Colonization and Island Culture

Most of the island cultural, political, environmental and human studies have started in the recent decades. It makes sense that a lot of attention is paid to the islands in the Pacific because there are so many, and so many of them have been colonized and then allowed to independently establish. However, I think looking at countries that are specifically affected by conflicting cultures and political/social/humanistic views have the most interesting histories. One thing that is interesting to see is how often island countries are taken over and ruled by other (typically Western) countries. Studying island culture has been brought about by a number of different organizations with focuses and specializations in many different fields. There are a number of interesting facts and cultures that are brought to islands, and they tend to be interesting cross-sections of history and cultural overlapping. As Shima, The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures states,

“These realisations have led a new generation of archaeologists to establish interdisciplinary links in order to better understand the development of island societies and their relation to mainland cultures” (Shima, The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures).

One island in particular that is interesting to investigate is Malta. Malta was colonized by France and Britain, and these two countries significantly affected Maltese culture, and yet Malta was still able to keep some of their traditions. Under Napoleon’s French rule, the Maltese were given a constitution, “slavery was abolished, a secondary school system was established, the university system was revised almost completely and the legal system of Malta was enhanced by a new Civil Code of law” but it wasn’t all “improvements to Malta and its people, however. Maltese churches were ransacked, being robbed of gold, silver and precious art” (Guide to Malta.net). Revolts against the oppressive French rule ended in protestors’ deaths (Guide to Malta.net). After the Maltese experience with France, the people ‘voluntarily request[ed]’ rule from Britain.

The British government would soon use Malta during WWII as a cornerstone in the Mediterranean Sea for the fight against the Germans in WWII. Malta was used by Britain during World War II as a safeguard and stronghold in the Middle East and for their supply of oil during the war (Moses, 2008). Malta was seen by Churchill as the

"windlass of the tourniquet" on the supply lines of Gen. Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps, and Rommel was moving across North Africa in pursuit of the Mideast oil. If Hitler got the oil, it would all be over—before the United States even bad a chance to get there” (Moses, 2008).

The use of Malta by larger, Western countries is shown in the rule of Britain and France, and it is unfortunate to see that countries can be used by one another. I think it is interestingly underestimated what even a couple years of rule by any other country can do to the moral of the people in the country being ruled. The ties that are cut and the dependence created by the ruling country can create an automatically oppressive feeling to the people. I know when visiting and learning about Thailand on my study abroad quarter, they were very proud to never have been ruled by another country, and that pride stood strong in the government and the Thai people.