# data[].attributes.body
The video underscored how the Seven Years' War and the Napoleonic War played a pivotal role in establishing British dominance in Southeast Asia. While India held significant importance, Burma became a focal point due to its economic potential, ultimately resulting in a series of British military campaigns. The subsequent British rule in Burma, characterized by direct governance and socio-cultural upheaval, fueled the growth of Burmese nationalism as a response to the perceived injustices of British imperialism.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the themes Dr. Greenwood discussed was the driving factors behind British expansion -- political competition and economic gain.

Political competition with other European countries -- namely Spain, Portugal, Holland, and France -- can be seen in the Seven Years' War and the Napoleonic Wars, both of which had consequences for British influence in Southeast Asia. Britain's defeat of France in the Seven Years' War reinforced British power in India, as it allowed the British East India Company to collect taxes from Bengal (replacing the French East India Company). Napoleon's conquest of Holland diverted Dutch resources away from colonial expansion, allowing Britain's ascendancy. An example of this can be seen in the ceding of Java to Britain by Holland in 1811, a year after Napoleon forced King Louis to abdicate and incorporated Holland into the French empire. Following Nelson's defeat of Napoleon, Britain emerged as a leader among the European colonising powers.

Economic gain as a motivating factor can be seen as early as the European voyages of discovery starting in the 1600s, which were intended to establish direct trade routes with Asia, replacing the Silk Roads and bypassing middlemen (e.g. the Ottoman Empire and Venice) which marked up the prices of goods before selling them on to Europe. In more recent history, the Second Anglo-Burmese War took place because of Britain wanting access to lower Burma's teak trade.

Another theme that Dr. Greenwood talked about was the profound disruptive influence of British rule in Burma. In imposing direct rule, Britain caused the splintering of ethnic minorities, since the many ethnic groups in Burma were no longer unified under the king after Britain abolished the monarchy. The secularisation introduced also caused disruption, as religion had previously been a fundamental and everyday part of life; removing it caused social unease and also affected monks who had relied on state support. Additionally, Britain's conversion of Burma into a (rice) export economy caused land clearing and the uprooting of populations; in addition to this came the arrival of labourers from India, causing demographic changes. Also, since the British tended to favour some ethnic groups over others (e.g. the Karens being given administrative & military positions) set the stage for ethnic civil war post-independence.

# data[].attributes.body
The principle thematic explored by Dr Anna Greenwood explores in this lecture is social, economic and political. She recognizes the strength of the British empire, through the case study of Burma, both the positive and negative aspects to which it created. On one hand, Dr Anna, highlights the detrimental impact to which the British rulers had towards the shifts in demographics, and religious beliefs; causing a large wave division amongst the society. Thereby generating an atmosphere of uncertainty, ultimately leading to the rise of nationalism (Aung San). Dr Anna, further emphasis the importance to which Burma was to the British empire economically. Burma's economic sector shifted towards a more agricultural bases (rice, teak wood etc), and also enabled easier trade within the rest of South East Asia (geographical advantages). Ultimately, as reiterated by Dr Anna, British decision to rule in Burma was uprooted by the political competition within Europe - much of which was driven by how much land the 5 power states in Europe (during the time) were able to control, thereby driving the British empire to control Burma. To conclude, the British empire caused prolonged impacts and shifts upon Burma's society, economy and politics.

# data[].attributes.body
In Dr Greenwood's lecture, we find out that Burma is just one example of where Britain decided to expand and colonise Asia- this is one example of a formal colonisation, yet there are many other informal things put into place for other areas in Asia. Dr Greenwood discusses the motivation for colonising such a place as Burma- one example is its geographical location, and how it can be easily used as an access point for trade and other purposes. On the topic of trade, Burma had various materials that Britain couldn't obtain in its homeland, and so Burma was the ideal place to get these things. However, the impact of colonisation in Burma was profound. For one, there was a social disorder as the Church and state became separate- whereas before, Burmese people had had a deep connection to the Church, this became more dislocated and disjointed, no doubt causing unrest. Some minority groups in Burma- and there were a lot of them- didn't feel listened to or understood by the British. Britain placed Burma under direct rule, meaning they were ruled centrally- there were no local leaders to check how things were running, and to ensure all voices were heard and listened to. This unrest and social disorder led to a rise in nationalism, under the likes of Aung San, yet this in itself caused its own problems as, despite the outside look that there was a celebration for all Burmese people, some groups still felt unheard. This may be partly down to the fact that Aung San did work alongside the British, before his assassination. The British had, in effect, created these problems, as had they not disrupted the lifestyle and way of living in Burma, then there would have been no social problems to begin with. Some issues can still be seen to this day, despite Burma becoming independent in 1948.

# data[].attributes.body
Anna uses the study of Burma to represent how Britain controlled its colonial states in South East Asia, with Burma being under direct control as the British ignored the existing structures of the Burmese lifestyle where religion was central life by separating the church and state. The lecture also presents how Britain would defend India through its other colonies like Burma because of trade routes and strategic placements geographically. However, most of Britain's desire to colonise areas of South East Asia comes from the desire to beat their rivals the Dutch, and the French later, with being in a better position then them trade wise.

# data[].attributes.body
The Anglo-Saxon conquest of the East is not the romanticist spread of liberal values and adventurism as it is commonly told and (mis)remembered but the result of the shifting power balance in Europe and India after the 7 years war and Napoleonic Wars and the slow decline of the Mughals which gave the British a window of opportunity to seize strategic ports in Asia. As the Industrial Revolution began, the British began to spread into the hinterland such as fighting the jungle backwater of Assam against Burma before conquering Burma in order to extract resources and gain profit surplus for the ruling class. The economic subjugation of Burma led to the breakdown of Pre-Industrial Social Systems and led to the rise of nationalist and anti-colonial movements in the East. Lastly, the Industrial Revolution led to better healthcare among the Indians which coupled with their high birthrates became a massive pool of labor for the British to project their power along the Indian Ocean Rim.

# data[].attributes.body
British Empire had both formal and informal influence in South East Asia. The direct way is setting up a colony, the indirect way is asking extra advantages in other nations. Even though the biggest motivation of Britain to colonize other countries is economic benefits, but they also did not give up destroy their culture and social structure ,even the religion. As a result, British influence in south East Asia  spread in all aspects in daily life. Some chaos and conflicts rooted in this period. When British brought prosperity and advancement, meanwhile , they brought chaos and separation.

# data[].attributes.body
Anna uses the study of the colonisation of Burma to analyse Britain’s actions and impacts in order to pursue its desire of economic gains, even alongside the social problems that followed. Britain’s main interest in Burma was the trading routes which gave them access to India and China, using Burma as passage in between. With Burma’s rich materials such as teak and oil allowed Britain’s trading options to flourish with European countries as well as trade within Central Asia. With Britain’s imposed Direct rule created a split between the Church and the State which caused social disruption amongst religious groups (for example, Buddhist in charge of churches were reliant on state sponsorships which exasperated the situation between British Rule and religion). It is also important to note the concentration on religion as the central part of traditional society. Also, education was made secular and significant changes were found in demographics showing a large influx of Indian migrants. The disruption caused by Britain’s direct rule sparked revolts and numerous unrests against their rule and exploitation of Burma (The Great Revolt of Burma in 1930) presenting a strong case of the breaking up of social cohesion under British direct rule. In conclusion, Britain’s direct rule of Burma Transparently shows the breaking of social cohesion within society in order to achieve its main goal of economic advancement and the expansion of trading routes within Asia.

# data[].attributes.body
Anna uses the case study of colonialism in Burma to explain how Britain acted in many different colonies. She suggests that the colonial rule in Burma resulted in the social, economic and political systems being overturned due to British rule. When Britain arrived in Burma they ignored the country's close relation to Buddhism, through separating the religion from the education system. Furthermore, the change in economic focus, through the exporting of goods like rice, forced many people to move to different areas. On top of this the demographic change through the mass integration of Indian workers to help facilitate this economic growth, fundamentally changed the way Burma was.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the central arguments of the lecture was that of the destructive nature of colonialism and how disruptive, aggressive and domineering Britain were both formally and informally across Asia. Whilst modernity is often seen as a silver-lining of colonialist history and it can be recognised that industrially and economically, development and acceleration did happen in places like Burma, the reality of the consequences of such change must be understood. Looking at Burma, we can see a direct colonial rule was violently and aggressively imposed and it massively dislodged and disbanded Burma's social context, economy, and even demographic make-up. Britain's rule in Burma can be seen to cause massive disruption through society, even sparking a nationalist movement. Ultimately, even after a struggle to liberation, British presence can still be felt through the social disparity and dislocation which greatly affected Burma's inner workings and this is essential to understand when looking at colonialism and imperialism. Lastly, one thing that must be acknowledged is the role of political competition which played a huge role in colonialising much of Asia.

# data[].attributes.body
The main theme from the lecture was that Britain was willing to impose Direct Rule on Burma because of potential economic gain, even if their presence may break up social cohesion. Britain's main interest in Burma was the fact that it provided trade routes and materials for trade such as rice and teak wood. As a result of Britain having a Direct Rule over Burma it meant that Church and State were separated (this causes a lot of social unrest as Buddhist Monks that ran the Churches relied on State sponsorships, it also meant that religion was no longer in the center of society like it traditionally had been), education was made secular and there was a significant change in demographics when there was a large influx of Indian migrants (to collect rice and teak wood). The disruption this caused to Burma was enough to spark social unrest, revolts (The Great Burma Revolt led by Saya San, a Buddhist Monk, in 1930 is a key example) a break up of social cohesion and even wars as seen in the Anglo-Burmese Wars. Therefore it's clear that Britain's presence in Burma caused disruption within the Burmese society and culture in return for their own economic gain. However, at a later date Burmese nationalism would steadily increase, leading to independence 1948 despite all of the issues cause by Britain's Direct Rule.

# data[].attributes.body
Britain's greed for economic superiority led to their violent control of Burma, which ultimately upended the social and cultural dynamic within the region. In following direct rule, Britain introduced large numbers of Indian migrants and abolished the monarchy, which led to the breakdown of unity among the many different ethnic groups. The introduction of secular education and indifference to the traditional religion caused mass social unrest, leaving Burma with the reputation of being 'difficult to manage.' The protests led Burma to be engulfed in the nationalism movement, resulting in their independence. The military and social strife that ensued after liberation was the fault of the British colonialists, thus demonstrating the lasting effects that British imperialism had on the nation.

# data[].attributes.body
British rule in Burma can be seen as a direct challenge to the idea that colonialism cannot occupy a local communities' identity, both for positive and negative reasons. Obviously British rule in Burma was marked by violence with Burma being regarded as a troublesome colony. The British fundamentally changed Burmese culture by separating religion from state, population demographics through importing of thousands of Indian migrants for use as cheap labour, and economics through the mass exporting of Burmese teak wood and rice. The decades of violence after Burmese independence also serve as a reminder of the damaging legacy colonialism can have on a country's national identity.

On another note not mentioned in the lectures, Burmese identity has also been changed in other ways through British imperialism. For example, in the Second World War, many Burmese volunteers fought as members of the British Army against the Japanese. Though these men and women have largely been forgotten, people are now going back to Burma to find veterans, some of whom still survive, and give any possible support they can. Here is a BBC article (albeit a few years old) on the issue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-44582731

# data[].attributes.headline
To discuss about the concept "agency", whether such a concept can be understood as "colonialism can occupy the territory and resources, however they can not occupy the local community's identity and culture"?

# data[].attributes.subject
To discuss about the concept "agency", whether such a concept can be understood as "colonialism can occupy the territory and resources, however they can not occupy the local community's identity and culture"?

# data[].attributes.body
The rise of British supremacy around South East Asia was marked by two major events and they were the Seven Years’ War and the Napoleanic War. While India was “the jewel” of Britain’s imperial possessions due to its location, the focus of the lecture was on Burma. Burma peaked British interest mainly because of its economic benefits and was gained via a series of attacks. The British rule in Burma had defining characteristics which included direct rule, imposing their secular regime, abolishing the monarchy and importing Indian labourers all of which resulted in a massive social and cultural dislocation of the Burmese peoples. This later brought about nationalism among the Burmese people who felt disenfranchised by British imperialism.