the congress sought to supersede. From the perspective of Casely Hayford and other future leaders of the NCBWA, the Aboriginal Rights Protection Society had failed to capitalize upon its success in National Congress of British West Africa 263 convincing the British not to impose the proposed Lands Bill in 1897. Further, its leadership remained ensconced in Cape Coast and constrained the development of branches in other areas of the Gold Coast. In 1912 Casely Hayford began to broach the notion of a West African Congress with contacts in Nigeria. This scheme attracted support, especially as delegations sent to London from Nigeria and from the Gold Coast had each failed to convince the colonial secretary either to grant Africans greater infl uence over administration or to include some democratically selected members on governing councils. Advocates of the NCBWA hoped that the concerted efforts of representatives from all four colonies would prove more fruitful. The Aboriginal Rights Protection Society refused Casely Hayford’s 1918 request that it endorse such an organization, so the NCBWA formed under its own auspices and developed its own agenda, including Pan-Africanism. PRIMARY GOALS The 1919 petition presented to the governor general in Accra by 11 representatives of the general committee of the Protected West African Conference offered an indication of the NCBWA’s primary goals. The document was signed by Casely Hayford and presented by the Nigerian leader. After congratulating the British on Germany’s defeat in World War I and the latter’s removal from the ranks of colonial powers, the petitioners requested that the British ask West Africans for their opinions on matters relevant to their governance; the people of the colonies would choose those West African councillors through free elections. They also encouraged the British to respect traditional land rights and to prohibit the importation of alcohol. The Nigerian governor-general transmitted the petition to London; the colonial secretary did not respond. The NCBWA met for the fi rst time from March 11 through March 29, 1920, in Accra, Nigeria. Representatives from the Gambia (1), Sierra Leone (3), Nigeria (6), and Gold Coast (42) chose Hutton-Mills as their president and Casely Hayford as vice president. They also agreed upon 83 resolutions pertaining to local governance, judicial reform, commerce, and colonial policy. They suggested that the British alter the composition of West African legislative councils to include equal parts Crown nominees and democratically elected representatives. They wanted the creation of municipal institutions, a West African university, and a West African appellate court. They advocated new medical and sanitary efforts, the end of racial segregation in housing, and the establishment of a West African press union to promote national development throughout the four colonies. Further, they rejected the Franco-British decision to partition Togoland and the British handover of Cameroon to the French, which had occurred without any consultation with its inhabitants. In 1920 a delegation from the new NCBWA led by Casely Hayford traveled to London and demanded elective representation for the four colonies. Unfortunately for them, the governors-general of Nigeria and Gold Coast resisted such an erosion of British control. Many of the traditional kings and chiefs in Gold Coast disliked the plan because it would diminish their status and the scope of their authority. Another three years passed before the British granted a new constitution, which included a provision for the election of representatives, to Nigeria. Soon thereafter, they granted a similar constitution to Sierra Leone and to Gold Coast. The acquisition of these new constitutions represents the most concrete achievement of the NCBWA. The NCBWA met several more times: in Freetown in 1923, in Bathurst (now Banjul) in winter 1925–26, and in Lagos in 1930. The congress ratifi ed its constitution at the Freetown meeting. Each meeting generated a list of resolutions, most of which the group never realized. At Bathurst the delegates discussed the possibility of a British West African Federation under a single governor-general. They pondered the establishment of schools across their territories, agricultural banks and cooperatives, and overall commercial and economic independence for West Africa. The congress never achieved any of these items. The NCBWA remained hampered by its inability to appeal to traditional elites, a rural constituency, or radicals who wanted far more than reform. The colonial offi ce and governors-general regarded the opinions of the congress’s members as unrepresentative of African attitudes. The NCBWA’s limitations were also caused by internal dissent and an overall antipathy toward tactics any more radical than petitions or newspapers. Ironically, the institution of the new, partially elective bodies that the NCBWA had so fervently advocated ultimately served to divide congress members politically; they found themselves running campaigns against each other and supporting divergent policies. When Casely Hayford died in 1930, the NCBWA disappeared too. Despite its relative lack of concrete achievements, the NCBWA did help West African leaders in British colonies to understand the region better and to perceive the commonality of their interests. The vibrant civil society and journalism typical of British West African cities, something that did not really exist in 264 National Congress of British West Africa French West African colonies, might testify to the success of agitation by local committees of the NCBWA. The education in activism and the increased political consciousness also facilitated the rise of the next generation of Pan-Africanists and independence leaders, including Kwame Nkrumah. Further reading: Adi, Hakim. “Pan-Africanism and West African Nationalism in Britain.” African Studies Review 43 (April 2000); Langley, J. Ayodele. Pan-Africanism and Nationalism in West Africa, 1900–1945: A Study in Ideology and Social Classes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Melanie A. Bailey Nationalist Party of Indonesia The Perserikatan Nasional Indonesia (PNI, Indonesian Nationalist Union), an important colonial-period party, was established on July 4, 1927, by Achmad Sukarno and Djipto Kusumey. The members of the Indonesian Union, after coming home from the Netherlands, were not satisfi ed with political progress in their country. Political activity in Indonesia remained at a minimum after the failure of the communist movement that had been organized by the Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI, Indonesian Communist Party). The students involved in the movment were joined by Sukarno, who had graduated from the technical college at Bandung. Among these students, Sukarno came into contact with members of the Algemene Studies Club (General Study Club). The PNI was formed with an agenda of noncooperation with the Dutch colonial government, mass mobilization, and complete freedom for Indonesia. The red and white fl ag, the national anthem Indonesia Raya (Greater Indonesia), and bhasa Indonesia (the Indonesian language) became the symbols of Indonesian nationalism. The organization changed its name from Perserikatan Nasional Indonesia to Partai Nasional Indonesia (Nationalist Party of Indonesia) in May 1928. The PNI fought aggressively for Indonesian nationalism, and within two years its membership swelled to 10,000. Sukarno proved to be an excellent orator, and in his position as chairman of the PNI, he pushed a popular agenda that combined elements of nationalism, Marxism, and Islam. As the symbol of the movement, he chose the marhaen, or farmer, who he believed bore the brunt of colonial oppression. He visualized a society free from the control of foreign capital with emphasis on gatong rajong (group spirit). The Dutch government realized the growing strength of the PNI, warning members in August 1929 to cease their activities. Sukarno and other leaders were arrested in December 1929 and charged with jeopardizing public order; Sukarno was given a sentence of four years in prison. The party was also declared illegal. Sukarno’s sentence was commuted after two years, and he was released, then rearrested on similar charges. The PNI was dissolved in April 1931. After the demise of the PNI, small political organizations began to fl ourish throughtout Indonesia. These groups were met by the reactionary policy of Dutch governorgeneral De Jonge (1931–36), who arrested and exiled Indonesian political leaders. The Minangkabau Sutan Sjahrir (1909–66) and Muhammad Hatta (1902–80), who had come back after fi nishing his education in the Netherlands, joined a splinter group of the PNI named Pendidikan Nasional Indonesia (Indonesian National Education Club). After his release Sukarno amalgamated the splinter groups into a mass organization known as Partindo (Indonesian Party). The purpose of this new group was to fi ght for complete independence for Indonesia. It, too, became leaderless after Sukarno’s exile to Flores in 1933. Hatta and Sjahrir also were arrested and sent to Boven Digul. After the independence of Indonesia, the PNI continued as a political party. It was one of the major parties in the 1955 elections aligning with the PKI. The PNI was merged into the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (PDI, Indonesian Democratic Party) in 1973 under General Suharto (1967–98). Further reading: Hering, Bob. Soekarno: Founding Father of Indonesia 1901–1945. Leiden: KITLV Press, 2002; Mishra, Patit Paban. “Indonesia: Political Parties.” In Encyclopedia of Modern Asia. Vol. 3. Edited by David Levinson and Karen Christensen. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2002; Ricklefs, Merle C. A History of Modern Indonesia ca. 1300 to the Present Day. London: MacMillan, 1981; Sardesai, D. R. Southeast Asia: Past and Present. New Delhi: Vikas, 1981. Patit Paban Mishraa nativism, U.S. Nativism is antiforeign, anti-immigrant sentiment, and it has been common throughout U.S. history. Nativism is cyclical in U.S. history. Generally, when the United States is expanding and optimistic, then immigrants nativism, U.S. 265 are welcome. When the country is stagnating and cynical, then it turns on immigrants. U.S. nativism is more about Americans than it is about foreigners. Benjamin Franklin was nativist when he wondered whether the Pennsylvania Germans of his time were capable of becoming assimilated. The Federalist Party of 1798 was nativist in trying to preserve an antidemocratic property-protecting system from immigrant editors and pamphleteers. The Alien and Sedition Acts were nativist as well as political. The anti-Catholicism of the 1830s was nativist. The run-up to the Civil War distracted from nativism, and the resurgence came after the war when anti-Asian sentiment, which originated on the West Coast in the 1850s, resulted in national legislation, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Anti- Asian laws would continue to pass until the 1920s, as would anti-European laws, directed against the different and impossible-to-assimilate new immigrants of the late 19th century who were seen as a threat to an American way already under pressure from the capitalism and industrialism that destroyed the traditional agrarian United States during the Gilded Age. Organized labor, the American Protective Association, and eugenics groups sought immigration restrictions, English literacy laws, and restrictions on parochial schools. They outlawed the teaching of foreign languages in schools. Foreign was seen as undesirable. RED SCARE World War I stimulated the nativist desire for restriction. Anti-Germanism became antiforeignism, which became antiradicalism, which culminated in the Red Scare of 1919 and 1920 and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anticommunist, and antiforeign on top of its historical antiblack prejudice. The Klan drew 5 million members. Again, organized labor asked for restriction of immigrants because they worked for substandard wages and brought the wages of natives down. Another reason for restriction was that the war had produced millions of refugees who might swamp American prosperity if left unchecked. Congress passed a temporary immigration restriction law in 1921 and followed it with the National Origins Act of 1924, which established immigration quotas based on the population profi le of the United States in 1890. The law also effectively excluded all Asians. Immigration control was not suffi cient to quell the nativist urge. In the 1920s the Klan enjoyed a national presence. Although born in the South and based on racism, it took on a broader appeal. The Klan resurgence began after D. W. Griffi th’s Birth of a Nation recalled the 19th-century Klan as heroic. In Georgia William Simmons, a former Methodist minister, reawoke the Klan. It was powerful in Indiana, Oklahoma, and Oregon, and it had a presence in other western states such as Utah. The Klan of the 1920s was opposed to the new morality, the lack of enforcement of Prohibition, and the increase in crime. It was a backlash by a segment of the United States that was losing the battle to modernity. Those who were bypassed by the changing economy, the shift to the cities, and the new ideas of modern art, psychology, and modernism lacked the means to change what was happening to them. Anti-Semitism was strong in the fi rst half of the 20th century, before and after the Klan. Its practitioners included Henry Ford, whose Dearborn Independent had a readership of about 700,000. The Independent featured articles on Jewish gamblers, mobsters, and the dissipation of Jewish music. The Klan literature featured comparable complaints about Jewish jazz and short skirts. Most of all, the anti-Semites blamed Jews for communism. They accepted that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion announced a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and they believed that international Jewry, wealthy and powerful, had bought the Bolsheviks and infl uenced allied armies to leave Russia during the civil war, thus allowing the Bolsheviks to prevail. Anti-Semitic nativism also arose in the Military Intelligence Division, which carefully tracked Jews in the military for Bolshevik, then communist, tendencies, an activity that did not wane until the 1950s and 1960s. Nativist anti-Semites feared that the Jews were conspiring against their Christian nation. Also active in the 1920s were the race theorists Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard, who feared the denordicizing of the people of the United States due to the mingling of what they regarded as superior northern Europeans with the “lesser races.” White supremacist groups emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, emulating Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Silver Shirts, Khaki Shirts, and Brown Shirts marched and made a display but failed to attract a large following. The mood of the United States in the 1920s and 1930s was isolationist. Rather than “over there,” the slogans were “America First” and “Fortress America.” Immigration exclusion fi t the mood, even when the persecution of Jews turned fatal. The United States failed to lift immigration restrictions to help those it did not want on its shores. Nativism became quiet after the Exclusion Law of 1924 because immigration slowed during the Great Depression and World War II. Even without factoring in the deportation of half a million Mexican migrant 266 nativism, U.S. workers and their families (many of them U.S. citizens) in the 1930s, immigration was negative. More left than came in. World War II opened the door slightly, too much for holdover nativists from the 1930s such as Gerald L. K. Smith, who moved from Huey Long’s Share the Wealth, through America First, to radical right Christian anticommunism in the 1950s. Even the immigration reform of the 1950s maintained restrictions, allowing time for the southern and eastern European immigrants to assimilate and providing only token access for Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, and other Asians. The major change came with the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, which sought to renew immigration by the old European immigrants. The act almost absentmindedly brought the third world to the United States. Demographic, linguistic, and cultural diversity generated a new feeling by some U.S.- born citizens that the country was getting away from them. The economy was in crisis due to the 1970s energy crisis and the Vietnam War, which brought about “stagfl ation” as well as massive increases in the foreign population. The newcomers—Vietnamese, Cubans, and South Americans—were scapegoated. The problem was bilingualism, and in the early 1980s the nativists began agitating for English-only in government and sometimes in the private sector. Some U.S. citizens thought that English-only was a tool for forcing assimilation on immigrants (for their own good), but others used English-only as an excuse to terminate bilingual access to essential services. Further reading: Bell, Daniel, ed. The Radical Right. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2002; Bennett, David Harry. The Party of Fear. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988; Brinkley, Alan. Voices of Protest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982; Higham, John. Strangers in the Land. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955; Knobel, Dale T. “America for the Americans.” New York: Twayne Publishers, 1996; MacLean, Nancy. Behind the Mask of Chivalry. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. John H. Barnhill Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) The NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter partei), typically called the Nazi Party in English, was a political party in Germany from 1920 to 1945. The party was founded in Munich under a slightly different name in early 1919, one of many political organizations formed in the wake of Germany’s defeat in World War I. In September 1919 Adolf Hitler joined the party as a spy for German army intelligence. The party and its ideology of nationalism, authoritarianism, and anti-Semitism appealed to Hitler so much that he quit his job with the army to devote himself full time to the party. Hitler soon discovered that he was a great orator who could draw new membership to the party. He soon became the party chairman. He changed the party structure from one of elected leadership and collective decision making to that of Fuhrerprinzip—he was the sole leader and dictated party strategy and policy. He saw the Nazi Party as a revolutionary organization and sought to gain control of Germany through the violent overthrow of the Weimar Republic. Hitler and the Nazi Party believed that the Weimar government was controlled by socialists, Jews, and the “November Criminals” who had forced Germany to surrender at the end of World War I, backstabbing the German soldiers at the front just as they were about to see victory. Hitler added a focus of national expansion and pushed policies of anti-Semitism while downplaying the socialistic ideas of the party’s founders. Racialism gained prominence through the adoption of the swastika and Aryan identity politics. This racial component and the stated goal of helping the Aryan race to achieve its true destiny set Nazism apart from true fascism. By 1923 party membership had risen to more than 20,000 through campaigning with this new message. To showcase their ideas, the Nazis held rallies once a year at Nuremberg. The rallies advertised Nazi power, unity, and a religious loyalty to Hitler as Germany’s savior. The Nazi masses were paraded before Hitler as oaths of loyalty were taken. During the rallies the Nazis introduced new policies and party doctrine. The Nuremburg race laws were unveiled at the 1935 rally. The 1934 rally was best known for the documentary Triumph of the Will, created by Leni Riefenstahl to showcase the ceremonies. It became one of the bestknown propaganda fi lms of all time. To enforce Nazi policy on the street and to protect party speakers at political functions, the Sturmabteilung, or SA (also known as the Brown Shirts for the color of their uniforms), was formed. They acted as a party militia and used quasimilitary ranks and organization. Their main visible function was to prevent the disruption of Nazi speeches by communist-based militias. Later they were used by the party for fundraising, political canvassing, and abuse of party enemies. Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) 267 The SA came into confl ict with the German army in 1934 after pushing to become the new national German army. The SA leadership was murdered, and the organization became marginalized thereafter. In Munich on November 7, 1923, the Nazis launched an attempted coup d’état known as the Beer Hall Putsch. The coup quickly failed, and the ringleaders, including Hitler, were rounded up and sent to prison for short sentences. During his jail stay Hitler wrote a combined autobiography and political manifesto titled Mein Kampf (My struggle). This book outlined the ideas of a cultural hierarchy with the German Aryans at the top and with Slavs, communists, and Jews at the bottom. The lower people were to be purged from the nation so they could not impede its growth. Hitler also stated that nations grew from military power and civil order. Germany was to grow by expanding to the east into its lebensraum (living space). The people of Germany were to be led through the principles of Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer (one people, one nation, one leader). The relationship between the people and the state was that of loyalty, duty, and honor for the state, while the leader was responsible for protecting the Aryan race against those who sought to destroy it. While refl ecting on politics during his prison sentence, Hitler decided to switch tactics. The Nazi Party would quit attempting to seize power by force. Power would now be achieved through legal means by winning elections. After his release Hitler’s personal bodyguard unit, the SS (Schutzstaffel), or protection squadron, became more important, and notable senior Nazi leaders such as Hess, Himmler, Goebbels, and Göring emerged. During the new political period the “Heil Hitler” greeting and the Nazi salute were adopted. Electoral success was very small in the 1924 and 1928 elections, in which the Nazi Party only won 3 percent and 2.6 percent of the votes. The party continued to grow, in part because of the fading of other right-wing political parties and because Hitler assumed leadership of right-wing German politics. The Nazis found support from all areas including small business owners, Protestants, students, rural farmers, and those attracted to paramilitary displays put on by the SA and SS. The biggest upsurge in Nazi support came as a direct result of the Great Depression of 1929. The economic hardships caused by the worldwide depression compounded Germany’s existing problems and set the stage for Nazi expansion by creating a receptive audience. The German left was divided, and its elements could not work together to counter Nazi propaganda. The 1930 elections gave the Nazis 18.3 percent of the vote. In the weeks leading up to this election, Germany was blanketed by Nazi campaigning techniques, propaganda delivered by radio and through rapid travel by airplane. The continued economic chaos played into the Nazis’ hands and pushed more people into the party. In March 1932, Hitler ran for president, losing to Hindenburg. During the campaign the SA and SS battled in the streets against left-wing militias; the escalating violence threatened to throw Germany into chaos. Hitler continued to gain support by promising law and order, while at the same time the Nazis were guilty of instigating most of the violence they preached against. After the elections, neither the Nazi Party nor the communist parties were willing to form a coalition government, so new elections had to be held with much the same result. After much political manipulation, Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor in January 1933. This was seen as a way to solve the electoral deadlock and also as a way to shift blame to the Nazis for Germany’s ongoing problems. Hitler did not play into Hindenburg and the cabal’s hands. Shortly after Hitler’s appointment, the Reichstag was burned down. Hitler and the Nazis used this opportunity to pass the “Enabling Act,” which gave the president dictatorial powers in order to prevent a communist revolution. Hitler used his new powers to gain complete control over the government, police, and communications. The German people were lulled into complacency by the new Nazi economic practices, which were able to bring Germany out of the Great Depression by ending unemployment, stopping hyperinfl ation, and increasing the standard of living. GERMAN SYNTHESIS The period from 1933 to 1939 saw the gradual synthesis of the German state and the Nazi Party. The 1935 Nuremburg laws stripped Jews of civil rights, citizenship, and economic rights and banned their marriage to non-Jews. In 1938 active pogroms began with the infamous Kristallnacht, which resulted in a number of Jewish murders and involved the destruction of stores, homes, and synagogues; it ended with the deportation of 30,000 Jews to the fi rst concentration camps. During the war years the party and the state became fused, and Nazism gradually transformed into loyalty to Adolf Hitler. With Hitler’s death in April 1945, there was little will to keep the party alive. The party was outlawed after the war, and its trappings were removed from society as part of the Allied occupation. See also Holocaust, the; World War II. 268 Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) Further reading: Abel, Theodore. Why Hitler Came into Power. New York: Prentice Hall, 1966; Fest, Joachim. Hitler. New York: Harvest, 1974; Turner, Henry Ashby. Hitler’s Thirty Days to Power. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1996. Collin Boyd négritude Négritude was a literary and then a political movement that developed from the 1930s by a number of intellectuals from French African backgrounds, the most wellknown proponents being Aimé Césaire from Martinique, Leopold Sédar Senghor from Senegal, and Léon Damas from French Guiana. They saw the common African heritage as a uniting force against the French colonial system and the inherent racism in French rule. The original ideas of négritude drew from the Harlem Renaissance and were infl uenced by the works of African Americans such as Richard Wright, Langston Hughes, and James Weldon Johnson. These ideas were distilled by Aimé Césaire in the third issue of the journal L’Étudiant Noir, the word négritude being used for the fi rst time. The magazine was established in Paris by Césaire and two other students, Leopold Senghor and Léon Damas, and became a focus for the concept of a united heritage of the black diaspora in the French colonies; a similar movement, negrismo, was used to describe the same ideas in former Spanish colonies. After World War II, the concept of négritude became a powerful force, with Césaire being elected as mayor of Fort de France, the capital of Martinique, and then to the French chamber of deputies. In 1948 Jean-Paul Sartre endorsed the ideas of négritude in an essay called Orphée Noir (Black Orpheus), which was published as an introduction to an anthology of African poetry compiled by Léopold Senghor, who was urging for independence for Senegal. He became its fi rst president, remaining in offi ce from 1960 until 1980. In 1958 the French fi lm Orfeu Negro (Black Orpheus) was released, set around the Rio de Janeiro carnival. Sartre idealized négritude as a more powerful force than that of French colonial racism, but the négritude concept became criticized in the 1960s with some subsequent African scholars and political thinkers feeling that it never went far enough, as it defi ned the French African diaspora more by what it was against than standing by its own values. Nevertheless, it remained an important development in political thinking in the period of decolonization. Further reading: Arnold, A. James. Modernism and Negritude: The Poetry and Poetics of Aimé Césaire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981; Frutkin, Susan. Aimé Césaire: Black between Worlds. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami, 1973. Justin Corfi eld Nehru, Motilal (1861–1931) Indian leader Motilal Nehru was one of the prominent leaders of the Indian National Congress (INC) and father of India’s fi rst premier, Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964). Descended from a Kashmir Brahmin family, Motilal was born on May 6, 1861, to Gangadhar and Jeorani in Agra. He studied at Muir Central College, Allahabad. After passing the law examination in 1883, he began to practice in Allahabad, where his elder brother, Nandlal, had a roaring practice. Motilal’s legal practice was also very successful. In 1899 and 1900 he went to Europe and began to develop a Westernized outlook. This liberal outlook was in line with that of the moderates in congress. He began to attend the congress’s annual sessions. His rise in politics was gradual: member of the U.P. council, member of the Allahabad municipal board, and ultimately president of the U.P. congress. World War I brought momentous changes in the Indian struggle for independence, and Motilal Nehru emerged as a prominent leader in Indian politics. The ministry (1911–15) of Herbert Henry Asquith (1852– 1928) declared India at war with the Central Powers. Nationalist leaders like Nehru supported the war efforts of the British government with the hope that India would be suitably rewarded in its path toward selfgovernment. Nehru followed a strategy of cooperation with the colonial power to achieve self-government. A resolution of self-government on December 1916 was passed by the INC. The moderate and extremist wings of the INC were united at the Lucknow session of 1916. Nehru played an important role in this. His contribution also was present in bringing about Hindu-Muslim unity in the Lucknow Pact of 1916. This was also the time of the Home Rule League, which was founded by the English theosophist Annie Besant (1847–1933), who had emigrated to India. After much deliberation, Nehru joined the league when Annie Besant was imprisoned in June 1917. He was made the president of the Allahabad branch of the Home Rule League and demanded Nehru, Motilal 269 home rule or self-government of India after the end of World War I. The British government initiated the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, and the INC wanted major changes to the British proposal. Nehru attended the Bombay session of the INC and supported the congress’s demand. He also published a daily newspaper called the Independent beginning in February 1919. In Indian politics events were moving fast. Mohandas K. Gandhi had called for a general strike in April 1919 after the enactment of the draconian Rowlatt Act, which empowered authorities to arrest and detain without trial. The Jallianwalla bagh massacre followed. Nehru was a member of the inquiry committee that had been constituted to investigate the massacre. He argued the cases of persons who had been booked by British authorities. Nehru became the president of the Amritsar session of the INC in December 1919. The next year he was the general secretary of the congress. The emergence of Gandhi brought a new direction to the Indian freedom movement. It greatly affected Motilal Nehru and his family. Nehru cast his lot with Gandhi and supported the noncooperation movement. He resigned from the U.P. council and gave up his lucrative law practice. Nehru began to wear traditional Indian dress and lead a spartan lifestyle. The British government arrested him in December 1921 and put him in jail for six months. After his release Nehru found that the noncooperation movement was in decline. Gandhi had called it off in February after the Chauri Chaura incident. Nehru gave up noncooperation and made plans for entry into the legislative councils. He was one of the founding members of the Swaraj (self-rule) Party in January 1923 and contested the elections. R. K. Shanmukham Chetty (1892–1953), the fi rst fi nance minister of independent India, was the chief whip of the Swaraj Party. It became the largest party in the central legislative assembly and in some legislatures of the provinces. Nehru found it diffi cult to control different factions in the Swaraj Party in spite of his dominating role. He returned to the mainstream of the INC, and the Swaraj Party functioned as a political wing of the INC from 1925 onward. The INC opposed the formation of the Simon Commission of 1927, as it contained no Indians. It was boycotted, and an all-party conference appointed a committee headed by Nehru to prepare a constitution for a free India. The Nehru Report spelled out dominion status for India like that of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The radical wing of the INC, led by Motilal’s son Jawaharlal, opposed the Nehru Report. They wanted complete independence, and the Calcutta session of the INC in December 1928, presided over by Motilal Nehru, witnessed heated debates. Gandhi’s intervention averted a split. It was decided that the INC would launch civil disobedience for complete independence if the British would not grant dominion status within a year. Jawaharlal Nehru was the president of the historic Lahore session of the INC in 1929. Gandhi launched the salt satyagraha with his famous Dandi March in March 1930. Nehru was arrested but released, as he was not in good health. He died on February 6, 1931. Motilal Nehru was one of the important fi gures in the history of the INC. He was a great parliamentarian and an eloquent speaker and organizer. Although overshadowed by his famous son, Motilal Nehru had carved a niche for himself in the Indian anticolonial struggle. Further reading: Chandra, Bipan, et al. India’s Struggle for Independence. New Delhi: Penguin, 1989; Ghose, Sankar. Indian National Congress: Its History and Heritage. New Delhi: All India Congress Committee, 1975; Mohan, Krishan. Indian National Congress and the Freedom Movement. Jaipur: Book Enclave, 1999. Patit Paban Mishra New Deal, U.S. In his acceptance speech at the 1932 Democratic National Convention, Franklin Delano Roosevelt pledged “a new deal for the American people.” The term was subsequently used to describe the spate of government programs and reform laws enacted during the fi rst months of Roosevelt’s presidency in 1933; 15 major bills impacting industry, agriculture, banking, and the unemployed were passed during Roosevelt’s fi rst hundred days in offi ce to combat the crisis of the Great Depression. Another round of legislation, known as the Second New Deal, was adopted in 1935. The various New Deal programs marked an unprecedented effort by the U.S. federal government to stabilize the country and improve the daily lives of Americans. Among the most signifi cant legislation was the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933. The act attempted to stabilize the economy through careful planning, striking a balance between supply and demand. A primary cause of the depression had been the disparity between industrial productivity and consumer purchasing power: While manufacturing output, spurred by rapid technological advances, increased 50 270 New Deal, U.S. percent during the 1920s, per capita income rose much more slowly at 9 percent, and the result was a precariously ineffi cient, wasteful national economy. The Roosevelt administration responded by calling for fair competitive practices, production quotas, price controls, and increased wages. To gain the crucial support of business leaders, the administration suspended antitrust laws and permitted major industries and trade associations to govern themselves by establishing compacts under the auspices of the National Recovery Administration (NRA). To gain the support of labor, the administration enforced a minimum wage, a 40- hour workweek, and the outlawing of child labor. AGRICULTURE The Roosevelt administration similarly sought to rationalize the agricultural sector of the economy through the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA). Even during the 1920s, American farmers were faced with overproduction, low crop prices, and a heavy debt load, and their plight dramatically worsened during the depression years. The nation’s net farm income, worth $6.1 billion in 1929, plummeted to $2 billion in 1932. Sheriff’s sales were commonplace in rural areas, as farmers could not meet their mortgages; on a single day in 1932 in Mississippi, 25 percent of the land in the state was foreclosed. The AAA made payments to farmers to reduce acreage and eliminate livestock. For example, in 1933 the government subsidized the destruction of 10 million acres of cotton, 6 million piglets, and 200,000 sows. To fend off foreclosures, the Farm Credit Administration lent out $100 million in 1933 to facilitate the refi nancing of mortgages. While the New Deal attempted to address structural problems in the American economy, there was a pressing need for immediate relief. At the time of Roosevelt’s inauguration in 1933, 25 percent of the workforce was unemployed. In response, Congress appropriated $500 million to form the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), which disbursed emergency grants to state and local agencies for direct distribution to the poor. In addition, the administration created the Civil Works Administration, a temporary organization that provided small construction and repair jobs for 4 million workers during the winter of 1933–34. As part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Public Works Administration (PWA) was established to sponsor large-scale public works enabling steady employment. Among other projects, the PWA completed the Grand Coulee Dam, the Triborough Bridge in New York City, and hundreds of school buildings. The New Deal produced a hodgepodge of other programs refl ecting the administration’s ad hoc experimentation in the face of crisis. The Civilian Conservation Corps, one of the president’s pet projects, employed approximately 3 million young unmarried men on environmental projects, such as building fi rebreaks and campgrounds in national parks. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), another project of special interest to Roosevelt, was an effort to bring hydroelectric power to the underdeveloped Tennessee River region, where only 2 percent of farms had electricity in 1932. The TVA built 30 dams to reclaim fl oodplains and more than a dozen power plants to generate cheap electricity. In 1934 Congress passed the Securities and Exchange Act, which successfully reined in some of the speculative stock market practices that had contributed to the crash in 1929. The New Deal became involved in cultural efforts such as Federal Project One, a relief program established in 1935 to provide work for writers, actors, musicians, and artists. Roosevelt’s administration made little effort to aid minority groups and had a particularly poor record on African-American civil rights, as the president hesitated to offend infl uential southern Democratic congressmen. Nevertheless, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 allowed Native Americans increased autonomy on their reservations. AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE The most serious political challenge to the New Deal was mounted between 1934 and 1936. During those years, prominent conservative businessmen created a well-publicized lobby group, the American Liberty League, to denounce what they saw as the New Deal commitment to class warfare and incipient communism. The populist Louisiana governor Huey Long accused the Roosevelt administration of placating wealthy businessmen, advocating a “Share the Wealth” program that would force the rich to pay for social programs for the poor. A mass movement led by a retired doctor, Francis Townsend, supported the creation of an “Old Age Revolving Pension,” by which every American over the age of 60 would receive a monthly federal payment. The Supreme Court dealt the New Deal a blow through several unfavorable decisions; the most signifi cant, Schechter Poultry Corp v. United States, ruled unanimously that the National Recovery Administration was unconstitutional. Always a nimble politician, the president sought to defuse populist discontent by offering moderate versions of the favored programs of his most prominent critics. Historians regard the Second New Deal New Deal, U.S. 271 in 1935 as more directly committed to assisting the unemployed, industrial workers, and the elderly than the First New Deal of 1933–34. The administration instituted the Works Progress Administration (WPA), a considerable expansion of earlier work relief programs that eventually employed more than 8 million people. The National Labor Relations Act extended the labor rights of the NIRA by establishing a National Labor Relations Board to arbitrate collective bargaining. This guaranteed unions increased protections and served to systematize relations between massproduction workers and their employers. Perhaps the most far-reaching legislation of the New Deal era, the Social Security Act established a “safety net” for Americans, providing not only an old-age pension but also unemployment insurance and federal assistance for needy, dependent children and the disabled. Despite its enormously ambitious agenda, the New Deal did not produce the hoped-for economic recovery. The gross national product slowly increased during Roosevelt’s first term in office, but in 1937 the country suffered through a significant downturn known as the “Roosevelt Recession,” when business profits dropped by 80 percent. Farm prices increased by 50 percent between 1932 and 1936, but much of the scarcity in agriculture was brought on by an environmentally devastating dust bowl that engulfed the Plains states. The problem of unemployment remained intractable. Unemployment statistics looked much the same throughout the New Deal era: 21.7 percent of American workers were unemployed in 1934, 20.1 percent in 1935, and 19.0 percent in 1938. The general economic mobilization during World War II—and not New Deal policy—finally enabled the country to recover from the Great Depression. Historians have pointed to several problems with the implementation of New Deal programs that impeded their effectiveness. For example, the National Recovery Administration struggled with the unwieldy task of administering competition and production codes for more than 550 separate industries. Small businessmen complained about having no voice in the NRA, and fewer than 10 percent of the code authorities included labor representatives. Large businesses sought to protect their own self-interest and so engaged in pricefixing measures, instituting rules that forbade selling “below cost.” Consumers were thus denied the chance to buy inexpensive goods. The benefits of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration were also unevenly distributed, favoring rural landowners rather than tenant farmers and sharecroppers, who constituted onefourth of the population in the South during the 1930s. A widespread practice by landowners was to evict their tenants, take that land out of production, and collect payment from the AAA. The president expressed ambivalence about his administration’s relief efforts. Although these programs were established with the idea that work relief could restore a sense of dignity among the unemployed, Roosevelt was concerned that relief would become “a habit with the country.” Historians have debated the legacy of the New Deal. During the 1950s, many viewed the New Deal as a triumph for liberalism and democracy. In the 1960s, revisionist historians argued that the New Deal consistently pushed an agenda of “corporate liberalism.” Their analysis held that the depression decade offered an unprecedented opportunity to substantively change Dorothea Lange’s classic photo of a migrant mother in California reveals the social cost of the depression. 272 New Deal, U.S. the American economic system. Instead, the Roosevelt administration, infl uenced by corporate and fi nancial elites, used strategic moderate reforms to defuse popular discontent, thereby safeguarding capitalism. More recent historians have countered that Roosevelt had no mandate to restructure American society through radical reform. They point to the inherent conservatism of the American people during the 1930s. Corporate interests remained hostile to the New Deal even after it introduced banking and securities reforms that effectively stabilized the fi nancial system. Many of Roosevelt’s congressional allies, particularly western and southern senators, were only willing to support the emergency measures of the First New Deal. They were deeply suspicious of expanding federal bureaucratic power and fought against nonemergency reforms. The New Deal established the template for federal activism—but the Roosevelt administration also understood that this activism should be tempered by the desires of constituents. The New Deal philosophy insisted that Americans had the right to basic welfare protections, initiating “safety net” policies that lasted through the 20th century. Primarily, however, the New Deal was an expedient, improvisatory response to the emergency conditions of the Great Depression. Further reading: Brinkley, Alan. The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995; Cohen, Lizabeth. Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919–1939. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990; Dubofsky, Melvyn, ed. The New Deal: Confl icting Interpretations and Shifting Perspectives. New York: Garland, 1992; Kennedy, David M. Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Tom Collins New Economic Policy, Soviet Union The New Economic Policy (NEP) was the transition from an inherent policy of “military communism” food surplus requisitioning to regular food taxation accompanied by liberalization of internal trade and a state monopoly on international trade and heavy industry. The introduction of the NEP was the result of the necessity to maintain the rural population and the agricultural sector of the economy, which were exhausted by civil war. A famine in 1921–23 in the central part of Russia due to economic as well as ecological and climatic factors was an argument in favor of the revision of existing economic policy. The NEP was an initiative of Vladimir Lenin, who, by the beginning of 1921, had already realized that the young Soviet state could face a peasants’ war. The 10th congress of the Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) took place in March 1921 and adopted Lenin’s proposal to transition from food surplus requisitioning to a regular taxation system, the starting point of the NEP, called nepo or nep. From the very beginning the NEP was perceived by Communists as a forced temporary deviation from the immediate introduction of communism based on so-called Marxist ideals. Changes in the food taxation system (the transition from voluntaristic food requisitioning to regular food and, soon afterward, to money taxation) accompanied other reforms in the economic sphere. One of the most important of them was the introduction of the possibility for peasants to sell their surplus products at free markets, which meant the renewal of free internal trade in the country. Foreign concessions and lease and privatization of small enterprises were allowed, and trusts got permission for their activity on self-supporting bases. The organization of new collective and state farms was temporarily suspended, and private land cultivation and land lease were allowed. Nevertheless, the building of communism was not cancelled at all, and key aspects of the economy were totally controlled by the Soviet state. It was a sort of Bolsheviks’ guarantee that in the future, socialist elements would overcome capitalist ones under the proletariat dictatorship. The fi rst results of the introduction of the NEP were visible as early as the 1925, when in most Soviet republics grain production was already as high as before World War I, and industry production levels were also renewed. Changes in economic policy and a general improvement of human welfare were accompanied by general liberalization in the social and cultural spheres. The end of hunger and economic disaster destroyed the basis for peasants’ rebellion movements and contributed greatly to the spontaneous breakup of widely distributed armed bands, particularly in the Ukraine. Mass repressions were stopped, and amnesty was given to members of groups and noncommunist parties. Political emigrants were allowed to return to the country. Such liberalization, alongside an improvement in general welfare, gave the population under New Economic Policy, Soviet Union 273 Bolshevik rule a desire for freedom and caused movement in social and cultural life, ethnic identifi cation, national revival, and other processes noncoherent with proletariat dictatorship ideology. In social and cultural spheres, signs of the end of the general liberalization of internal policy connected with the NEP appeared as early as 1926–28. Usually they are associated with the campaign against socalled nationalistic deviations in the Ukraine, which was a specifi c trend in the communist movement that tried to synthesize the building of communist society with national liberation movements. This campaign was accompanied by an attack on the Orthodox and Autocephal Churches and the destruction of monasteries and churches. In spite of obvious traces of economic growth, the country remained mostly agrarian in its economic orientation and could hardly be competitive with the leading European countries in its struggle for survival. Since the very beginning, the Soviet state had been permanently preparing for the great war against the imperialists, so a well-equipped and modern army needed to be created and maintained. One of the key tasks of the Bolsheviks, headed at that time by Joseph Stalin, became an acceleration of heavy industry development, which was ensured by signifi cant investments. It was proclaimed the main goal of the country’s development at the 14th congress in December 1925. The only reliable source of such investments for the Soviet state was an internal one; that is, it could be maintained by redistribution of internal gross product, guaranteed by strictly controlling all spheres of the economy, the agrarian one included. One means of such gross product redistribution—artifi cially created differences in prices for industrial and agricultural products, with the help of which up to half of the agricultural segment’s income was cut in favor of the industrial one—was widely used during the NEP period. By 1926 it resulted in the so-called NEP crisis: Price control by the state caused a signifi cant excess of demand. Economic policy reorientation, which factually meant dismantling the New Economic Policy, was marked by two epochal decisions by Communist leaders: industrialization and collectivization strategy plans, which came to be known as the Great Breakdown. The fi rst fi ve-year plan of industry development for 1928–33, adopted by the 15th congress of the Communist Party (December 1927), envisaged a high but relatively balanced rate of industry growth. Nevertheless, soon the Communist leadership demanded acceleration. Investment shortage was accompanied by a food crisis in 1928, which was caused by extremely poor harvests in the main Soviet granaries. It was given as the reason to reactivate food requisitioning, to destroy the agrarian market, to intensify the organization of collective farms, and to begin a campaign against relatively prosperous peasants (kulaki), proclaimed by Stalin at the All-Union Conference of Marxists-Agrarians in December 1929. These decisions faced economically motivated objections, and Stalin’s ideas of economic strategic development met strong opposition among Communist Party leaders, including Nikolay Bukharin, Nikolay Rykov, and others. It was a reason that Stalin started his struggle for absolute power, which implied new waves of terror, hunger, and political repressions. In fact, dismantling of the New Economic Policy was the starting point for a fi nal totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union. Further reading: Davies, R. W., ed. From Tsarism to the New Economic Policy: Continuity and Change in the Economy of the USSR. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan in association with the Centre for Russian and East European Studies, University of Birmingham, 1990. Olena V. Smyntyna Nigerian National Democratic Party Historians widely credit the Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP) as the fi rst political party in Nigeria. Herbert Macaulay formed the NNDP in 1922 by organizing a number of Yoruba interest groups into a cohesive single group with the intent of competing politically. In the 1922 elections for the Lagos legislative council, the NNDP won three seats and began its dominance in western Nigerian politics, which would last until the National Youth Movement (NYM) overtook the NNDP in 1938. Politics within Nigeria during its colonial period were characterized by tribalism and geographic rivalry. The nature of the Nigerian system, along with the political culture of Nigeria, made it diffi cult for political parties to unite and form lasting coalitions. Obstacles to political participation traditionally included the number of rural citizens, high illiteracy rates, and the fact that Nigerians speak several hundred different languages. The dominant political parties tended to serve local interests: the Action Group is supported by the Yoruba in western Nigeria 274 Nigerian National Democratic Party and eastern Nigeria; the Ibos in Southeastern Nigeria follow the National Congress of Nigeria Citizens (NCNC); the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) boasts support from the north and the Hausa-Fulani tribe. Nationalism marked the period between World War I and World War II in Nigeria. Overall, the Nigerian variety of nationalism did not call for independence but for inclusion in the political system. Created by British colonialism, Nigeria refl ected a number of different clans and tribes concentrated geographically. The 1922 constitution allowed the political Nigerian the chance to participate in the political process through the election of a number of representatives to the legislative council. One of the many to emerge from the new political opportunities was Herbert Macaulay, referred to as the “father of Nigerian nationalism.” His background as a Nigerian civil servant and his education in England gave him a broad background and the experience necessary for successful activism. Macaulay used his newspaper, the Lagos Daily News, to awaken Nigerian nationalism. The early political platform of the NNDP pushed for a number of reforms. Macaulay called for both economic and educational development. Other popular issues with the NNDP were the Africanization of the civil service and self-government for Lagos. The NNDP, however, only remained a force in Lagos until it was overcome by the NYM. Like other Nigerian political parties, the NNDP’s inability to expand beyond the city of Lagos made it diffi cult for it to become a truly national party. Further reading: Dudley, Billy. An Introduction to Nigerian Government and Politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982; Ihonvbere, Julius O. Nigeria: The Politics of Adjustment to Democracy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1984; Peil, Margaret. Nigerian Politics: The People’s View. London: Cassell, 1976; Whitaker, C. S. The Politics of Tradition: Continuity and Change in Northern Nigeria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. Matthew H. Wahlert Northern Expedition In 1923 Sun Yat-sen made an agreement with the Soviet Union that helped him reorganize the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), and provided military aid to build an army. His price was to admit members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to the KMT, where many were given key posts. Sun formed a government in Canton and died in 1925, after which the KMT split, with the pro-Communist wing in command, led by Wang Jingwei (Wang Ching-wei) and controlled by Soviet adviser Michael Borodin. Anti-Communist right-wing KMT leaders were expelled. By July 1926 the 80,000-strong KMT army commanded by Chiang Kai-shek and led by offi cers trained by him in the Whampoa Military Academy was ready to take on the warlords and unify China. It confronted over 800,000 men from three warlord armies. Chiang won overwhelming victories, clearing warlord armies from lands south of the Yangzi (Yangtze) River. In his wake, Wang Jingwei moved the Nationalist capital from Canton to Wuhan. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s goal was to use the Nationalists to defeat the warlords. But after conquering fi nancial centers Shanghai and Nanjing (Nanking), Chiang preempted Stalin by striking fi rst. He purged the CCP from areas he controlled directly and established an alternate government (to Wuhan) in Nanjing in April 1927. In July the leftists in Wuhan fi nally realized that they were Stalin’s next intended victims and, after dismissing the Soviet advisers, broke with the CCP and dissolved their “government.” Chiang resumed the Northern Expedition early in 1928. His major obstacle was Japanese intervention to prevent the unifi cation of China. The Japanese captured provincial capital Jinan (Chinan of Shandong [Shautung] province), killing 16 Chinese diplomats sent to negotiate and several thousand civilians in the Jinan incident. Chiang avoided war with Japan, diverting his troops’ advance by a longer route. In June the Northern Expeditionary army entered Beijing (Peking) peacefully. Nanjing became China’s national capital, and Beijing was renamed Beiping (Peiping), which means “northern peace.” By the end of 1928, the nation was reunifi ed, though nominally for many regions; the KMT became the ruling government, and China entered a new era. See also United Front, fi rst (1923–1927) and second (1937–1941). Further reading: Jordan, Donald A. The Northern Expedition: China’s National Revolution of 1926–1928. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1976; MacFarquhar. Roderick. The Whampoa Military Academy, Papers on China. Vol. 9. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955; Wilbur, C. Martin. The Nationalist Revolution in China, 1923–1928. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Northern Expedition 275 Nuremberg laws During the annual convention of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) in Nuremberg on September 15, 1935, the “Nuremberg laws” were passed. This new legislation built the basis for the fascist policies of the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler that led to the extermination of Jews in the Holocaust. The laws defi ned specifi cally who qualifi ed as a German citizen and thus had the right to offi cial state protection. The laws also clearly defi ned Jews as enemies of the state and as such stripped them of their rights of citizenship, marginalized them, and prepared for their succeeding mass extermination. The fi rst Nuremberg law, titled “The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor,” prohibited marriages and sexual relations between Germans and Jews and forbade the employment of German women under the age of 45 in Jewish households. It clearly stated a potential danger for fertile German women working in Jewish households. This cast the Jews as lustful beings with little control over their instincts. Jews were portrayed as dangerous to Germans. The fi rst law was passed unanimously in the Reichstag and promulgated on September 16, 1935. The second law, the so-called Reich Citizenship Law, clarifi ed the relationship between German citizens and the state. It made clear that only Germans determined through blood counted as “nationals.” As such, they were considered worthy of protection by the state, but they were also obliged to comply with the provisions that the state made for them. The Reich only considered as citizens those who showed through their behavior that they were personally fi t to serve the nation and were loyal to the state. The Reich Citizenship Law was further defi ned by the fi rst supplementary of the law on November 14, 1935. It used the criterion of purity of blood to distinguish citizens from individuals of mixed Jewish blood and Jews. The state granted the right of citizenship only to full-blooded Germans. Only they were allowed to vote and hold political offi ces. Jews were explicitly excluded from political participation, and Jews currently in political offi ces were ordered to retire by December 31, 1935. The Nuremberg laws were soon followed by “The Law for the Protection of the Genetic Health of the German People,” which required all persons wanting to marry to submit to a medical examination, after which a “Certifi cate of Fitness to Marry” would be issued if they were found to be free of disease. The certifi cate was required in order to get a marriage license. The Nuremberg laws built the basis for the exclusion and later persecution of Jews in German society that eventually led to the Holocaust. The laws operated from the premise that Germans were the pinnacle of evolution and that the German blood pool was superior to that of all other races. As such, the NSDAP considered the protection of the pure German blood pool essential and wanted to ensure that German blood did not mix with that of other races. Further reading: Full text of the Nuremberg Laws. Available online. URL: www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/nurmlaw2.html. Accessed July 2006; History Place. Available online. URL: www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ nurem laws.htm. Accessed July 2006; Rowson, S. W. D. “Some Private International Law Problems Arising out of European Racial Legislation, 1933–1945.” The Modern Law Review 10, no. 4 (October 1947). Uta Kresse Raina Nuremberg Trials The Nuremberg Trials generally refers to the trials against members of the German leadership for war crimes committed in the period leading up to and during World War II. The decision to try these individuals was made during the war. In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States, Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Great Britain, and Joseph Stalin of the USSR proclaimed in the Moscow Declaration, the intent to hold the German leadership responsible for their actions associated with the war. That same year, the initial meeting of the United Nations War Crimes Commission met in London to address the issue. Although there were differing opinions regarding the scope of the trials, the procedural framework, and the substantive nature of the charges, the ultimate decision was made to prosecute roughly 20 members of German government, military, and industry for their involvement in the war. The main portion of the proceedings was held from November 1945 until August 1946 at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg. The Nuremberg Trials were an ambitious undertaking. At the time the charges were brought, there was little, if any, precedent for these charges in international law. The four-count indictment sought to hold accountable not just the individual heads of the Nazi regime, but also the various governmental units. The fi rst count alleged, essentially, that the defendants acted in a conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and 276 Nuremberg laws crimes against humanity. The second count claimed the defendants engaged in a war of aggression. The third count set out that the defendants had a common plan to commit war crimes. The fourth count alleged crimes against humanity, which included the claim that the defendants persecuted civilians on political, racial, and religious grounds. Like the substantive charges in the indictment, the procedure by which the defendants would be charged and tried was something unheard of at the time. Because the British, American, French, and Soviet forces had divided the conquered Germany, each country attempted to influence the manner in which the defendants were to be tried. Four prosecutorial teams assembled to address the charges, and there were four judges, as well as alternates, from the four representative nations. The logistics of holding the proceedings were also daunting. Hundreds of thousands of pages of documents were entered into evidence, and over 100 witnesses testified. Because the prosecutors and the judges presiding over the tribunal were from the representative countries, all communications at the trial needed to be translated into English, French, German, and Russian. The individual defendants were carefully selected so as to represent various segments of the Nazi regime. The defendants were members of the military and government and heads of industry. With Adolf Hitler having committed suicide, the most prominent defendant was Hermann Göring, the commander in chief of the Luftwaffe, or German air force, and president of the Reichstag. Wilhelm Keitel was the chief of staff of the supreme command of the armed forces. Karl Doenitz, commander in chief of the navy, was Hitler’s successor. One person charged, Robert Ley, committed suicide before he could be tried, and two were ultimately deemed unfit to stand trial. All in all, there were 22 named defendants tried, including Martin Bormann, who was tried in absentia. Although the majority of the defendants were convicted, a few were acquitted of some or all of the charges against them. Sentences ranged from death by hanging to imprisonment. Although the Nuremberg Trials generally refer to the initial trial, there were, in fact, 12 follow-up trials involving other lesser-ranking members of the German government involved in various war crimes and human rights abuses. Although some legal scholars challenge the legitimacy of the trials, they served as a detailed review of the atrocities committed by the German government in World War II. The Nuremberg Trials have served as a model for subsequent war crimes tribunals. Further reading: Bernstein, Victor H. Final Judgment: The Story of Nuremberg. New York: Boni & Gaer, 1947; Conot, Robert E. Justice at Nuremburg. New York: Harper and Row, 1983. Darwin Burke Nyasaland (Malawi) Nysaland is the name for the former British protectorate that is the present-day country of Malawi. Modern Zambia, Tanzania, Mozambique, and Lake Nyasa (Lake Malawi) form the nation’s borders. A number of native ethnic groups inhabit the Nyasaland region, including the Chewa, the Yaos, the Lowmes, the Tonga, the Tumbuka, and the Ngoni. The area has been inhabited for about 12,000 years and was first visited by Europeans when the Portuguese adventurer Gaspar Bocarro explored in 1492. Like most of Africa, Nyasaland suffered the damages of the slave trade that flourished in the following centuries. After the Scottish missionary David Livingston arrived on the shores of the lake he named Lake Nyasa in 1859, other missionaries answered his call to come to Africa and fight the slave trade. The first European trade station was built in 1884 at Karonga in the northeastern part of the territory by the African Lakes Company, owned primarily by Glasgow traders. As Britain’s imperialist expansion continued, what was known as the Shire Highlands Protectorate in 1889 Hermann Göring stands in the prisoner’s dock after hearing himself accused of war crimes. Seated beside him is Rudolf Hess, 1946. Nyasaland (Malawi) 277 became a protectorate of the crown. The name was changed to Nyasaland Districts in 1891, to the British Central Africa Protectorate in 1893, and still later to the Nyasaland Protectorate. The area was called Nyasaland until its independence in 1964. Nyasaland’s people resented European rule and in 1915, led by John Chilembwe, openly revolted. Although they were unsuccessful in freeing themselves from foreign rule, the Africans continued to work for their independence. The Nyasaland African Congress (later the Malawi Congress Party) was formed in 1944 with this goal in mind. When Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda became leader of the party in 1959, the movement for freedom intensifi ed. In 1953, at the urging of Britain and of white colonial residents hoping to establish a powerful economic center in the region, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (also called the Central African Federation) was formed. Salisbury (now Harare) in southern Rhodesia was designated the capital of the federation. Giving powers to fi ve governments made the constitution for the federation one of the most complex ever written. Two British administrative offi ces had powers: the Commonwealth Offi ce, which managed affairs with southern Rhodesia, and the Colonial Offi ce, which worked in northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. In addition, each of these three territories had powerful governors, and there was a governor-general of the federation. In addition, the Africans, especially the government of northern Rhodesia now dominated by Africans, were demanding more political control of their own lives. Nyasaland gained its independence from Britain in 1964; it was renamed Malawi in reference to the Maravi, a Bantu people who came from the southern Congo about 600 years before, and elected Dr. Banda as the new nation’s fi rst president. Further reading: Chondoka, Yizenge A. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, 1953–1963. Zambia: University of Zambia Press, 1985; Gale, W. D. Deserve to Be Great: The Story of Rhodesia and Nyasalana. Greenwich, CT: Manning, 1960. Jean Shepherd Hamm

The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present

Namibia Namibia’s government is a multiparty, multiracial democracy. The country is bounded on the north by Angola and Zambia, on the east by Botswana and South Africa, on the south by South Africa, and on the west by the Atlantic Ocean. The total area of Namibia is 824,269 square kilometers. Windhoek is the capital and the main city. The population was estimated at about 2 million in 2005. The dominant religion is Christianity, mostly Lutheran, with English and Afrikaans as the common languages. Namibia spent much of the 20th century under colonial rule. As South West Africa, it was a possession of Germany. From 1904 to 1906 the Namibians rose against their German rulers. The rebellion was crushed, and most of the indigenous people were stripped of their land. On July 19, 1915, the last German troops surrendered to the South African expeditionary corps at Khorab, and the South African military occupation of Namibia began. Namibia was seen as a valuable asset to whoever controlled it because of its mineral wealth and agricultural potential. On December 17, 1920, South Africa received official approval from the League of Nations to rule Namibia under a “C” mandate. This type of mandate was designated for former German territories that were not considered to be likely to pass into independence in the foreseeable future. It led to decades of tension. Although the South Africans publicly claimed that the mandate should be viewed as a position of great trust and honor, in practice it offered profits and advantages to South African nationals. For all essential purposes, Namibia had been annexed to South Africa, with the interests of Namibians subordinate to those of whites. The South-West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), a Marxist guerrilla group founded in 1960, began fighting for Namibia’s independence in 1966. In 1966 the United Nations (UN) passed Resolution 2145, which revoked South Africa’s mandate and changed the country’s name to Namibia. The UN brokered a peace agreement in 1977 in which South Africa accepted UN control over Namibia. Only in 1988, however, did South Africa agree to withdraw from Namibia. The new government held UN-supervised elections in 1989, which SWAPO won decisively. Sam Nujomo, one of the leaders of the independence movement, became Namibia’s first president. After independence, the government pursued a policy of compromise with opposition groups and worked to address racial inequalities. There is an extreme disparity between the income levels of blacks and whites. However, the living standards of blacks have been steadily improving, and the major economic resources in the country are no longer controlled exclusively by whites. The country’s modern market sector produces most of its wealth, while a traditional subsistence agricultural sector supports most of its labor force. The principal exports are diamonds, copper, uranium, gold, lead, cattle, and fish. Ranching is still controlled largely by white citizens and foreign interests. In other industries—notably mining, fishing, and tourism— the participation of indigenous entrepreneurs has N been increased to provide economic opportunities for blacks. The unemployment rate of nearly 40 percent in 2000 primarily affected the black majority. Namibia struggled to bring equality to its indigenous population. Racially, in 2005, black Africans made up 87.5 percent of the population, with white Africans numbering 6 percent and people of mixed race making up 6.5 percent. By law, all indigenous groups participate equally in decisions affecting their lands, cultures, traditions, and allocations of natural resources. However, Namibia’s indigenous citizens were unable to fully exercise these rights as a result of minimal access to education, limited economic opportunities under colonial rule, and their relative isolation. Virtually all of the country’s minorities are represented in Parliament, in senior positions in the cabinet, and at other levels of government. The San, also known as Bushmen, are particularly disadvantaged. The government took numerous measures to end societal discrimination against the San. However, many San children do not attend school, making advancement difficult. The future of Namibia remained in doubt at the start of the 21st century. The spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) held the possibility of devastating the country. Over 20 percent of Namibian adults were infected with HIV. Additionally the presence of numerous refugees from nearby war-torn nations held the potential to drag down the economy and involve Namibians in cross-border conflicts. Desertification, land degradation, and wildlife poaching were likely to remain issues of concern in the foreseeable future. Further reading: CIDMAA (Centre d’information et de documentation sur le Mozambique et l’Afrique australe). Towards Namibian Independence: Prospects for Development and Cooperation. Montreal: Canadian Council for International Cooperation, 1984; Jaster, Robert S. South Africa in Namibia: The Botha Strategy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985; Rotberg, Robert I. Namibia: Political and Economic Prospects. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1983. Steven Dieter Nasser, Gamal Abdel (1918–1970) Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser led the 1952 Egyptian revolution that overthrew the corrupt and ineffective monarchy of King Farouk. Nasser was born into a workingclass family in Asyut province. His father was a postal clerk. Nasser graduated from the Royal Military Academy in Cairo and served in the Sudan. He fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War at Falluja, where Egyptian forces held out against Israel until the war’s end. After the 1948 war, Nasser and other junior officers blamed King Farouk for the war’s substandard weaponry and lack of military strategy. Nasser was one of the founders of the secret Free Officers group that was determined to oust Farouk and set Egypt on a different path. Although the older and better-known Brigadier-General Muhammad Naguib was put forward to the public as the head of the officers’ group, Nasser was in fact the acknowledged leader. He was known for carefully listening to all viewpoints and then making decisions. On July 22, 1952, the Free Officers overthrew the monarchy in a practically bloodless coup d’état. A Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) was established with Naguib as its head. Nasser and Naguib clashed over whether to keep a parliamentary system or to establish a one-party state with populist support, a course Nasser favored. The majority of the officers favored Nasser, and a single party, the Liberation Rally, was established in 1953. After a failed assassination attempt on Nasser in 1954, the Muslim 304 Nasser, Gamal Abdel Gamal Abdel Nasser (center left) led the 1952 Egyptian revolution that overthrew the corrupt monarchy of King Farouk. Brotherhood, with whom Naguib had close ties, was banned, and Naguib was removed from power. A new constitution was implemented in 1956 and Nasser was elected president by a huge majority of Egyptian voters. He was twice reelected to the position. A highly charismatic figure and a brilliant speaker in colloquial Arabic, Nasser was extremely popular with the majority of Egyptians and among average Arabs everywhere. Not an ideologue, Nasser was a pragmatic political leader who sought to develop Egypt economically and socially. He moved toward socialism and the Soviet Union after his requests for military aid had been rebuffed by the United States. His regime jailed members of both the Egyptian Communist Party and the Muslim Brotherhood on the right. After attending the Bandung Conference in 1955, Nasser joined with Jawaharlal Nehru of India and Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia in championing positive neutralism, in which Third World nations would not forge solid alliances with either the United States or the Soviet Union in the cold war but would instead act in their own best interests. Neither of the superpowers liked this approach, but the United States was particularly hostile to it. Steering a neutral course, Nasser opposed the Western-led CENTO/Baghdad Pact and opposed Arab regimes such as the Hashemite monarchies in Iraq and Jordan and the conservative, extremely pro-Western Saudi Arabian monarchy. Nasser also spoke of Egypt belonging to three circles: the Arab, African, and Islamic worlds. Under Nasser, Egypt became a center for African and Arab political leaders and students. Although he was personally a devout Muslim, Nasser was committed to secular government and persecuted Islamists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, which sought to establish a state based on Muslim religious law and practice. Like all Arab leaders, Nasser supported the Palestinian cause and their right to self-determination. He permitted some fedayeen (self-sacrificers) guerrilla attacks from the Egyptian-administered Gaza Strip in Israel, but he also recognized the superiority of Israel’s military. Consequently he initially sought, through back channels, to negotiate settlements to the conflict with Israel. Israel insisted on face-to-face negotiations, and the attempts all failed. In 1956 after the United States had refused to grant aid for building the Aswa¯n Dam, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. The nationalization led to the 1956 Arab-Israeli War, in which Great Britain, France, and Israel jointly attacked Egypt. The war was a military loss for Egypt but a political victory after which Nasser became indisputably the most popular man in the entire Arab world. During the so-called Arab cold war Nasser’s influence dominated the liberal, progressive, and socialist governments in Syria and elsewhere, versus the conservative pro-Western monarchies, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia. With the formation of the United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria in 1958, Nasser perhaps reached the peak of his popularity. Following the devastating military losses in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Nasser accepted responsibility and resigned. Massive and generally spontaneous public demonstrations calling for his return led him to resume the Egyptian presidency, but he never regained the unquestioning support throughout the Arab world that he had previously enjoyed. In 1970 Nasser was called upon to mediate a truce between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and King Hussein of Jordan in the bloody war between the two. Shortly thereafter he suffered a massive heart attack, in part brought on by the tensions of the negotiation, and died in late September. Although Nasser was mistrusted and opposed in most of the West and Israel, millions of mourning Egyptians joined his funeral cortege. The legacy of Nasserism, secular pan-Arab nationalism, and state-directed socialism, spread throughout most of the Arab world during Nasser’s lifetime, but declined and, except in Lebanon, largely diminished after his death. See also Islamist movements. Further reading: Heikal, Mohamed H. Nasser: The Cairo Documents. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973; Nasser, Gamal Abdel. The Philosophy of Revolution. Buffalo, NY: Economica Books, 1959; Woodward, Peter. Nasser. London: Longman, 1992. Janice J. Terry Ne Win (1911–2002) Burmese ruler U Ne Win was one of the central figures in 20th-century Burmese history and bears a heavy responsibility for creating one of the most vicious, despotic regimes of the modern world. Ne Win was born into a middle-class family in Burma as it was becoming more firmly integrated into the British Empire. His original name was Shu Maung, and he Ne Win 305 studied at University College, Rangoon. When Japanese troops invaded Burma in World War II, he was one of many Burmese who welcomed their defeat of the British. He became one of the “30 Comrades” who received secret military training from the Japanese and subsequently led the Burma Independence Army (BIA) into Rangoon. By this time, he had changed his name to Ne Win, or Brilliant Sun. However, he subsequently became disillusioned with Japanese rule and, together with Aung San, nationalist leader of the Burmese, he switched the allegiance of the BIA to the Allied forces. When Burma won independence in 1948, he was appointed to command the military forces of the country and played an important role in dealing with the conflict between the central government and ethnic minority groups. U Nu was ruling the country during the early postindependence years as head of the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL), which had been created by Aung San. However, the gradual breakdown of unity within the AFPFL led U Nu to invite Ne Win and his Burmese Socialist Party to form a caretaker government. Ne Win yielded power at the 1960 general election but then seized power in 1962 on the grounds that the policies of U Nu’s new government had led to a renewal of fighting and religious conflict. As ruler, Ne Win announced the Burmese Way of Socialism, which combined elements of socialism, antiimperialism, and forced puritanism. The results were increasingly disastrous for Burma’s economy and society. Despite progressive strengthening of control over power, intensive censorship, isolationism, and mass arrests, his government was never fully able to suppress the opposition. The international community was critical of his rule, but he was able to gain support from China to maintain his rule. As time went on his personal idiosyncrasies became more prominent, which included increasing reliance on mysticism and superstition. One bizarre move was his insisting that all currency be issued in denominations divisible by nine or in other numbers he considered to be auspicious. In 1987 rioting intensified across the country and led to Ne Win’s resignation the following year. Power passed to the State Law and Order Restoration Committee (SLORC), which renamed the country Myanmar. Ne Win maintained some behind-the-scenes role in the government. Further reading: Alamgir, Jalal. “Against the Current: the Survival of Authoritarianism in Burma.” Pacific Affairs 70, no. 3 (Autumn 1997); Callahan, Mary P. Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006; Maung, Mya. “The Burma Road from the Union of Burma to Myanmar.” Asian Survey 30, no. 6 (January 1990). John Walsh Nehru, Jawaharlal (1889–1964) Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru came from a distinguished Kashmiri Brahmin family. His father, Motilal Nehru (1861– 1931), was a successful lawyer who joined the Indian National Congress (INC), becoming its president in 1920. The elder Nehru founded a nationalist newspaper named The Independent and was elected to the Indian Legislative Assembly in accordance with the India Act (or Mongatu-Chelmsford Reform of 1919) between 1923 and 1924, and in 1926. He was also the author of the 1918 Nehru Report, which advocated dominion status for India. Jawaharlal Nehru was educated at Harrow and Cambridge University in England, returning to India in 1912. He had a brief career as a barrister but soon gave up the legal profession and joined the Indian National Congress. He became a follower of Mohandas Gandhi, accompanying him in civil disobedience campaigns for self-government for India and serving many terms in jail. He rose quickly in the Congress, becoming leader of its left wing, its secretary between 1929 and 1939, and also its president. He used five months of internment in Ahmadnagar Fort in 1944 to write a book titled The Discovery of India that explored India’s cultural heritage. When freed from prison, he participated in negotiating sessions with British authorities in attempts to find mutually acceptable formulas for advancing India’s quest for independence. Although he condemned the provisions of the India Act of 1935 as totally inadequate, he nevertheless campaigned for the legislative elections that it authorized, winning impressive majorities in all non-Muslim provinces in 1937. Triumphantly Nehru stated that henceforth there were “only two parties” in India, the British-controlled government and the INC. Such statements motivated Mohammed Ali Jinnah, president of the All India Muslim League (which won in the Muslim majority provinces) to rally Indian Muslims to work toward a separate nation, Pakistan. World War II shattered hopes of Hindu-Muslim unity. While the Congress refused to cooperate with the British war effort without first achieving independence 306 Nehru, Jawaharlal and ordered all its provincial ministries to resign, the League hailed the day that the order was given as a day of deliverance for Muslims. League ministries cooperated with British authorities throughout the war and thereby gained valuable governing experience. Nehru spent the war years in jail for leading campaigns of noncooperation, and out of jail negotiating with British missions on the timetable for the transfer of power to Indians. His longest stint in prison was between August 1942 and March 1945. Elections in Britain in 1945 had brought the Labour Party to power. Prime Minister Clement Attlee appointed Louis, Lord Mountbatten, Allied supreme commander in the Southeast Asia war theater, the last viceroy to India to complete the handover of power, set for August 1947. By that time the Muslim League had become firmly committed to Pakistan, and Gandhi and Nehru were forced to concede to a partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan, which was accompanied by communal rioting and large-scale movement of refugees, with countless killed. Nehru became the first prime minister of independent India. The years between 1947 and 1964, when Nehru was prime minister and the Congress Party held a majority in the Indian parliament, are called the Nehru Era. Economically, Nehru was committed to industrial expansion and adopted many features of the planned economy of communist nations, although he also allowed free enterprise. He abandoned the Gandhian vision of handicraft industries. India’s neutral stance and leadership among the nonaligned nations resulted in both the Communist and the Western blocs giving large amounts of economic aid to India. Farming remained in private hands, and there was no state-sponsored land distribution to the peasants. Economic development was stymied by rapid population growth, spurred by medical advances that increased life expectancy. Nehru conceded that India had to run fast in order to stand still because, despite steady gains in gross national product, per capita income showed little growth, and most of the population remained very poor. Under Nehru (and afterward), India’s main international problem was Pakistan. The two newly independent nations went to war immediately over control of Kashmir, a princely state in the north with a Muslim majority population but ruled by a Hindu prince. Under the terms of the partition all princely states had to choose to join either India or Pakistan, and the ruler of Kashmir opted to join India, which immediately sent in its military. Pakistani forces also crossed into Kashmir, touching off the first Indo- Pakistani War. A cease-fire under a United Nations mandate went into effect in 1948, but the dispute remained unsettled, and Kashmir remained partitioned in 2006. A small war in 1961 expelled the Portuguese from their enclave, called Goa, in southwestern coastal India. As a republic, India remained a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. Nehru’s foreign policy was aimed at securing Indian leadership among the nonaligned nations in the cold war; most of them were newly independent countries in Asia and Africa. However, he found his quest for leadership challenged by the People’s Republic of China, which, although communist, also sought to lead the Third World. Nehru’s friendship with China hit a roadblock over Tibet, a Chinese territory that Great Britain had sought to draw into its sphere of influence since the late 19th century. Tibet had enjoyed autonomy under the weak Chinese republican governments after 1912, which ended when the communist government of China militarily took control of Tibet and began consolidating its power there. A disputed boundary between the two nations remained unresolved, China contending that the McMahon Line drawn by the British in 1914 included 52,000 square miles of Chinese territory in India. Relations were exacerbated when a failed Tibetan revolt against China led to the flight of the Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama, to India, which gave him and his followers political asylum. A brief war broke out between India and China (September–November 1962) in which the Indian army was decisively defeated. The victorious Chinese army, however, did not advance beyond the area in dispute. The war was a severe blow to Nehru’s prestige. See also Bandung Conference (Asian-African Conference); Gandhi, Indira. Further reading: Gopal, Sarvepalli. Jawaharlal Nehru, A Biography. Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979; Nehru, Jawaharlal. The Discovery of India. New York: 1946; Wolpert, Stanley. Nehru, A Tryst with Destiny. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Nepal civil war The Nepal Maoist/communist rebellion, more often called the Nepal civil war, started on February 13, 1996, as an armed attempt by communist forces to overthrow the mainstream government and replace it with a targeted “People’s Republic of Nepal.” The rebellion was Nepal civil war 307 spurred by growing dissatisfaction and unrest with the monarchy and mainstream political groups. In late 2006, the conflict was ongoing. The war’s origins can be traced back to Nepal’s political past. Nepal started out as a monarchy in the 17th century under the Shah dynasty and came under British rule in 1816 as a result of defeat in the Anglo- Nepalese War. Nepal gained independence from British rule in 1923. During this period, some Nepalese became interested in communism while others favored democracy. In 1959 an experimental democratic government was instituted, but it was overthrown by King Mahendra in 1961. Communists were present in Nepal in the 1960s, but King Mahendra had banned political parties. When King Birendra allowed political parties to exist again in 1990, with Nepal’s government transforming into a constitutional monarchy, the communists formed the United People’s Front (UPF). In 1994 the antigovernment element of the UPF split, forming the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), which upheld the communist principles of Mao Zedong. Tensions in the country, because of corruption and controversy in elections, led the CPN to decide that an armed uprising was the only way to achieve their goals. On February 13, 1996, the CPN launched simultaneous attacks on police and government targets. The leader of the communists is a shadowy figure called Prachanda. However, the methods used by the communists within Nepal can be considered something short of terrorism; there have been reports of torture, random killings, bombings, abductions, and intimidation 308 Nepal civil war The country of Nepal, nestled in the Himalya Mountains, faces a civil war as communist forces try to overthrow the mainstream government and replace it with the People’s Republic of Nepal. of civilians and government officials. The Royal Nepal Army fought the communist forces in what they called a police action, and have not declared war. Kilo Sera 2, launched in June–August 1998, was a government operation cracking down on the communist rebels. The government believed that enforcement of law and order was all that was needed to quell the rebellion. The operation is considered to have added fuel to the rebellion instead of discouraging it, since the people were more sympathetic to the rebels. In June 2001 Crown Prince Dipendra went on a shooting rampage and killed most of the royal family— including his father, King Birendra, and his mother, Queen Aishwarya. As a result, Gyanendra, the late king’s brother, took the kingship, although he let the parliamentary government continue operating. Although disagreement on the prince’s choice of wife was considered the reason for the rampage, conspiracy theories circulated that made King Gyanendra the mastermind of the killings for the purpose of seizing power in Nepal. In 2002, under the banner of the War on Terror after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States, Europe, and India began supporting the Nepalese government with supplies and financial aid. On February 1, 2005, King Gyanendra dismissed Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, restoring an absolute monarchy in Nepal and further fueling suspicions that he had masterminded the 2001 royal family killings. This action, however, caused further aid from other countries to cease. In April 2006 King Gyanendra agreed to cease his absolute monarchy and return power to his parliament, led by Prime Minister G. P. Koirala. In May 2006 the Nepalese government called a cease-fire and started peace talks with the rebels, though the rebels participated in talks without agreeing to lay down their arms. In July, a United Nations delegation came to mediate peace terms, and both the government and the rebels agreed to let the UN team mediate. As of 2006 more than 12,700 casualties had been reported, and 150,000 people had been displaced as a result of the war. On November 21, 2006, a peace accord was signed between the rebel forces led by the mysterious Prachanda and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, officially ending hostilities. But it remains to be seen whether this will be the end of long-term tensions in the country. Further reading: Muni, S. D. Maoist Insurgency in Nepal: The Challenge and the Response. New Delhi: Observer Research Foundation, 2004; “Q&A: Nepal War.” BBC News Online, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2707107.stm (cited September 2006); Raj, Prakash A. Maoists in the Land of Buddha: An Analytical Study of the Maoist Insurgency in Nepal. Delhi: Nirala, 2004; Thapa, Deepak. Understanding the Maoist Movement of Nepal. Kathmandu: Martin Chautari, Centre for Social Research and Development, 2003; Thapa, Deepak, and Bandira Sijapati. A Kingdom Under Siege: Nepal’s Maoist Insurgency, 1996 to 2003. London: Zed Books, 2005. Chino Fernandez Ngo Dinh Diem (1901–1963) South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem was president of South Vietnam from 1955 until his death in 1963. He was born into a privileged family from the Vietnamese elite. Ngo Dinh Diem’s ancestors were among the first to convert Vietnamese to Catholicism in the 17th century. As a Catholic, he was closely aligned with the French colonial rule in Vietnam. In 1933 Ngo Dinh Diem was appointed to the Ministry of the Interior under the emperor Bao Dai, who ruled under French tutelage. However, he was soon forced to resign since the French opposed his proposed reforms. For 12 years he resided in Hue without holding public office. He did not return to power until 1954, when Bao Dai invited him to join his new government. Nevertheless, within a year he had engineered the ousting of the emperor and established himself as president of South Vietnam with dictatorial powers. He had been able to achieve this because of the support of the United States, which believed that his opposition to communism would make him the best candidate to lead a pro-Western united Vietnam. The United States was soon frustrated by Ngo Dinh Diem’s intransigence and refusal to accede to the terms under which the United States had backed him. These included most notably the implementation of the Geneva Accords, which required general elections throughout the country in 1956. Instead he appointed members of his family to senior positions within the administration. When it became clear that he had no intention of following U.S. policies, U.S. authorities withdrew their support and permitted Vietnamese army officers to assassinate him in November 1963. Further reading: Jacobs, Seth. America’s Miracle Man in Vietnam: Ngo Dinh Diem, Religion, Race, and U.S. Intervention in Ngo Dinh Diem 309 Southeast Asia, 1950–57. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005; Ninh, Kim N. B. A World Transformed: The Politics of Culture in Revolutionary Vietnam, 1945–65. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002; Turley, William S. The Second Indochina War: A Short Political and Military History, 1945–75. Denver, CO: Mentor Books, 1987. See also Nguyen Van Thieu; Vietnam War John Walsh Nguyen Van Thieu (1923–2001) South Vietnamese leader Nguyen Van Thieu was president of South Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam) from 1967 until it fell to the Communist North Vietnamese forces in 1975. He played a major part in the U.S. war in Vietnam and lived the remainder of his life in exile. Nguyen Van Thieu was the son of a small landowning family in a Vietnam colonized by the French. He aspired to freedom for his country and joined Ho Chi Minh’s liberation struggle in 1945. However, he subsequently defected to fight on the side of the French against his former allies. His ability as a military leader was soon recognized and, from 1954, he took command of the Vietnamese Military Academy of South Vietnam after it won independence from France. He served under Ngo Dinh Diem but also took part in Ngo’s assassination in 1963, with the tacit support of U.S. authorities. He subsequently took a leading role in Nguyen Cao Ky’s military government, and was elected president of the Republic of Vietnam in 1967 and then reelected unopposed in 1971. Nguyen Van Theiu’s administration tended toward authoritarianism, with U.S. support possibly because the United States had no alternatives. Nguyen Van Thieu was nevertheless critical of U.S. policies and politicians. He resented their lack of interest in Vietnamese culture and history, refusal to learn the Vietnamese language, and demands for democracy. Even as he was airlifted out of Saigon in 1975 just before it fell to communism, he accused the United States of running away and abandoning his country. He was as an ally of U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson and then Richard Nixon, as he led the South Vietnamese state against the Communist forces. He worked with U.S. military advisers and then with the large-scale deployment of U.S. and allied forces. As the Communists gained ground, he agreed to participate in negotiations that resulted in the peace agreement of 1973. As U.S. forces withdrew from South Vietnam and the North Vietnamese advanced, he ordered all South Vietnamese forces to protect Saigon, but was unsuccessful. As the city fell he resigned as president and fled to exile, first in London and then in the United States. See also Vietnam War. Further reading: Isaacs, Arnold. Without Honor. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Tang, Truong Nhu. A Vietcong Memoir: An Inside Account of the Vietnam War and its Aftermath. New York: Vintage Books, 1986. John Walsh Nicaraguan revolution (1979–1990) On July 19, 1979, a multiclass coalition led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional, [FSLN], or Sandinistas) overthrew the 43-year Somoza dictatorship, inaugurating the period of the Nicaraguan (or Sandinista) revolution. Nicaragua, under the FSLN, is considered the last major battleground of the cold war in the Western Hemisphere. In the early 1980s the revolutionary regime embarked on a series of successful programs in health care, literacy, and related arenas and enjoyed wide spread support. By the mid- 1980s the regime and revolutionary process began to weaken, largely the result of a crippling U.S. trade embargo and the U.S.-supported contra war under U.S. President Ronald Reagan. On February 25, 1990, a coalition of anti-Sandinista political parties defeated the ruling regime at the polls, effectively ending the 11-year revolutionary experiment. The origins of the revolution lie in decades of politically exclusionary dictatorship under the three Somozas; the long history of U.S. military, economic, and political intervention in Nicaraguan affairs; the crushing poverty suffered by the majority of the country’s citizens; and the political and military organizing efforts of the FSLN. Named after Augusto C. Sandino, the nationalist rebel who fought the U.S. Marines to a stalemate from 1927 to 1932, the FSLN was founded in 1961 by Carlos Fonseca Amador, Tomás Borge, and other Nicaraguans inspired by the example of Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution. After nearly two decades of organizing and struggle, and the death of Fonseca in 1976, by the late 1970s the Sandinistas had garnered the support of the majority of western Nicaragua’s 310 Nguyen Van Thieu urban poor and a substantial segment of its business and landowning class. Their political program emphasized opposition to the Somoza dictatorship (Somocismo) and U.S. imperialism; nationalism, democracy, and social justice at home; and political nonalignment abroad. In 1979 a divided elite, the intransigence and corruption of the regime of Anastasio Somoza Debayle, and a relatively benign U.S. administration under President Jimmy Carter combined to create a strategic political opening, which the FSLN exploited to defeat Somoza’s National Guard (Guardia Nacional) and seize state power. An estimated 50,000 Nicaraguans died in the uprisings and insurrections against the Somoza regime, around 1.7 percent of the country’s population of 3 million. The economy was devastated, with GDP declining 7.2 percent in 1978 and 25.9 percent in 1979, and the country saddled with $1.6 billion in foreign debt and severe shortages of food, medicine, and other basic commodities. revolutionary state After ousting Somoza, the Sandinistas embarked on a far-reaching program of social and economic reform. The preexisting national government was abolished, replaced by the Governing Junta of National Reconstruction (JGRN, or Junta), established in Costa Rica in early 1979 and the country’s supreme political authority. From 1979 to 1984 de facto political power was wielded by the FSLN’s nine-member Joint National Directorate (DN), whose policy prescriptions guided the JGRN. The Fundamental Statute of the Republic of Nicaragua, decreed by the JGRN in August 1979, abolished the previous constitution and established three branches of government: executive (the JGRN, comprised of five members); legislative (the Council of State, inaugurated in May 1980 and composed at that time of 47 members); and judicial (the Courts of Justice). After national elections in November 1984, the National Assembly replaced the Council of State, and the JGRN was dissolved, replaced by elected president Daniel Ortega. In January 1987 a new constitution was promulgated codifying these and other changes. Promoting democracy from below, the revolutionary regime found much of its legitimacy in the many popular organizations (organizaciones populares) that helped bring the Sandinistas to power, and which continued to play a key role in the revolution after 1979. Chief among these were the Sandinista Defense Committees (CDSs, or neighborhood committees); the Sandinista Workers Federation (CST), the Rural Workers Association (ATC), the National Union of Farmers and Ranchers (UNAG), and the Luisa Amada Espinosa Nicaraguan Women’s Association (AMNLAE). Incorporating gender equality into its platform, the FSLN focused considerable attention on women’s issues, including maternal health, child care, political equality, and others, though critics later charged that the party largely reproduced the patriarchal norms of the larger society. The new government also abolished the National Guard and police forces, and in their stead created the Popular Sandinista Army (Ejército Popular Sandinista, or EPS), under the direction of the Ministry of Defense; and the Sandinista Police and State Security Forces, under the Ministry of Interior. One of the major tasks of the new regime was to launch extensive land reforms through its Ministry of Agricultural Development and Agrarian Reform (MIDINRA), headed by DN member Jaime Wheelock. Sandinista agrarian reform efforts in the 1980s, like those of Cuba in the 1960s, have been the topic of enormous controversy. On seizing power, the government expropriated all land owned by Somoza and his allies, a total of some 800,000 hectares, or 20 percent of the country’s arable land. Most was given over to various types of state-run cooperatives. Criticized for favoring these state-run farms over privately owned peasant farms through differential loan and credit policies, MIDINRA’s post-expropriation policies were among the chief reasons cited by opponents of the regime for the growth of counter revolutionary (contra) forces within the country beginning in the early 1980s. social and cultural policies In the realm of popular welfare, the revolutionary government embarked on a wide range of reforms. These included a more extensive social security system; large state subsidies for housing and staple foods; the creation of a national health care system; a major expansion of public schooling; and a Literacy Crusade that earned the UNESCO Literacy Prize in 1980. In the cultural arena, the Ministry of Culture promoted a host of revolutionary cultural products and forms including music, theater, dance, and visual arts, in part through the Sandinista Association of Cultural Workers (ASTC). A major issue through the 1980s was the relationship between the Sandinista regime and the ethnic minorities of the Atlantic coast region, which had a very different history and culture from mestizo-dominated, Spanish- speaking western Nicaragua. Despite the FSLN’s efforts to grant the Atlantic coast population substantial Nicaraguan revolution (1979–1990) 311 political and cultural autonomy, from the early 1980s opposition to the regime mounted among the region’s indigenous (Miskitu, Sumu, and Rama Amerindians), Garifuna (Afro-Amerindian), and English-speaking Afro-Caribbean (or Creole) population—minorities that together comprised around 35 percent of the coastal (costeño) population of some 270,000. Another major issue concerned the revolution’s relationship to the Roman Catholic Church. Critics of the regime emphasized the disrespect shown to Pope John Paul II in his visit to Managua in March 1983, which they argued was emblematic of the FSLN’s anti- Catholicism, while the regime’s supporters stressed the influence of liberation theology on Sandinista efforts to promote equal rights and social justice. On November 4, 1984, the Sandinistas held national elections—to be held every six years—in which they garnered 67 percent of the vote and won 61 of 96 seats in the newly created National Assembly. The elections were denounced as fraudulent by the United States but judged as fair by international observers from Europe and the Americas, including the Latin American Studies Association. international relations Internationally, the Sandinista government pursued a policy of nonalignment, garnering the support of the Nonaligned Movement, and forging alliances with and receiving foreign assistance from western Europe (including France, West Germany, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark), as well as Cuba, the East bloc, and the Soviet Union. The United States, under President Reagan, interpreted the regime as a Cuban and Soviet beachhead and bulwark of communism. On April 1, 1981, the Reagan administration announced a cutoff of aid, thereafter successfully depriving the regime of credits and loans from the Inter- American Development Bank and other U.S.-dominated transnational financial institutions. On December 1, 1981, Reagan issued a Presidential Finding authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency to “support and conduct paramilitary operations against . . . Nicaragua,” which included support for contra forces, composed principally of several thousand former members of Somoza’s National Guard exiled in Honduras. In February and March 1984 the United States mined the harbor at Puerto Corinto, western Nicaragua’s largest port, and in May 1985 Reagan announced a U.S. trade embargo against Nicaragua. These and related hostile acts galvanized a growing peace and justice movement, in solidarity with the revolution, in the United States, Europe, and Latin America. end of the revolutionary experiment By the late 1980s the regime was beleaguered by the combined effects of the trade embargo, the contra war, hyperinflation, and growing popular discontent in consequence of the devastation of the contra war, severe economic dislocations, and the policy of universal military conscription. Losing the February 1990 elections to Violeta Chamorro and the National Opposition Union (UNO), the regime peacefully ceded power, leaving the country with some $12 billion in debt. After 1990 the legacy of the revolution continued to exercise a major influence on the country’s social, political, and cultural life, while a retooled FSLN wielded considerable political power in a series of coalition governments. A substantially reconfigured Sandinista Party regained the presidency in 2006 with the election of Daniel Ortega. Further reading: Walker, Thomas W., ed. Nicaragua: The First Five Years. New York: Praeger, 1985; Walker, Thomas W., ed. Nicaragua Without Illusions: Regime Transition and Structural Adjustment in the 1990s. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1997. Michael J. Schroeder Nigeria Nigeria is located in western Africa on the Gulf of Guinea between Benin and Cameroon. It occupies 923,768 square kilometers (356,667 square miles), making it one-third larger than the U.S. state of Texas. Nigeria stretches 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) from north to south, and is 1,100 kilometers (700 miles) wide from the Atlantic coast to its eastern border. Nigeria’s population has grown extremely rapidly from 35 million to over 137 million in 2004. It is home to one out of every six Africans. The population is extremely diverse and contains as many as 250 separate ethnic groups and a reported 500 languages. The major population divisions include the Hausa (29 percent), who live in the north; the Yoruba (21 percent), who occupy the southwest; the Igbo or Ibo (18 percent), who are in the southeast; and the Ijaw (10 percent), who reside in the east. The Fulani (9 percent), found primarily in the north, along with a large number of smaller groups, complete the essential Nigerian 312 Nigeria ethnic matrix. This societal complexity makes for enormous governing difficulties. There is also the divide of religion, with the north heavily Muslim and the south largely Christian. One attempt to foster better unity was the adoption of English as the nation’s official language. Fifty percent of the population now has a basic command, although there are many more who speak a smattering of broken or “pidgin” English. Administratively the nation is currently divided into 36 states and one capital territory. Abuja, located in the center of the country, became the nation’s capital in 1991, replacing in this capacity the large port city of Lagos with its over 13 million people. Modern Nigeria is a product of the late 19th-century British Empire builders. Before this time it was part of a wide-ranging section of West Africa made up of many peoples and territories, all occupying much smaller tribal areas. Lagos became a full British colony in 1861. The country’s name is taken from the river Niger. The actual official designation of Nigeria is often attributed to the wife of a colonial official who in 1898 merged Niger with “ia” to create today’s identity, which means literally “black area.” All of West Africa, including Nigeria, was the subject of even earlier European interest. The Portuguese came to the area in the late 15th century, attracted by the lucrative slave trade with local tribes. The profits were such that the Portuguese slave trading monopoly was broken in the 16th century as other Europeans, including the British, wanted a share of the riches. Lagos and Badagry became important markets for the exchange of a variety of products, particularly gin and firearms. Although the slave trade was abolished in the British Empire and in the United States after 1807, British commercial interest in the area didn’t decline, and the penetration of the interior rivers by steamships began in earnest after the 1840s. Lagos became a key base and, in 1886, the National African Company, later the Royal Niger Company, received a royal charter to oversee trade in the Niger Delta, which included governing rights. The company’s interests also expanded northward. These operations became too expensive and, in 1897, the company’s governing provisions were removed, and the British government asserted its authority, creating in 1900 a North Nigeria Protectorate. By 1902 after a time of armed resistance, the Sokoto Caliphate and Kano submitted to British authority. Lugard, who had become governor-general, now combined all the protectorates with Lagos to form, in January 1914, the Federation of Nigeria. A policy of indirect rule followed during which local tribal leaders, emirs, and sultans administered their areas in conjunction with the colonial civil service. As late as the 1930s only a few hundred British officers were in country. Infrastructure was improved, including railroad construction to the north, but education in the Muslim areas lagged behind Christian-led efforts in the south. The north remained essentially a distinct enclave. Nationalism became an increasing factor during the 1930s and was essentially motivated by the notion of Pan-Africanism. Yet a Nigerian sense of nationalism was made more difficult by the area’s many regional and tribal divides. The end of World War II left Britain weary of the demands and costs of empire, and moves toward change occurred as early as 1946. At this time a constitutional reform was introduced that created in the first instance three regional legislatures. A fourth midwest regional legislature was added in 1963. Full self-government came to these regions in the 1950s. The desired goal was the formation of a federal legislative structure for all of Nigeria, a system that the north finally agreed to join in 1959. Direct elections occurred in 1959, and a federal government was founded. This new government, meeting for the first time in 1960, declared Nigeria’s independence on October 1. This sense of national hope proved short-lived. Old antagonisms emerged and threatened any idea of lasting unity. The conflicts came quickly with the Yoruba opposing western regional reorganizations. This lack of stability undermined the national government, creating a pattern for the future that would include ethnic fighting and massive corruption. In 1963 Nigeria became a federal republic with an elected president in an effort to strengthen central authority. The elections in 1964 produced more arguments and rioting over suspected electoral fraud. The Nigerian National Alliance took control of parliament, and the United Progressive Grand Alliance of eastern and western groups became their main opposition. This unsettled situation led eastern Igbo-dominated army officers to stage a coup in January 1966. Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi took command and instituted bloody purges of the political establishment. Fighting broke out within the army itself. After only four months in charge General Ironsi was dead, and Yakubu Gowon, a lieutenant colonel soon to be general, had taken over as leader of the military government. The situation failed to settle, particularly after the Hausa murdered approximately 20,000 Igbo who lived in the north. Retaliations led to more discord, motivating the eastern region’s military governor, Lieutenant Nigeria 313 Colonel Odemugwu Ojukwu, to declare on May 30, 1967, the eastern region an independent entity called the Republic of Biafra. This situation led to a bloody civil war, perhaps the worst in modern African history. The war lasted three years and cost numerous lives. At war’s end the victorious Federal side declared a period of reconciliation and launched a campaign to reconstruct the devastated area. Nigeria was now firmly in the hands of Gowon’s Supreme Military Council, which did promise a return to civilian rule in 1976. Efforts were made to transform the economy from its agricultural base to a more modern mixed economy. There were serious attacks on corruption and moves to control the government’s role in the expanding oil industry, which from the late 1960s saw Nigeria become one of the world’s largest exporters. Criticism of Gowon’s rule was steadily mounting. While attending a 1975 Organization of African Unity conference, Gowan found himself the victim of another coup led by the Sandhurst-trained brigadier general Murtala Mohammed. General Mohammed consolidated his authority, purged government offices, created more administrative states, and put military governors in control of the media. He also imported new Soviet aircraft for the military. His time in office, though, proved short-lived. He was assassinated by fellow officers in 1976. His replacement was General Olusegun Obasanjo, a Yoruba, who would years later become Nigeria’s president. In 1979 Obasanjo produced a new constitution based on the U.S. model and prepared for elections to return the country to civilian rule. The fall in oil prices in 1981 brought problems for the new government as debts mounted. The result was a poor business climate. Blame was projected onto many quarters, violence was frequent, and foreign workers were expelled. The unrest also brought an end to the Shehu Shagari presidency, which again saw a disgruntled military react, cancelling Shagari’s 1983 election. Mohammed Buhari, the chief of the army, took over the government with the standard promises to end corruption and reverse the fortunes of the state. However, Buhari didn’t last long, and in August 1985 he was overthrown by General Ibrahim Babangida. General Sani Abacha gave his support to this coup, and in 1990 he positioned himself for later rule when he became minister of defense. Army control did not reverse the economic crisis, which was now dire. Currency devaluation was demanded as a term for continued International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank financial support in the form of loans. Again a return to civilian rule was planned, and state elections were scheduled for 1991, with a presidential election to follow in 1993. To the military’s surprise, Moshood Abiola won. The military, however, rejected the result, Babangida imprisoned Abiola, and in the midst of continuing confusion General Sani Abacha took over as military president. Nigeria’s perennial problems did not disappear under Abacha. Corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency, and waste were continuing factors in government and civilian life. Opponents were persecuted, foreign debt increased enormously, and all reforms failed as poverty increased so rapidly that Nigeria became by the late 1990s one of the world’s poorest countries. The government particularly punished the Ogoni people who occupied the southeastern oil areas, suppressing their politicians and executing many of them. Although international condemnation of these many rights abuses was considerable, the political situation did not loosen until Abacha’s death in 1998 of a suspected heart attack. His successor, General Abdulsalam Abubakar, once again said that civilian rule would return. Another new constitution came in 1998 and elections followed in 1999. Olusegun Obasanjo, who had been freed from prison only months before, led the People’s Democratic Party to election victory and thus ended nearly 16 years of military rule. The new government attempted to reverse Nigeria’s deep-seated economic and social problems and gave particular attention to reclaiming the billions that were stolen during the rule of General Abacha. However, reform proved illusory, and corruption and waste remained major factors in Nigeria’s continued poor economic and social performance. Violence also mounted between the Muslim and Christian sections of society. This situation became worse after 2000 following the institution of sharia law in the Muslim-dominated north. The 2003 elections represented the first time in Nigeria’s history that one civilian government gave way to another without military intervention. The elections even included the former Biafran leader, Colonel Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu. Voting irregularities were also considerable, and violence and ethnic fighting were frequent. There were attempts to make the presidential election more national in focus to reflect more broadly based issues. The ultimate hope was that more unity might result. Obasanjo’s party won a majority in both houses, and with 60 percent of the vote he secured a second fouryear term as president. It remained to be seen whether a more democratic government could cope with Nigeria’s significant number of problems. The average Nigerian became poorer in the 314 Nigeria civilian transition, and disputes loomed among many of its peoples over ethnic and religious differences. In the Niger Delta, the Ijaw people campaigned for a bigger share from the oil industry, which led to serious disruptions, kidnappings, and strikes. These violent outbursts hurt oil production. The vast wealth that oil was supposed to bring has not filtered through Nigerian society. The question remains: Can the instability, political and economic corruption, and grinding poverty be reversed? Further reading: Baker, Geoffrey L. Tradewinds on the Niger: Saga of the Royal Niger Company, 1830–1971. New York: Radcliffe Press, 1996; Falola, Toyin. The History of Nigeria. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999; Maier, Karl. The House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002. Theodore W. Eversole Nixon, Richard (1913–1994) U.S. president Richard M. Nixon was the 36th vice president of the United States from January 20, 1953, until January 20, 1961, and was the 37th president of the United States, serving from January 20, 1969 until August 9, 1974. He was the only person ever elected twice as vice president and twice as president, and was the only president to have resigned the presidency. Richard Milhous Nixon was born on January 9, 1913, at Yorba Linda, California, the son of Frank Nixon, an owner of a service station, and Hannah (née Milhous), a strong Quaker. Richard, the second of five children, attended Whittier College, then Duke University Law School, graduating in 1937. He then returned to Whittier where he practiced law, and also met Thelma Catherine (“Pat”) Ryan when the two were cast in the same play at a local community theater. They married in 1940. Moving to Washington, D.C., Nixon worked in the Office of Price Administration and in August 1942 joined the U.S. Navy, becoming an aviation ground officer in the Pacific and ending up as a lieutenant commander at the end of the war. He then entered politics and in 1946 was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the 12th district of California, defeating the incumbent, Democratic Congressman Jerry Voorhis. Voorhis had been elected for five consecutive terms, and Nixon was critical of him for his liberal views. In 1948 Nixon was able to win both the Democratic and the Republican primaries, and on his return to Washington, became a leading member of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAAC) until 1950. He rose to national, if not international, attention in his investigation of Alger Hiss. Nixon’s cross-examination of Hiss before the HUAC established his anticommunist credentials, and in 1950, Nixon ran for the Senate against the Democrat Helen Gahagan Douglas. This campaign also included innuendoes, with “pink sheets” being distributed comparing how Douglas voted in the Senate with the voting record of Vito Marcantonio, a left-wing senator from New York. This led to Nixon earning his nickname “Tricky Dick,” coined by a small Californian newspaper, the Independent Review, and taken up by Douglas. In 1952 Nixon managed to win the vice presidential nomination on a ticket with Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon was seen as an uncompromising anticommunist, but was tainted with allegations of corruption. Journalists discovered that Nixon had operated a slush fund with money from Southern Californian businessmen, and Nixon went on the attack. He listed his family’s assets, admitting that his six-year-old daughter Tricia had received, as a gift, a cocker spaniel called Checkers, and he announced that the family would be keeping it. The public responded favorably to Nixon’s frankness, and the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket won 442 electoral college votes. Nixon had two terms as vice president and during that time is said to have redefined the role of the office. He became a prominent spokesman for the Eisenhower administration, particularly on aspects of foreign policy. Nixon chaired a number of cabinet sessions when Eisenhower was incapacitated owing to illness, but Eisenhower left most power with some advisers, with Nixon always excluded from the inner circle. He also went on a tour of Latin America in 1958, his progress being followed by anti-American demonstrators, and to the Soviet Union in 1959 where he met with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev. Nominated as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate in 1960, Nixon used his experience as vice president to try to upstage the Democrat Party’s choice of John F. Kennedy. The campaign has become bestknown for the first television debates between the two candidates. Kennedy was able to portray himself as representing a generational change in leadership, looking younger and “fresher” than Nixon. He was certainly able to respond to Nixon’s attacks, but although Nixon Nixon, Richard 315 looked terrible in some of his television appearances, many people who listened to the debates on the radio felt that he did better than Kennedy. The election was close, with Nixon losing by fewer than 120,000 votes, with queries about the voting in Illinois and Texas. Nixon chose not to challenge the results too much, and his dignity won him the support of many. Retiring to private life in California, Nixon then wrote a book, Six Crises, in which he described his role facing six crises in his career as a congressman, senator, and then vice president. It was influential, and Mao Zedong was to read it in preparation for Nixon’s 1972 visit to China. Nixon contested the governorship of California in 1962, losing to the incumbent, Democrat Edmund G. (“Pat”) Brown. He then again retired from politics and went to New York, where he practiced law as the senior partner in Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie and Alexander. He was disappointed when Barry Goldwater was chosen as the Republican Party choice in the 1964 elections, writing that Goldwater lost the entire campaign when he (Goldwater) declared that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” By contrast, Nixon built up a reputation as a moderate and an expert in foreign policy, which contributed to the Republican Party choosing him as their candidate in 1968. By 1968 Nixon had put together a coalition of supporters that managed to ally itself with Southern conservatives led by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Nixon promised to name a Southerner to the Supreme Court, oppose court-ordered “busing” urged by the civil rights movement, and chose a hard-line vice-presidential candidate who would have Southern support. His choice was Maryland governor Spiro Agnew. Nixon stood against a disunited Democratic Party, which was split between supporters of Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy who opposed the Vietnam War, and Hubert Humphrey, choice of the mainstream Democratic Party. Robert Kennedy’s assassination had resulted in Humphrey being chosen as the candidate after a torrid party gathering at Chicago which led to fighting in the streets. Nixon promised that he would get “peace with honor” in Vietnam but was not specific about how he was going to achieve this. It did not stop him criticizing Vice President Humphrey, who, as part of the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, was blamed for the increasing casualties there, especially with the Tet Offensive at the start of the election campaign. Nixon, however, was more worried that the candidacy of George Wallace, as a pro-segregationist party, might split his vote in the South. Nixon won comfortably with 301 electoral college seats to Humphrey’s 191 and Wallace’s 46. However, the popular vote was far closer: Nixon, 31.7 million, and Humphrey, 30.9 million. After the election, Nixon was determined to introduce a number of reforms. As soon as he became president, he changed the civil rights and law enforcement legislation. He established the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise. Nixon pushed through the space project, with Neil Armstrong landing on the Moon on July 20, 1969, and speaking to Nixon from the Moon. In January 1972 Nixon also approved the Space Shuttle Program. He also launched, in his State of the Union speech in January 1971, an additional $100 million to be added to the National Cancer Institute budget for cancer research, inaugurating his “War on Cancer.” He had also proposed the Family Assistance Program (FAP) to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which 316 Nixon, Richard President Richard Nixon speaks with guests during his daughter Tricia’s wedding at the White House. would have provided poor families with a guaranteed annual income. The move was defeated in the Senate, but it did lead to the Supplemental Security Income program and many other related programs. Overall, Nixon’s aim was to reduce inflation by limiting government spending, but from 1971 the government ran up what was then the biggest deficit in U.S. history. Nixon’s main aim was to achieve an “honorable” settlement to the conflict in Vietnam. To achieve this, his first major task was to increase “Vietnamization,” by which the United States reduced the number of its soldiers while increasing the number of South Vietnamese soldiers. This became known as the Guam Doctrine, or the Nixon Doctrine. With the U.S. command worried about the state of readiness of the South Vietnamese troops, Nixon resumed the bombing of North Vietnam, which had been suspended by Lyndon Johnson just before the 1968 elections. In fact, Nixon expanded the war by organizing the secret bombing of Cambodia in March 1969, and supporting the overthrow of Cambodia’s ruler, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, in March 1970. Straight after this, the Vietnamese Communists tried to gain control of Cambodia, and soon afterwards Nixon ordered U.S. soldiers and South Vietnamese forces to attack Viet Cong sanctuaries in Cambodia. nixon and china Nixon also started a series of initially secret negotiations with the North Vietnamese through his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, who met with the North Vietnamese foreign minister, Le Duc Tho. As these progressed, Nixon began establishing links with the People’s Republic of China. The United States lifted its trade and travel restrictions in 1971. When the Chinese indicated that they would favor high-level contacts, the U.S. and Chinese table-tennis teams took part in reciprocal visits, with Kissinger visiting China, and then Nixon making his own visit to China in February–March 1972—the first by a U.S. president while in office. Nixon felt that better relations with China would put pressure on the Soviet Union. Before Nixon left China, the Shanghai Communiqué recorded that Nixon acknowledged the “one China” policy by which the United States accepted that Taiwan is a part of one China. In May 1972 Nixon visited the Soviet Union and began détente, with several talks on limiting nuclear weapons such as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). By October 1972 Nixon was close to reaching an agreement with the North Vietnamese, having achieved most of his objectives just before the U.S. presidential elections. The South Vietnamese raised objections, while the North Vietnamese refused to compromise, knowing how much Nixon wanted the agreement. No agreement was reached by the elections, with the Christmas bombings of North Vietnam forcing the North Vietnamese back to the negotiation tables, and the final agreement being signed in January 1973 in Paris. All U.S. military personnel were to be withdrawn, all prisoners of war were to be released, and there would be a ceasefire, along with a heavy rearming of the South Vietnamese. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize, but Tho declined to receive it. Nixon also was involved in controversial actions around the world. He oversaw the channeling of millions of dollars to the Chilean opposition, and supported the military overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, allying itself to the subsequent government of General Augusto Pinochet. In the Middle East, Nixon supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War, an action that led to the 1973 oil crisis. The administration also supported General Yahya Khan in the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, seriously affecting relations between India and the United States for many years. In 1972 Nixon was renominated for the presidential election along with Spiro Agnew. This led to the formation of the Campaign for the Reelection of the President (CRP), which was nicknamed by his opponents CREEP. On June 17, 1972, five men were arrested for being involved in a burglary at the Democratic Party national headquarters in the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington, D.C. It soon emerged that these men had been hired by the CRP and were charged. With no evidence available at the time linking Watergate to Nixon, Nixon easily won the November 1972 elections with 520 electoral college votes. the cover-up The Watergate scandal became a major issue in 1973, with Nixon having White House counsel John Dean organize a “cover-up.” Two journalists from the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, felt there was more in the Watergate story than was made out, and started receiving information from a source who went by the code name “Deep Throat,” who later turned out to be Mark Felt, deputy director of the FBI. In February 1973 the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, chaired by Senator Sam Ervin, was established to investigate the Watergate affair, and John Dean was interviewed in televised hearings. He started accusing Nixon of involvement in the cover-up of Watergate, with other witnesses testifying Nixon, Richard 317 about illegal activities by Nixon and his administration, which initiated an organized program of harassment of other politicians, journalists, and others. It became evident that Nixon had installed a recording system in the Oval Office soon after he became president, but Nixon refused to comply with a subpoena. Nixon then ordered his attorney general to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who was investigating Watergate. When the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, resigned, Nixon fired Richardson’s assistant when he also refused to fire Cox. He then managed to get solicitor-general Robert Bork to fire Cox. Finally in July 1974 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon’s claim of “executive privilege” was no excuse. A transcript of one of Nixon’s conversations, made available on August 5, 1974, showed that the president had discussed the use of the Central Intelligence Agency to block the FBI investigation of the Watergate breakin. Three days later Nixon, faced with the prospect of impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate, announced his resignation effective at noon the following day. Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, had resigned his office in 1973 after facing charges of bribery, extortion, and tax evasion. He had been replaced by Gerald Ford, who followed Nixon as president. On September 8, 1974, President Ford gave Nixon a presidential pardon. In retirement, Nixon and his wife settled at San Clemente, California, and he wrote his memoirs. He then spent most of the rest of his life writing about foreign policy. He was partly able to restore some of his reputation as an elder statesman. In 1980 he flew to Egypt, where he was present at the funeral of the former shah of Iran, being highly critical of the Jimmy Carter administration’s handling of Iran. Pat Nixon died on June 22, 1993, and Richard Nixon died from a massive stroke on April 22, 1994, in New York City. Further Reading: Greene, John Robert. The Limits of Power: The Nixon and Ford Administrations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992; Hoff, Joan. Nixon Reconsidered. New York: Basic Books, 1994; Morris, Roger. Richard Milhous Nixon: The Rise of an American Politician. New York: Holt, 1990; Nixon, Richard. RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1978; White, Theodore H. Breach of Faith. New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1975. Justin Corfield Nkrumah, Kwame (1909–1972) Ghanaian prime minister Kwame Nkrumah was born in the British-controlled Gold Coast (present-day Ghana) in West Africa. He trained as a teacher and studied in both the United States and England. Nkrumah helped to organize the 1945 Pan Africa Congress and remained a staunch supporter of African union and cooperation. An ardent nationalist, Nkrumah served as general secretary of the United Gold Coast Convention but split from the party to establish the Convention People’s Party (CPP) in 1949. His book, I Speak for Freedom, was an impassioned defense of African independence. Nkrumah was jailed by the British for his activist campaigns but was freed in 1951. He led the Gold Coast to complete independence in 1957. The newly independent nation of Ghana had a sound economy and under Nkrumah’s leadership was looked to for direction by other African states. Nkrumah championed the Organization of African Unity (OAU), formed in 1963. He also was an outspoken opponent of the apartheid white-dominated regime in South Africa. However, Nkrumah became increasingly dictatorial and established Ghana as a one-party state in 1964 when he took the title of president for life. A cult of personality arose around Nkrumah, and a trend of one-party states under dictatorial “rulers for life” emerged in many African states during the 1970s. Nkrumah was overthrown in a military coup d’état in 1966; in subsequent years he lived in exile and died in Romania in 1972. See also Ghana. Further reading: Birmingham, David. Kwame Nkrumah: The Father of African Nationalism. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1998; Nkrumah, Kwame. I Speak of Freedom. London: William Heinemann, 1961; Rathbone, Richard. Nkrumah and the Chief: The Politics of Chieftaincy in Ghana, 1951–1960. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2000. Janice J. Terry Noriega, Manuel (1938– ) general and dictator of Panama A close ally of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment from the late 1950s to the late 1980s, General Manuel Noriega was the dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989. Intimately involved with U.S. covert efforts 318 Nkrumah, Kwame to overthrow the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua and to combat leftist revolutionary movements elsewhere in Central America, Noriega ran afoul of U.S. policymakers in the aftermath of the Iran-contra affair; was indicted on federal drug charges in February 1988; and was overthrown in late December 1989 in the U.S. invasion of Panama. He surrendered to U.S. officials in early January 1990; was transported to the United States; tried for drug trafficking in April 1992; found guilty in September; and sentenced to 40 years in prison, where he has remained. Convicted in France for money laundering, and in Panama in absentia for murder, it is unlikely that he will ever be freed. Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno was born on February 11, 1938, in Panama City, the illegitimate child of a poor single woman who died when he was a small boy. Raised by his godmother in Panama City, he entered the military and was trained at the Military School of Chorrillos in Peru, where in the late 1950s he was recruited by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. His relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies deepened during his training at the School of the Americas in Fort Gulick, Panama, where he completed his coursework in 1967. Commissioned as an intelligence officer in the Panama National Guard the same year, he rose rapidly in rank. In 1969 he helped dictator General Omar Torrijos fend off a coup attempt, and soon after was appointed the country’s Chief of Military Intelligence. A shrewd political operator who deftly played both sides of the fence, through the 1970s he received hundreds of thousands of dollars as a CIA informant, and passed U.S. secrets to Fidel Castro and other U.S. adversaries. Allegedly complicit in the July 1981 plane crash that resulted in Torrijos’s death, with U.S. backing he became the country’s de facto head of state in August 1983. Noriega, Manuel 319 General Manuel Noriega walks to his seat aboard a U.S. Air Force aircraft, escorted by agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The former Panamanian leader was flown to the United States, where he was held for trial on drug charges. By this time he was working closely with the administration of U.S. president Ronald Reagan in its efforts to overthrow the Sandinistas. He also used Panama’s strict secrecy laws to launch drug money-laundering operations, actively collaborating with the drug cartels of Medellín, Colombia. Washington turned a blind eye to his role in the drug trade, emphasizing instead his collaboration with U.S. hemispheric “war on drugs.” Despite mounting evidence of Noriega’s involvement in the drug trade, in 1987 Attorney General Edwin Meese issued Panama the Drug Enforcement Agency’s “highest commendation” for the country’s anti-narcotics efforts. Meanwhile Noriega’s base of support, in Washington and at home, had eroded. The Iran-contra scandal purged Washington of many of his top supporters, while opposition in Panama mounted, mainly in consequence of his brutality in dealing with his opponents. The ax fell in February 1988 with a 12- count indictment on racketeering and narcotics charges issued by U.S. federal prosecutors. After nearly two years of escalating tensions, on December 20, 1989, U.S. forces launched “Operation Just Cause,” invading Panama, killing an estimated 300 civilians, wounding 3,000, and seizing Noriega. Launched in the name of the “war on drugs,” the invasion had a negligible impact on the hemispheric drug trade, which has grown rapidly since. Further reading: Dinges, John. Our Man in Panama: The Shrewd Rise and Brutal Fall of Manuel Noriega. New York: Random House, 1991; Kempe, Frederick. Divorcing the Dictator: America’s Bungled Affair with Noriega. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1990; Koster, R. M., and Guillermo Sánchez Borbón. In the Time of Tyrants: Panama, 1968–1990. New York: Norton, 1990. Michael J. Schroeder North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a trilateral trade pact among the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Implemented on January 1, 1994, the agreement is intended to foster open and unrestricted commercial relations among its three signatories. Supplemental agreements, also part of NAFTA, are the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), and the Understanding on Emergency Action (Safeguards). Administered in the United States by the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce, NAFTA is one of several regional trading blocs in the Western Hemisphere. These include the Andean Community of Nations (CAN, among Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru, f. 1969); the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM, f. 1973), the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR, among Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Paraguay, f. 1991), and the Central America–Dominican Republic–United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR, f. 2004). NAFTA’s supporters conceive of the agreement as an important stepping stone in the creation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which would include the 34 nation-states and territories of the Western Hemisphere. In its goal of fostering unrestricted commercial relations, NAFTA follows the principles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO). NAFTA has sparked a huge debate between its supporters and opponents. Its principal supporters in the private sector consist of the hemisphere’s largest corporations, most of which are based in the United States. They argue that in all three countries NAFTA will increase living standards, create new jobs, protect the environment; and ensure compliance with labor laws. Its principal opponents include labor, environmental, faithbased, indigenous rights, and consumer rights groups. They maintain that NAFTA, like the WTO, promotes a “race to the bottom” by favoring large corporations over smaller enterprises, benefiting the rich more than the poor; increasing inequality, causing a net loss of jobs, fostering environmental degradation, and failing to adequately protect the rights of workers. The communiqués of sub-commander Marcos, spokesperson of the Zapatistas of Chiapas, Mexico—a group whose rebellion against the Mexican government was timed to coincide with NAFTA’s implementation—convey many of the principal arguments of NAFTA’s opponents. A large scholarly literature mirrors this debate. On the whole, the evidence demonstrates that NAFTA has increased trade dramatically while failing to meet its supporters’ expectations with regard to employment, poverty, inequality, the environment, and labor rights. In Mexico, poverty, inequality, and unemployment have all increased substantially since NAFTA’s implementation. In the United States and Canada, the creation of new jobs has not kept pace with the outflows of capital and jobs traceable to NAFTA. The leftward tilt in Latin American politics since the 1990s has buttressed that 32 0 North American Free Trade Agreement continent’s opposition to multilateral trade agreements like NAFTA, the WTO, and the proposed FTAA. Further reading: Duina, Francesco. The Social Construction of Free Trade: The European Union, NAFTA, and MERCOSUR. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006; Odell, John S., ed. Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFTA. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Michael J. Schroeder North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) The NATO alliance is dedicated to the maintenance of the democratic freedoms and territorial integrity of its 26 European and North American member countries through collective defense. This alliance has been the dominant structure of European defense and security since its founding in 1949 and continues to serve as the most formal symbol of the United States’ commitment to defend Europe against aggression. Following the end of the cold war, the organization also took on a peacekeeping and stabilizing role within Eurasia. NATO was founded with the Washington Treaty of April 4, 1949, which was signed by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Great Britain, and the United States. The 12 founding members were later joined by 14 others, including Greece and Turkey, which allowed the alliance to secure the Mediterranean. From the outset, NATO was intended to deter Soviet expansion into central and western Europe. The Washington Treaty reflected the will of the signatories to further democratic values and economic cooperation, to share the obligations of defense individually and collectively, to consult together in the face of threats, to regard an attack against one member as an attack against all members, and to collectively and individually assist the victims of an attack. The treaty also delineated the geographic boundaries of the alliance, created the North Atlantic Council to implement the treaty, made provisions for new members to join, governed ratification according to constitutional processes, and made provisions for review of the treaty. NATO’s civil and military organization materialized during 1949–95. The basic structures developed during this period remained into the 21st century. The civilian headquarters for the North Atlantic Council (NAC), which maintains effective political authority and powers of decision in NATO, is located in Brussels, Belgium. NATO’s secretary-general chairs the NAC and oversees the work of the International Staff (IS). Member countries maintain permanent representatives. The council serves as a forum for frank and open diplomatic consultation and the coordination of strategic, defense, and foreign policy among the alliance members. Action is agreed upon on the basis of common consensus rather than majority vote. Twice a year the defense ministers of the member countries meet at the NAC, and summit meetings involving the heads of state of each member country occur, during which major decisions over grand strategy or policy must be made. After the end of the cold war, the NAC was supplemented by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) as well as the NATO-Russia Joint Council. These newer bodies facilitate peaceful coordination and cooperation between NATO and the Russian Federation and other former members of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact alliance. The secretary-general of NATO also chairs the Defence Planning Committee (DPC), which is tasked with planning for the collective defense of the member countries. The DPC provides guidance to the alliance’s military authorities to improve common measures of collective defense and military integration. The DPC consists of the permanent representatives; like the NAC, the DPC also serves as a forum for meetings between the defense ministers of the member states twice a year. The senior military representatives of the member states form the Military Committee. The Military North Atlantic Treaty Organization 32 1 Hungarian troops under NATO command stand on guard at NATO headquarters in Kosovo. Committee is subordinate to the NAC and consists of the chiefs of staff of the member nations, who advise the NAC on all military matters and who oversee the implementation of the measures necessary for the collective defense of the North Atlantic area. The committee is supported by the International Military Staff (IMS), which meets twice a year at chiefs of staff level and more often at the national military representatives level. Until 2003 operational control of military forces operating under the NATO flag fell to Allied Command Europe and Allied Command Atlantic. In 2003 NATO undertook a major restructuring of its military commands. The Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) became the Headquarters of Allied Command Operations (ACO). ACT is tasked with driving transformation in NATO and establishing future capabilities, while ACO is responsible for current operations. Throughout the cold war NATO faced a powerful counter-alliance in the Warsaw Pact and turmoil within the organization itself. Indeed, in 1949 the alliance members could only marshal 14 divisions of military personnel against an estimated 175 Soviet divisions. At the NAC meeting in 1952, the members established a goal of fielding 50 divisions backed up by several thousand aircraft by the end of the year and 96 divisions by 1955. Also in 1952 the alliance introduced a new strategic concept: mass conventional defense of Europe coupled with long-range nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact members. However, the cost of raising the 96 divisions required to implement this strategy proved too great, and it was quickly abandoned. In 1953 Dwight Eisenhower put forward a new strategy, which focused more on nuclear deterrence. The new strategy came to be known as “massive retaliation” and would have involved extensive use of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union and eastern Europe if their forces had broken through NATO’s conventional defenses in central Europe. Nuclear crises over Berlin and Cuba in the late 1950s and early 1960s suggested a need for a more gradual strategy than massive retaliation. President John F. Kennedy endorsed a strategy of “flexible response” in 1961–63, which favored deploying more conventional forces in central and northern Europe from both the United States and the other NATO members. Disagreement over this new strategy led France to withdraw from NATO’s integrated military command structure in 1967. NATO adopted a new doctrine in December 1967, which endorsed a flexible conventional and nuclear response to Soviet aggression. At the same time, the NAC adopted a new grand strategy favoring stable and peaceful relations with the Warsaw Pact countries. NATO was further challenged in the mid-1970s when the Soviet Union deployed large numbers of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe that were capable of striking all of the European NATO allies. In response the members agreed to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in West Germany, the United Kingdom, the Low Countries, and Italy. However, a more cordial relationship between the alliance and the Warsaw Pact during the 1980s led to the dismantling of these intermediate weapons at the end of that decade. After the end of the cold war, NATO retained several important formal and informal functions. First, it serves as a permanent and institutionalized link between the United States and an ever-growing number of European allies. In addition, it prevents the renationalization of European defense policies. Moreover, NATO allows an institutionalized relationship with Russia and several of the former Warsaw Pact countries that have yet to join the alliance. Finally, it serves peacekeeping and stability functions in Europe and Asia. NATO invoked article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first time following the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States. Many NATO countries participated in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Further reading: Gardner, Hall. NATO and the European Union: New World, New Europe, New Threats. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004; Kaplan, Lawrence S. NATO Divided, NATO United: The Evolution of an Alliance. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004; Rynning, Sten. NATO Renewed: The Power and Purpose of Transatlantic Cooperation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005; Schmidt, Gustav. A History of NATO: The First Fifty Years. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave, 2001; Sloan, Stanley R. NATO, the European Union, and the Atlantic Community: The Transatlantic Bargain Challenged. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005. Scott Fitzsimmons Numeiri, Jaafar (1930– ) Sudanese leader Jaafar Numeiri was born in January 1930 in Omdurman, the Sudan. In 1952 Numeiri graduated from the Sudan Military College, and in 1966 he gradu- 322 Numeiri, Jaafar ated from the U.S. Army Command College in Texas. Influenced by Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Free Officers Movement in Egypt, Numeiri joined a group of military officers sympathetic to pan-Arab, socialist ideas. In 1969 Numeiri, with the help of four other officers, orchestrated a coup to overthrow the Sudanese government. He then became the new prime minister and chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) and renamed the country the Democratic Republic of the Sudan. In July 1971 Sudanese communists staged a coup, and Numeiri was imprisoned. Shortly after his incarceration, Numeiri escaped and rallied loyal forces to put down the revolt and brutally crush the communists. Numeiri quickly moved to strengthen his base of political support by changing domestic and foreign policies. In the 1971 referendum on the presidency, Numeiri received a 98.6 percent affirmative vote and was sworn in for a six-year term as president. Spurred by Numeiri’s view of Arab socialism, in 1969 the Sudan agreed in the Tripoli Charter to coordinate foreign policies with Libya and Egypt. This union, which developed into a federation of Arab Republics, was extremely short-lived and was never really implemented. Numeiri inherited the problem of civil war in the southern Sudan, which had begun in 1955, even before Sudanese independence. A positive step toward resolving the war was taken in 1972 with the signing of the Addis Ababa Agreement. A cease-fire was declared in the south, and autonomy was granted to the non- Muslim southern region of the Sudan. In an effort to bolster support for his regime, Numeiri imposed sharia, Islamic law, over all of the Sudan in 1983. He also unilaterally decreed the division of the south into three regions corresponding to the old provinces; these decisions led to the resumption of the civil war. The mounting economic crisis led to urban riots, and spreading famines in rural areas marked the final phase of the Numeiri era. In April 1985, while Numeiri was out of the country on official business, the military launched a successful coup against his regime. Until 1999, when he was allowed to return to the Sudan, Numeiri remained in exile in Egypt while the Sudan continued to suffer through civil war, drought, famines, and mounting political repression from Islamist forces. See also Sudanese civil wars (1970–present). Further reading: Holt, P. M., and M. W. Daily. A History of the Sudan. London: Pearson Education Limited, 2000; Rothchild, Donald, and John W. Harbeson, eds. Africa in World Politics: The African State System in Flux, 3d ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999. Brian M. Eichstadt Nunavut Territory, Canada As early as 1963, some natives of Canada’s Northwest Territories began agitating for greater autonomy within a nation where the vast majority live within 200 miles of the U.S. border. In particular the eastern Inuit (formerly called Eskimos) sought to control more aspects of their Arctic lives above the tree line. Not until 1999 was Nunavut (“our land” in the Inuktitut language) separated from other northern territories by an act of Parliament. On April 1, 1999, the Territory of Nunavut was born with Iqaluit, a city of 6,000, as its capital. Canada’s creation of Nunavut was a dramatic example of the growing awareness of indigenous rights in several nations. As in the United States, where Native Americans began rallying for recognition and respect, creating the American Indian Movement, aboriginal groups in Australia and Canada’s 630 officially recognized “First Nations” likewise began demanding greater self-determination. In 1973 after a long period of refusing to abide by most treaty rights, Canada changed course and signed six major treaties, including Nunavut’s. Straddling the Arctic Circle, and including Ellesmere and Baffin islands and Cape Dorset—a center of Inuit indigenous art—Nunavut has a population of 29,500, 80 percent of it Inuit, in 26 settlements spread across 770,000 square miles, a fifth of Canada’s total land mass. Most of this vast territory is inaccessible by road or rail; everything arrives, expensively, by air. The government of Nunavut, whose first premier was lawyer Paul Okalik, oversees an annual budget of about $500 million (U.S.), more than $18,000 per resident. About 84 percent comes from the federal government in Ottawa. Prior to the 1950s most Inuit were still leading traditional lives based on hunting and fishing. The cold war changed that. In an agreement with Canada, the United States built the Distant Early Warning, or DEW, Line, a system of radar installations designed to detect Soviet invasion across the North Pole. Although the DEW Line was useless against nuclear submarines or intercontinental ballistic missiles, it remained in place for 30 years. In 1985 Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney and U.S. president Ronald Reagan signed a new defense agreement. Abandoned DEW Line installations littered Nunavut Territory, Canada 323 the Arctic landscape, in some cases leaching PCBs and industrial solvents into the ground. Around the same time as the DEW Line’s installation, Canada’s government began to move Inuit families into permanent settlements where they were offered health care, education, and other services, but at a price. Their new lifestyle pushed many Inuit communities from subsistence hunting to fur trapping for the cash needed to buy newly available “southern” goods. Reliable sources of income remain scarce in Nunavut, although mining, fisheries, tourism, and cultural products are being aggressively explored. The Internet plays a significant role, allowing Nunavut’s widely separated citizens to communicate with each other and the world via expensive satellite hookups that leaders hope to replace with fiber-optic installations. The emergence of global warming patterns in the Arctic poses both threats and opportunities. Some believe that the storied Northwest Passage, now frozen most of the year, will soon be navigable in summer, cutting almost 5,000 miles from a sea voyage between Europe and Asia. Nunavut’s government has discussed building a deepwater port and a 185-mile all-season road. On the other hand, climate change would likely further endanger Inuit ecology and traditions of self-sufficiency. See also environmental problems. Further reading: Dickason, Olive Patricia. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. 3d ed. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2002; Miller, J. R. Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian-White Relations in Canada. 3d ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. Marsha E. Ackermann Nyerere, Julius (1922–1999) Tanzanian president Julius Kambarge Nyerere, born in 1922, attended a mission school in Tanganyika, Makerere University College in Tanganyika, and the University of Edinburgh. He returned to teach at a Roman Catholic school near Dar es Salaam and was known as Mwalimu, or teacher. In 1954 he organized the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) and was elected to the legislature as Tanganyika prepared for full independence in 1961. Nyerere was elected as the first prime minister of the newly independent state and became President of the Republic in 1962. When Tanganyika and Zanzibar unified as Tanzania, Nyerere became the nation’s first president in 1964. In the 1967 Arusha Declaration, Nyerere instituted a state program of ujamaa (familyhood) based on collective sharing, traditional African values of the family, and collectivization of farms. Ujamaa, a form of African socialism, was supported by the People’s Republic of China, but in the global economic system, Nyerere’s ujamaa failed to bring economic growth, and in 1976 he was forced to admit defeat and end the program. Nyerere was an effective spokesperson in the campaign to end the apartheid system in South Africa and was also one of the founders of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). He hosted the African National Congress and Pan-African Congress, as well as other African nationalist movements that struggled against western imperial forces in Mozambique and Rhodesia. He was also a sharp critic of African dictatorships and publicly condemned Idi Amin’s dictatorship in Uganda. In the first contemporary military intervention by an African state against other, under Nyerere’s leadership, the Tanzania military attacked Amin and forced him out of power. Refusing to run for reelection, Nyerere retired voluntarily in 1985. He was succeeded by Ali Hassan Mwinyi and served as a sort of elder statesman in Africa until his death in 1999. See also African Union. Further reading: Mwakikagile, Godfrey. Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era: Biography of Julius Kambarage Nyerere (1922–1999). Dar es Salaam: Protea Publishing Co., 2002; Nyerere, Julius. Freedom and Socialism: A Selection of Writings and Speeches, 1965–1967. Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press, 1968. Janice J. Terry