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).