Colonialism is a particular mode of domination exercised by a state or comparable entity over foreign lands and peoples. There is a good deal of overlap between the keyword colonialism and the more general concept of imperialism. The former has come to refer specifically to the European domination of vast expanses of the world during the modern period as well as to techniques of imperial control developed during this period and applied by powers such as Japan and the United States. Colonialism and decolonization have had a profound impact on all domains of cultural production, including music. After defining colonialism, this entry introduces some of the processes and musical effects of Western colonial expansion from the 15th century to the present.

Modern capitalism is a framework for the creation and circulation of commodities, which are goods intended for profitable exchange rather than immediate use. Three factors of production are required to make commodities: labor, land, and capital (i.e., goods and money used in production). The word capitalist emerged in the 1600s to refer to those who sustain themselves primarily through ownership of capital. In capitalistic production, a capital owner pays workers to use capital to create commodities, which the owner can sell. Because labor is purchased rather than coerced, it is also considered a commodity. Since the 1850s, the key word capitalism has referred to social systems in which the dominant relations of production are exchange relations between capital owners and workers. Much work done in formal economies today conforms at least nominally to this model. This entry traces the interwoven histories of capitalism and music in the West. It then explores the impact of capitalist globalization on music worldwide and introduces some theoretical perspectives on the study of music and capitalism.

[Pre-print, uncorrected 2018 draft of chapter that appears in World Literature, Neoliberalism, and the Culture of Discontent, edited by Sharae Deckard and Stephen Shapiro, from Palgrave’s series New Comparisons in World Literature, 2019] This essay explores the symbolic magnetism of motifs of trains and stone in African resource fiction, and examines varieties of “locomotive culture” bound up with resistance to the infrastructure underlying neoliberal extractivism. I compare a series of cultural artifacts from different sites and periods of resource extraction in Africa: Senegalese novelist Ousmane Sembène’s God’s Bits of Wood (1962), South African jazz-funk trumpeter Hugh Masekela’s song “Stimela (Coal-Train)” (1974); South African artist Dillon Marsh’s photograph, “Rhodium - 13 million troy ounces,” (2014), DRC novelist Fiston Mwanza Mujila’s Tram 83 (2015), and Afro-diasporic writer Nisi Shawl’s s/f novel Everfair(2016). Through the differing politics and aesthetics of these depictions of resource extractivism, which chart the gamut from the revolutionary “striking energies” and collectivities imagined in Sembène’s socialist-realist “strike epic” and the anti-colonial force of Masekela’s “Stimela” in the age of decolonization, to the neoliberal political paralysis and “resource conflict dystopia” of Mujila’s Tram 83 and the utopian horizons re-summoned by Shawl’s turn to speculative fiction in Everfair, I trace the bloody history of mining and resource imperialism on the continent, both as violence and exploitation, and as resourceful contestation and insurgency, while exploring the changing political horizons and capacities of form to imagine resistance.

The Dutch-French long peace as the epoch of market despotism, a.k.a. the creation of transnational systems of wageless labor, enserfed labor and partly waged labor under the aegis of mercantile and dynastic expansionism. This chapter explores how each of these labor systems embodied a specific form of planetary proletarianization, and how proletarian resistances emerged inside these systems.

Diplomacy between and within empires: Early modern perspectives Venue: Central European University, Nador u. 13, N13 223 The panel explores shared themes across diverse geopolitical relationships in 17th and 18th cen- tury Habsburg, Ottoman, Mughal and Dutch diplomacy. It proposes that diplomatic practices developed in a more complex, multifarious and globally interconnected manner than the modern European, state-focused and national paradigm allows. Cumulatively, the three presentations, by virtue of their broad geographical range, further our understanding of the development of dip- lomatic phenomena in world history over long stretches of time and contribute to wider debates about the nature of cross-cultural encounters and the commensurability of di erent political cultures. Providing a broad early modern perspective on empires and foreign relations, the panel makes an important contribution to one of the key themes of the conference: ‘inter-imperial and international relations and forms of cooperation and competition; actors, institutions, and issues of cross-border collaboration’. Our contributors’ strong focus on the processes and signi cance of cultural exchanges between polities and imperial institutions challenges the conventional Eu- rope / Asia divide and reveals shared sociocultural assumptions, whilst also highlighting cultural di erence and demonstrating that it was possible for diplomats to negotiate the norms and codes of the polities to which they were sent. e three presentations and the commentary raise some of the key issues that are currently reshaping the eld of diplomatic history: who could claim diplomatic agency and in what circumstances? What are the social and cultural contexts in which diplomacy was practised? How do modern notions of state sovereignty change when placed in global and imperial contexts? Gabor Kármán (Budapest) demonstrates that Ottoman provinces and vassals used diplomatic ceremonial in order to claim relative independence and to mediate be- tween their con icting roles as sovereign princes in international relations, on the one hand, and tributaries to the Ottoman Empire, on the other. Highlighting the permeability of diplomatic activity, the panel o ers important insights into the ways in which the limits of diplomatic agency were marked by symbolic communication and how shrewd role-switching could enhance ambas- sadors’ ability to facilitate ongoing relations between polities of di erent cultural backgrounds. Guido van Meersbergen’s (Florence) paper shi s the emphasis from political structures and their representation to the level of individual actors and their roles in shaping international relations. He explores merchant-diplomacy in Bengal during the Mughal War of Succession (1657–1660), studying the roles that mercantile diplomats could assert as well as the tensions arising from their multivalent identities as representatives of a polity and a company. Diplomats’ ability to familiar- ize themselves with the cultural norms of socializing at their host court was essential to their success. Focusing on Ottoman networks in Vienna, Do Paço (Paris) demonstrates how diplomats mastered the sociocultural conventions of their hosts and became integrated into the social life of both city and court. e panel commentary will link the three papers in comparative perspective and elaborate the methodological implications of ‘imperial diplomacy’ more broadly. e panel builds on recent ground-breaking work in diplomatic history and cultural history to o er an im- portant new intervention in the ongoing reassessment of early modern international relations. e three presentations form part of a volume that the panel chair (Tracey Sowerby, Oxford) and the panel commentator (Jan Hennings, Budapest) are currently preparing for publication in the Routledge Research in Early Modern History series. e volume, entitled ‘Practices of Diplomacy in the Early Modern World (ca.1410–1800), is scheduled for publication in autumn 2017. Acknowledgement: is panel is supported by Sciences Po Paris, the Leverhulme Trust and the Uni- versity of Oxford. Convenors: Jan Hennings (Budapest), Tracey Sowerby (Oxford) Chair: Tracey Sowerby (Oxford) Commentator: Jan Hennings (Budapest) Papers: Guido van Meersbergen (Warwick): Merchant-diplomacy in Bengal during the Mughal War of Succession (1657–1660) Gábor Kármán (Budapest): Transylvanian diplomats at Buda: Relations between provinces and tributaries in Ottoman international society David Do Paço (Paris): Familiarity in cross-cultural diplomacy: Ottoman embassies in Vienna and the rise of a trans- imperial elite, 1740–1792

A significant amount of the Hungarian public art pieces formulate the group of World War I and 1956 Revolution memorials, which express in the first case the loss of Hungary’s superpower position and in the latter case the oppressed revolution against a superpower on the country. The presentation focuses on the represented aspects of the two national losses, the artistic and symbolic tools adopted and the social responses to them. After the comparative analysis, the presentation aims to explore possible methodologies with which this kind of monuments can be researched and used in world and global history studies.