World History chapters 22 & 23

Chapters 22 & 23

Chapter 22: End of Empire: The Global South on the Global Stage 1914-present

Chapter 23: Capitalism and Culture: The Acceleration of Globalization since 1945

When I entered high school and took my first AP history class, we had to process a large body of information for each unit in a short amount of time (kind of like this summer class). While studying African history, to supplement our understanding of conflicts, our teacher showed us films, such as one titled Hotel Rwanda. While the movie focused on a, horrifically, and sadly modern conflict, it had historical origins. And while it explained well the racial element of the conflict and resulting genocide that took place in the 1990s (the Belgian government giving power to the majority of the populace, the Hutu, over the Tutsi, the two groups of which were separated by categorized physical features) I was confused. This was not only due to the nature of the tragedy, but by my own personal lack of understanding. In all my previous (and limited) education on Africa in school, I felt like a key piece of information was missing. My understanding was enhanced when I read about colonialism in class, and that enhancement of comprehension furthered when reading this week’s readings, particularly chapter 22, on struggles for independence, and the experiments in setting up political, economic, and cultural order; how one of the underpinnings besides paradigms set in place by a previous colonial power and cultural barriers of that particular civil war was the low economic performance of a relatively new government, ultimately leading to ethnic conflict (p. 996).

 “Economic development was never simply a matter of technical expertise or deciding among competing theories. Every decision was political,…” and that it was “an experimental process, and the stakes were high” (1003). I found this interesting because I think sometimes we forget how relatively new and experimental current modes of government and economic development was and is, and how questions regarding these things are ever debated.

World History chapters 19, 20, 21

Chapter 19: Empires in Collision, 1800-1914

Chapter 20: Collapse at the Center, 1914-1970s

Chapter 21: Revolution, Socialism, and Global Conflict, 1917-Present

This week’s readings were really interesting, especially chapter 20, which covered the topics of the first World War, the Depression, and the next chapter which concerned the rise and fall of Communism. My father is a huge history buff with a special interest in World War II. He can tell you how many people were in certain battles and how many casualties and how it turned the tide of the war off the top of his head, so I have heard a lot about it. What was enlightening was finding out more details about the circumstances surrounding it in the previous and following events and how it effected the globe, like how World War II helped to discredit Capitalism for a time and influenced the creation of Communist states, mainly in Russia, and China. What was also interesting was seeing the shift in country alliances from World War I through to the Cold War.   

I found it striking, yet in retrospect not surprising, how women were utilized in war efforts and later in building socialism, going as far as obtaining more rights, but when met with opposition those rights were taken away. It was not surprising because it seems to follow a pattern that I have noticed thus far in past empires we have studied in this class. When there is revolutionary or empire building movements, women have more mobility economically and socially, but when things settle down, they end up being oppressed again. And often times the opposition to change is from the oppressed group itself. It is like a revolving door.

World History Chapters 16, 17, and 18

Chapter 16: Atlantic Revolutions

Chapter 17: Revolutions of Industrialization

Chapter 18: Colonial Encounters

              Reading about the Atlantic Revolutions was intriguing to me because of the little tidbits I already know about them. For example, regarding the North American Revolution, 1775-1787 (701), last year I was in a school production of the musical 1776, and got to play Lewis Morris, a continental congressional delegate from the colony of New York. It was fun to do research and get inside the characters’ heads. And though it was a dramatization, I did learn a lot about the history of the events surrounding the signing of the declaration of independence. There was real tension in the room when the matter of slavery came up in the second act. It was chilling.

The French Revolution, if I understand what I am reading correctly, never really led to a sustained republic, and if memory serves, nor did the subsequent revolution that took place later. Fun facts: Marie Antionette never actually said “let them eat cake” when she supposedly heard about the bread shortage of the common people. Also, everybody liked Napoleon until Waterloo (I think?), then kicked him out, and after he died they decided that they liked him again and now his tomb is located in the Hôtel des Invalides that houses the Musée de l'Armée. I found it kind of cool, kind of cliché when I was there, but a fitting location since it is an army museum.

But the most interesting things to come out of these revolutions, I think, were the three major movements that followed: abolition of slavery, nationalism, and feminism.

Learning more about colonialism was both interesting and horrifying, but it is not like I was not expecting that. Especially reading over the “Ways of Working” section, and about the Congo Free State governed by King Leopold II of Belgium together with the anecdotal evidence (802-803).

Ah! Chapter 18 brought up what I was talking about in my last post, which is technically called “social Darwinism” (792). Thought I would mention that…

Okay, now I can mark this week’s readings off the list. Glad I got it done.

World History Chapters 13, 14, 15

***posted late by prior arrangement

Ch. 13: Empires & Encounters

Ch. 14: Commerce & Consequence

Ch. 15: Religion & Science

These chapters together are Part 4 of Ways of the World and cover the years 1440-1750, essentially stepping into “The Early Modern Era,” or an age of empire.

The main thing to jump out at me while reading was in chapter 15, the belief in “the clockmaker god” of the religion of deism Voltaire and other “enlightenment” thinkers adhered to (671). The idea was that God does not interfere or intervene with worldly affairs. He built the world like a clock, with mechanisms to run itself. Also, the Pantheists (672), who thought God and nature were identical. I have encountered this theme before in other classes and it seems that these ways of thinking variously effected man’s relationship with the natural world and each other. By thinking of nature as mechanical, animals and other natural phenomena become nothing more than things run by mechanisms that make them move (or not move), and nothing beyond that. Those mechanisms could be used in order to progress (673, another Enlightenment theme) and improve human society. And if by changing the way people think of natural world, if they changed the way they thought about other humans, what would the consequences be? That is where the idea of race comes in, combined with people taking the concepts of the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest (674) totally out of context (which is a total a pet peeve of mine, whether people get it wrong on television or in conversation). This and other pseudo-sciences are what in big part what led to things like the horrors of slavery and generated the fuel for holocausts. Justification made easy and enforced by resultant wealth. There are definitely other factors, such as justification by traditional religious leaders (623), but these jumped out at me.

World History chapters 9, 11, 12

After last week’s readings on Christianity, it was interesting reading about Islam for this week and seeing the parallels between the two religions and the actions and ideas of the people who practiced them. Two points struck me the most. One was the division or schisms that occurred in both the Christian and Islamic worlds that were based on how worship should be carried out. For instance, the major division of Catholicism in Europe into Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics. Both sides saw the other’s views on theology and church practice as heretical, and their leaders even excommunicated each other. In the Islamic world, a rift emerged as well, forming two sides, the Sunni and the Shia (375). For the most part, the differences of all of these groups under the umbrella of the same faith have yet to be reconciliated. It makes one think, why did these serious rifts happen in exclusively monotheistic religions that have periodically led to conflict? In Buddhism, where some have come to worship the Buddha and others have only seen it as a way of living and thought, has there been such hostility or barriers between the two? Is there something within the ideology and exclusivity of these monotheistic religions that invites “black and white”, or, “one or the other” thinking/way of viewing the world? Does this fit into the paradigm of thought that that there must be one way of doing things? And does this contribute to the history of hostility between Islam and Christianity who themselves supposedly worship the same God?

The second thing to strike me was that not only were ideas about gender inequality, more specifically the subordination of women, not specifically cited in either the Bible of Quran, (and even in cases in the Bible where it might have been, most or all of these writings were not written by Jesus himself), but were written by later scholars of the faiths. For Muslims, these were mostly written in the Hadiths. For example, I had to give a sigh as I read about the gradual changing of the story of Adam and Eve in Islamic culture. It was like, here we go again, blame Eve why don’t you? I guess everyone needs a scapegoat?

I found reading about the “unlikely” empire of the Mongols, known for their brutality and physical and psychological warfare, refreshing because it is not something I remember really studying in depth about before. It was fascinating how Chinggis Khan was able to not only organize and mobilize warring tribes, but how he did so (469-472), especially within his army. I also realized that, had it not been for the plague, that empire could have lasted much longer. How different would things be now had it turned out that way?

I always wondered what the ideology behind the bloody sacrifices of the Aztec’s was, and so the section in chapter 12 that goes over it: (525) “Civilizations of the Fifteenth Century: The Americas: The Aztec Empire", was interesting to me. Apparently, it was this prominent official called Tlacaelel that solidified the ideology (525). Basically, the Gods, specifically the sun (called Huitzilopochtle- try saying that five times fast) needed the power of human blood to continue on its “constant battle against the encroaching darkness (525). Such a human thing to fear, the darkness. If I were someone living in that time, would I do all I could to keep the light from receding as well? It’s hard to think about, what with all of my modern sensibilities and my feeling queasy at the thought of sacrificing and blood-letting. I don’t even like vampires and can’t look when my blood gets drawn at the hospital…but I digress.

I barely got through this week’s readings, but I hope it is helpful in the long run.

Chapters 7, 8, 10

Chapters seven, eight, and ten of Ways of the World discuss the era of third-wave civilizations (around 500-1500); commerce and culture, China and it’s connections with the rest of the world, and the contraction, expansion, and divisions of Christendom, respectively.

The topics this week were not particularly new to me. I started learning in junior high about the Silk Road, Sea Roads, and Sand Roads, and their spread of not only goods but ideas and religion across Eurasia. What I did not know too much about was the American network of trade. There were many obstacles to trade, though regional trade flourished (307), such as lack of domesticated animals, and something I had never thought of before: the north/south orientation of the Americas verses the east/west axis of Eurasia. It is amazing that I have thought so little about it thus far. The climate changes were very little for Eurasia, as they were on a horizontal axis, but the orientation in America would mean adapting to all of the geographic, environmental, and climatic changes. As the book says, this “delayed the spread of agricultural products” (307). 

The next chapter, which covered China, reminded me of things I had seen in movies or read in books but never really understood. For example, the tribute system: “a set of practices that required non-Chinese authorities to acknowledge Chinese superiority and their own subordinate place in a Chinese-centered world order” (334). This view of themselves (the Chinese) as superior was not surprising in light of their practical devotion to Buddhism, where one strives to be their perfect self. Still, it was a little extreme to me, especially the sentence that the author uses that says, in regards to their view of themselves, that “China was a ‘radiating civilization,’ graciously shedding its light most fully to nearby barbarians and with diminished intensity to those farther away.” It was shocking to read at first, but then I remembered that many other civilizations before and after came to use similar types of thinking in one way or another, in order to create a unified state and justify their actions toward others with such an ideology.

I want to mention real quickly that though I had heard of binding young girls’ feet, and just imagining it makes me cringe, I had never seen a picture of it before. The pictures in the book and reading about it, well, it hurt my soul. And I was amazed how women would go through it and even be proud of it. That is a testament to how intense and pervasive the elements of a culture can be and how it can effect one’s mindset. I know I am effected by my culture for sure. 

The chapter on Christendom shed very little new knowledge to me, as I was not only raised Catholic and have learned about much of this in catechism and in school, but I am also a very curious student so I would ask questions. The chapter did, however, help to reinforce knowledge I had previously been familiar with but had forgotten, and I did learn some new things and a lot more details that I hope can be retained. I saw all the “hierarchical dualisms” that were presented by the faith and talked about in this chapter. Like what a teaching of the church declared “It is the will of the Creator,”…”that the higher shall always rule over the lower. Each individual and class should stay in its place [and] perform its tasks” (428). There are therefore, among other things, connections with Christianity and the subordination of women which extends to the association of women with the earth and the resultant treatment of it, such as deforestation (mentioned in this chapter and now the page escapes me). Together, this made a very fair point about the prominence of the very potentially ecologically damaging paradigm of thought that was Neoplatonism. Yet, I think a good counter argument to this is that Neoplatonism is not found in the Bible itself, but was an idea formed and appropriated by some early Christian theologians. (I know Neoplatonism is not mentioned in this particular history book, but I thought I would say this anyway).

Oh, before I forget, I thought it was nice that the book mentions Hildegard of Bingen, a twelfth century abbess. As a student of music, and as a woman, I find it incredible that she was able to carve out some autonomy for herself and the women that worked with her, and that she is the most famous composer of plain chant, and with a larger surviving body of work than any other composer from the middle ages (Campbell, Nathaniel M., et al. “Music.” www.hildegard-Society.org, International Society of Hildegard von Bingen Studies, 2014.

              www.hildegard-society.org/p/music.html#Symphonia.), and that her work is still being recorded today!

All in all, even though it took what felt like forever to finish, enjoyed this week’s readings.

World History chapter 6

Chapter 6

When I was in the sixth grade, I wrote a country report on Mexico. I wanted to learn a bit more about my heritage. One of the things that fascinated me then was learning about the societies that had been established in Mesoamerica during what the book calls the second-wave era. The city of Teotihuacan in particular is interesting, and like many other places that we have read about recently, even if so little is known about it, excites the imagination. The most interesting thing to me is that it seems to have been built to plan (244). I wonder if people had official positions as city planners, like we do now.

I like that this chapter talked about alternative societies that “are often neglected in favor of civilizations” (230). When I read this, it made sense to me as I was reading through that one of the reasons why many details of these societies are unknown might be because of this. It also probably does not help that apparently some of these societies did not develop writing or that it has not been translated yet.

It was interesting reading about Moroe, the Nubian civilization in the Nile Valley south of Egypt. Once the Egyptian trade route switched from the Nile Valley to that of the Red Sea, the state weakened (236). This was an example of how trade was and is such an important part of not only economic life but that of a society.

Reading about the Natchez people, a chiefdom located in southwestern Mississippi in North America, and there “sharp social classes” was thought-provoking. This was because even though they were so distinct, the upper-class people were required to marry commoners. Why was this? What was the intention behind it? Maybe I will look this up later.

World History chapter 5

Chapter five, is titled “Society and Inequality in Eurasia/North Arfica: 500 B.C.E. – 500 C.E”.

For many of the following opinions I am about to impart, I am aware they are coming from a place that could never truly understand the paradigm of thought which permeated the culture and religions of the people of the second wave civilizations (who were influenced by earlier civilizations). At the same time, because many of the inequalities that existed then exist now, though widely varied in their expressions in their respective societies, and though I like to think that paradigms are slowly changing even more, it is hard not to feel passionately about the subjects presented in this last chapter.

The comparison between the social systems of China and India to were interesting because of the different ways in which they were ordered (192-203). In China, there was more of a chance for upward social mobility through education and scholarship, and landowning. In India, the rigid caste system with the jati (occupational based groups), made it harder for that mobility to be possible. It was shocking to find out that it was rarely possible, but could be done after several generations (202). The idea of untouchables (200) and polluted labor was both shocking and not shocking, as I had heard of it, just without the accompanying background knowledge to make sense of it. As with other cultural traditions, it has developed and has been so steeped into the society from which it was born that it has amassed into the thinking and actions of all who follow that tradition, without them really even recognizing or questioning it for so long.

This is the case for other unequal systems discussed in this chapter as well. Slavery, for one, which has been around for millennia, and that which was so intensely represented in the Roman Empire, has only in recent centuries been questioned. I have to ask myself why this is. Was it borne in earlier times out of conflict or necessity, or as a type of punishment or some perverse or primal need to be above others? Was it an expression of greed? Was it perhaps because the prominent figures, religious writers and thinkers, and state creators and innovators of those times further influenced the situation by intensifying and justifying the need for these types of hierarchies by comparing other human beings to animals, who were by the time of the agricultural revolution being domesticated?

And these same speculations may similarly if not completely be attributed to the subordination of women through patriarchy. Take “the father of western philosophy,” or Aristotle. I don’t know how popular he was back in the day, but just look at the title we have given him. He thought that some people were “slaves by nature” (205). To him, the inferiority of women came from them being “infertile men,” as in, since women do not produce sperm, they are inadequate (213). There is also another insinuation there, that men exist first or at the center, as he did not say instead something like “men are fertile women” –what an interesting notion that would be. This was because, apparently, sperm held the soul, and therefore their (men’s’) contribution was much greater than the vessel that carried the baby (214). If this was the way they thought about it at the time, I can imagine that even women, who probably believed this too, were less likely to fight for a more equal position. And perhaps that is why in so many societies, for so long, that that has been the case. Very little questioning, and very little resistance of these ways of thinking. I cannot help but wonder, if the rational thinking men of Athens and elsewhere were not so blinded by their efforts to separate and subordinate, they may have taken the time for the thoughtful study of what was right in front of them, instead of focusing so much on what was going to make them more masculine. They may have had some intriguing findings.

I do want to mention very quickly, that though the system of patriarchy irritates and at times infuriates me, that men did and do not have it so easy either. The incredible expectations of meeting all the criteria of being “masculine,” whatever that meant in their respective societies, must have been extremely harsh and stressful, and might have just hardened their souls. This, of course, is no excuse in my opinion, for appropriating systems of oppression, but nonetheless that might have been there experience. Take Sparta for example. Young boys being taken away at the age of seven to be trained as warriors until they were thirty years of age (215). What must it have been like in those early developing years where the military raised them? Or China, where if you were trying to achieve prestige as a scholar, whether you were a peasant being sponsored by a village or an elite who could afford education easily, what would the social humiliation and implications for those people who were supporting you be like if you failed the examinations to become an official? Even then though, in comparison to women, at least men were given the opportunity to succeed or fail.

As I am not a historian nor a Greek classical thinker, and I do not have all the information available to me to ponder these questions further (plus, dinner is waiting, and I am lucky enough to have a dinner), I will not comment on this any further today. It is food for thought though.

World History chapter 4

Chapter four covers culture and religion in Eurasia and North Africa between 500 B.C.E. and 500 C.E., so we are still talking about second-wave civilizations including those in: China, India, Persia/the Middle East, and Greece. These cultural “traditions are among the most enduring legacies that second-wave civilizations have bequeathed to the modern world.” In China, the long lasting traditions came to be Confucianism and Daoism. In India, writings known as the Upanishads would give expression to Hinduism. Buddhism was born in India as well, though it died out in its homeland and was absorbed into a new popular Hinduism. In the Middle East, there appeared the monotheistic traditions of Zarathustra, and Judaism –which would set the ground work for Christianity and Islam.   Then out of Greece came the rational and humanistic tradition of those like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These are not the only cultural and religious traditions in these areas, but they are the most long lasting.

I mentioned Confucianism and the rule of China in my last post. Reading about it in slightly more depth made me see how rigid it actually is. And of course, while not as heavy-handed as the earlier Legalism with it’s strict reward and punishment system and pessimistic view of human nature (150), Confucianism is concerned with the perfection of one’s moral character, specifically men’s. That is an interesting take from the point of view of someone like me that does not believe in perfection, but perhaps there is nothing wrong with striving for it. On the other end of the spectrum, in response to Confucianism and its emphasis on developing culture, is Daoism and its emphasis on nature. I thought at first that these two very different ways of thinking would be in conflict with each other at first, but then I was reminded of the concept of yin and yang; “the unity of opposites” (156). I have encountered this concept before, especially in my study of martial arts, and in nature. For example, night and day are opposites, but neither can exist without the other. It is, however hard to exercise mastery of the concept in every day life when I have grown up within the somewhat Western (?) framework that often times says there can only be one dominating school of thought. All or nothing thinking, or perhaps everything has to be one way or the other…in those terms I suppose. But that is not how things turned out in the case of Confucianism and Daoism. They were practiced side by side, complimenting rather than clashing or contradicting the each other. I like this concept.

I found it interesting that instead of completely dying out, that Buddhism was not eradicated but more absorbed into the new popular Hinduism that accompanied the writing of the epic poems of Mahabharata and the Ramayana (the Ramayana is a fascinating read, by the way, though I only read a brief version of it).  

The monotheism that emerged in the Middle East is somewhat more familiar to me than other traditions. I like the fact that the book mentions the Eurocentric idea that Christianity is a European religion, when in fact most followers for the first six centuries of the Christian era were non-European (174). I find that some people do not know this and when I have conversations and bring up this point they tend to get irritated. But what am I to do? Lie? Others, however, are very open to learning about this.

The practice of monotheism, in my opinion, gets a bit messier. I suppose it is messier in only the context that, at least in Judaism, Yahweh (God) “demanded their exclusive loyalty” (167). This would be hard, or messy, because these people lived in a world where multiple Gods were worshiped by many different peoples. This problem was extended to the time of early Christianity, a more missionary religion that would seek converts and where martyrdom came to be a prominent feature. Islam is not excluded as it is also monotheistic.

“The Greek Way of Knowing” (169) was just as threatening to others in their beginning as perhaps monotheistic religions in the Middle East. Take a look at Socrates, who “challenged conventional ideas about the importance of wealth and power in living well, urging…instead the pursuit of wisdom and virtue” (169). He also had good things to say about Sparta, which threatened the Athenian government (the city state where he was from), was accused him of corrupting the youth, and he was then executed. Nevertheless, the classical Greek thinkers made great strides in government, physics, astronomy, ethics, etc. I find it highly interesting, but not surprising, that when the Western Roman empire fell, most of the of the classical Greek knowledge went with it. Christianity filled the void of the power vacuum left by the fall of Rome, and dominated Western thought and culture for centuries. But the legacy of the Greeks were not dead, and they remain an inspiration to people and nations.

As enduring moral and cultural, and religious orders that began so long ago I cannot even imagine it, these traditions are fascinating to read about.

World History Chapter 3

Chapter three of Ways of the World, titled “State and Empire in Eurasia/North Africa (500 B.C.E.-500 C.E.), covers what the book calls the second wave of civilizations following those of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Norte Chico, and the like. There is a lot of comparisons going on in this chapter First was “Empires and Civilizations in Collision,” basically: The Persian Empire Vs. the Greek Empire. Then there is the literal comparison of the Roman and Chinese empires, which, according to the reading, rose around the same time but had very little direct contact with each other. And then it goes into what it calls the “intermittent empire,” that of India.

I’d just like to mention or comment on, as I usually do and will continue to do, the things I found interesting.

The chapter discusses what an empire is. At one level, they are “simply states, political systems that exercise coercive power” (106). This is strikingly different from the emergence of chiefdoms during the Paleolithic era, where rulers used generosity, gifts, ritual status, and charisma, among other things to bolster support; less methods of coercion (45). But of course, with many of these second wave and even first wave civilizations that became increasingly militarized, it is not a surprising thing that this would become part of the definition of an empire. It seems to be a pattern and a vehicle to conquering and expanding an empire as well. The book goes on to say that the term “empire” is “normally reserved for larger and more aggressive states, those that conquer, rule, and extract resources from other states and peoples (106).

I found it a peculiar statement when I read that one of the reasons why people might study empires is because “the fall of the mighty seems somehow satisfying, perhaps even a delayed form of justice” (106). I can’t put my finger on what bothers me about it. I can see why this would be a reality of thought for some, but I can’t imagine it would be for all. I am not sure what I think of it myself, obviously. Maybe I don’t feel I can judge those empires of the past to that extent, since I never lived through them.

I do, however, find myself judging based on my own life experience. And then the statement makes sense depending on the circumstances. For example, the story of Darius, a Persian absolute monarch, having a nobleman and his entire clan killed because Darius was interrupted while being with his wife. First off, hold up. Did you really have to react like that? Seriously? The fact that his words and commands were absolute is that scary to me, who lives in a completely different time. I know it was scary and lethal for the people being killed. I cannot say what it was like for those who had to carry out those commands. The book says that “In the eyes of many, Persian monarchs fully deserved their effusive title,” (108) so therefore, I must conclude that those who followed these leaders saw what they were doing as right, even as if they were carrying out the will of the gods, as many of these civilizations’ leaders attributed their status to being descended from or as carrying out the will of gods or heaven.

I found reading about the Chinese Emperors’ duty to rule by the Mandate of Heaven, which “was neither a place nor supreme being, but rather an impersonal moral force that regulated the universe” (125) to be slightly relieving. This was because, according to this mandate, the emperor needed to rule morally and benevolently. But then I wondered what constituted morals and benevolence among these people and to those they conquered and assimilated into their culture. I suppose I would need to study Confucianism and more of their history to find the answer. I would need to do similar things with the other empires covered in this chapter as well, since it does not go in depth about it. It looks like the next chapter, might though, so I may touch on this again.

I always knew that Greek culture and thinking suffused itself through conquering, but I never really thought about how it would diffuse itself even after being conquered. And I mean how, not if, seeing as so much of its ideas, architecture, art, and other things survive to this day, much of it expanded upon by the Romans and others. It is important to remember that their political experiments, though far different from today, helped shape the political ideologies of the Western world. How significant that is.

The last thing I liked reading about, which helped put into perspective the statement I found peculiar, was the Trung Trac rebellion. She, a Vietnamese woman, along with her sister, led a rebellion against the conquering China. She gained an entire army of support, literally, with thirty-six female generals. And yet, records would later explain the failure of this revolt as women’s leadership. Wow… Does that not sound like a very subjective answer? Nonetheless, it inspired later resistance movements and the Trung sisters are celebrated even today.

This chapter was intriguing because I have learned so much about these civilizations in school when I was younger, with the exception of India perhaps, which information came to me more through pop culture for some reason. It was fun reading more about India, that it made strides in mathematics and astronomy, and that “the absence of consistent imperial unity did not prevent the evolution of a lasting civilization” (135). 

World History Chapters 1 & 2

The following is an overview of the things that I found interesting within the readings from the first week for my World History class.

The book, Ways of the World: A Brief Global History, With Sources, by Robert W. Strayer and Eric W. Nelson, Third Edition, starts off differently than any history book I have read thus far in my career as a student. The Prologue is like an introductory chapter for an astronomy class. The idea is that since we humans and other creatures are made by the same materials that created planets, which could not have happened, ultimately, without the creation of the universe, that technically the history of humans started with the Big Bang. This idea also gives perspective to how long we as a species, homo sapiens, have been around. If we were to scale down the history of the universe as a Cosmic Calendar, or a year, we have only been around for the last few minutes of December 31^st (or 2.7 million years ago).  It kind of puts into perspective how much we have accomplished as well as impacted the earth in so little a time.

This book’s approach to history uses what the author calls “The Three C’s of World History” –Change, Comparison, and Connection. “Change” regards big picture changes but warns us not to be blinded by it in order to still see “the continuities of human experience” (lxxii). Comparison pertains to seeking and identifying similarities and differences in the experience of the world’s peoples, and if possible, explaining them. Connections relate to the “interactions, encounters, and connections among different and distant peoples” in an “effort to counteract a habit of thinking about particular people, states, or cultures as self-contained or isolated” (lxiii). I found this last bit extremely helpful, because I find so often that in our effort to compartmentalize and make sense of things, we go too far, and we end up stereotyping and not looking at the complexities and similarities between people. Further, in this same vein and with the influence of pop culture we tend to forget that syncretism happens everywhere and stretches as far back as people have existed. The book aims to operate these three C’s on a global scale to bring coherence to the subject of world history.

The Part One introduction, titled “First Things First: Beginnings in History to 500 B.C.E.” mentions Charles Darwin and his work in biology. I thought, “of course they did.” His theory of evolution is so monumental that it has shaped the study of many disciplines ever since (and has spawned many different “outlooks” which I will not go into now since it is not mentioned, but it probably will be later, judging by the way this book seems to be going).

The first chapter is titled “First Peoples; First Farmers: Most of History in a Single Chapter to 4000 B.C.E.” The title itself would have been shocking, as it suggests unequal treatment of this time period in history, had I not been warned about it in the book’s introduction. Afterall, this time period represents “95 percent of the time that our species has inhabited the earth” (11). But then again, there is little to go by when one thinks about it. Written language had not been invented yet, and so the only real records we have are what archeologists and such have found. Basically, this chapter covers the Paleolithic, or “Old Stone Age,” based on the fact that these early people used stone tools. Their livelihood was also based on gathering and hunting for food. It then goes onto talk about the how agriculture was breakthrough that “represents the single most profound transformation of human life in all of history” (12).

It was interesting to see the maps in this chapter. They were good visual aids for what the chapter talked about, such as the migration patterns out of Africa. It is amazing imagining these first explorers, who did not know where they were going or what they might find, but they did it anyway.

When the author talks about the first human societies, it is interesting to see their take on the matter, because short of building a time machine, we may never know what it was actually like. Such as the interpretation that these first societies were egalitarian in nature (20). I think that it is not impossible, because I do not think that inequality is a natural thing, but something that was developed. One tidbit that both fascinated and scared me was that 15 percent of the deaths that occurred in Paleolithic societies “occurred through violence at the hands of other people, a rate far higher than in later civilizations, where violence was largely monopolized by the state” (22). I wonder if people would call that a pro or con for those later civilizations…

As for the economy and the environment of these early societies, they were apparently referred to by one scholar as “the original affluent society” (22), not for what they possessed but because they wanted and needed so little. It reminds me of what a motivational speaker might say is the key to happiness, or something. But then I am reminded by the author why these societies were not perfect either; low life expectancy and the dangers of the wild, etc. I like that the author does this, because otherwise one might only see the one side, and may be mislead about how ideal something is, when in reality I think everything has pros and cons.

The chapter touched upon the idea of cyclical time and how it was more prominent in earlier societies (25). We think now in such a linear sense that we sometimes forget that time move in cycles, even if we do realize it instinctually.

I found  the transition to agriculture and the resultant change in the relationship between humankind and other living things (27) to be an important aspect to add. Our relationship with nature has become so far removed. And yet, even then, with the domestication of animals and plants, and the active changing of the natural environment around them, there was a kind of mutual dependence that may have been more apparent to these earlier peoples than in our current pre-packaged society. In a pre-packaged society, there are many who grow up without even a thought as to where things such as food, wood, metals, water, or other resources come from. And even if they know, it is hard to make the full connection or to acknowledge the connection in many situations, such as when their food is served to them in a restaurant. I thought again to the prologue of this history text and remembered the concept of humans and the natural world all being connected as part of the ingredient of the universe. If we were to regard ourselves with the land, and the living and non-living creatures that inhabit it, the implications might be greater than many would want to face, as it could very well break down our own social relationships and ideas about the chain of existence in Western society. Would some version of this regard for the environment be for the better during this Holocene extinction where over 10,000 species of animal and plant are lost each year? Perhaps.

I previously knew that many of the domesticated animals that are now in the Americas made their way there from Eurasia, but I did not know how little local animals were domesticated in comparison to Eurasia. The map on pages 30-31 show that in the Americas a total of four animals were domesticated, including the llama, Alpaca, and surprisingly the Guinea pig, none of which were domesticated in North America.

The globalization of agriculture lasted 10,000 years or more after the emergence of the Fertile Crescent (37), or first site to experience a full Agricultural revolution in Southwest Asia, and the place where one of the first civilizations (Mesopatamia) would develop. I will never think of figs, the first cultivated crop (32) the same again.

 I liked reading about the social variations in the Age of Agriculture (41) and the pastoral, agricultural villages, and chiefdoms that developed, and that their differences lie on a continuum (46) and are not completely distinct from one another. This takes me back to the prologue and the third “C”: connection. Everything is connected in some way. Likewise, these early societies and the agricultural revolution led to the rise of civilizations.

The second chapter, “First Civilizations,” speaks about just that, and therefore focuses on Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Norte Chico, later speaking in addition about the Indus Valley, Chinese, Oxus, and Olmec civilizations.

Something that caught my attention was in one of the introductory paragraphs of the chapter, stating “It is a strange paradox that we count the creation of civilizations among the major achievements of humankind and yet people within them have often sought to escape the constrains, artificiality, hierarchies, and other discontents of civilized living (59-60). Indeed, you can find many examples of this, which are ironically often expressed through literature, writing being something which emerged within these first civilizations. It makes me wonder if we who are now so immersed in everything that is both a part of and a byproduct of “civilization” could really get along without it at this point, or would we need to pick and choose what we would be living with or without. Probably the latter, but even that would be a difficult task.

Cities, states, inequality and greater oppression emerged, including gender hierarchies, slavery, and large scale-warfare (60).  Architectural and other marvels were created, some that still exist today, including pyramids, temples, palaces, elaborate sculptures, written literature, and complex calendars (60).

It was interesting reading about these early civilizations. Norte Chico (around 3000 B.C.E. to 1800 B.C.E.), which was located on the central coast of Peru, I knew very little about before-hand. According to what has been found and speculated upon so far, it was also very distinctive compared to Mesopotamia and Egypt.  For instance, it shows less evidence of economic specialization. Its economy was based on a rich fishing industry instead of grain-based farming. So far as has been discovered, it did not develop pottery, writing, and created fewer sculptures, carvings, and drawings. Also, the quipu (a series of knotted cords), may have been an alternative form of writing or symbolic communication –I found this point fascinating because I think in terms of how my own culture communicates, and how different it would be if it were done in a different way.

The idea of human mastery over nature started with the emergence of civilization, and by extension women who were often identified with nature as a bringer of life and nurturer. Maybe, in an increasingly militarized world, the intentions started out good, in order to help protect women who were often taken as prisoners of war. But the idea that their sexual activity had to be monitored and restricted for the sake of knowing who had the right to inherit family property is a bit…why only the women? I know this is probably because women began to be exchanged as slaves, concubines, and wives, but that is, how shall I say, contradictory to my idea of protecting woman. These factors and others helped contribute to creation of the system of patriarchy (74).

1st post!