I admire the more aggressive approach of the women’s liberation movement, but think it was also important to feminism in general to maintain the more traditional political lobbying of the equal rights feminists. I believe that more radical groups serve the purpose of capturing the public’s attention, but the less radical groups tend to change laws and make measurable progress in society. This is not to devalue the importance of the role of some radical groups, only to say that their more conservative counterparts have an easier time working within the system.
From the women’s liberation movement, I especially liked the comparison of patriarchy as a system of domination on the level of race and class. This speaks to the fact that gender was historically not afforded the same importance as race and class in terms of oppression. Gender inequality was widely accepted and the women’s liberation movement suggests that not even many oppressed women were aware of their plight: “Because we live so intimately with our oppressors, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as a political condition.”
I found the differing concerns of African American women very interesting and enlightening. To these women, racism and poverty were far more oppressive than patriarchy. They had long worked outside the home, and viewed the family as a secure base. They viewed mainstream Western feminism as “a family quarrel between White women and White men.” This stance gets at the question of which form of oppression is more severe and relevant to one’s circumstances. It is easy to see how racism and poverty would take precedence over patriarchy. This is said not to diminish the importance of the feminist movement, but to bring to light the fact that other forms of oppression may have more severe and immediate consequences for some women.
Feminism in the 20th century was able to “gain international recognition for the view that women’s rights are human rights.” I believe it was highly successful in exposing the many inequities and injustices that women have endured. However, as is the case with other forms of oppression, there is still a long way to go. The text also points out that there are still differing views within feminism, but this should not stop the general progress towards equality.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Chapter 24 Post
Strayer has done an admirable job of keeping the reader informed about the status of women throughout the text. The emergence of patriarchy began with the First Civilizations, and although the extent of male dominance varied among different cultures, the vast majority of women from that time forward suffered at least some degree of oppression.
Strayer often inserted a section concerning gender issues as the text covered the various time periods and cultures of world history. However, at some point it became largely repetitive and depressingly predictable. The update would usually point out some minor progress in gender equality, or what seemed like major progress, only to reveal that progress was subsequently wiped out. A recurring theme in this area was the acceptance of women as more equal when they were needed, only to be “relegated to marginal positions” when their services were no longer needed. A good example of this is when women were needed for labor.
Not until the chapter about the Atlantic revolutions and the beginning of an organized feminist movement was their truly significant progress to report, such as more access to educational opportunities and the right to vote. Even then, Strayer states, “Nowhere did nineteenth-century feminism have really revolutionary consequences. But as an outgrowth of the French and Industrial revolutions, it raised issues that echoed repeatedly and more loudly in the century that followed.”
That brings us to the feminism discussed in Chapter 24. Strayer says, “No expression of the global culture of liberation held a more profound potential for change than feminism.” Western feminism which was largely dormant from the 1920s through the 1950s reemerged with more than the right to vote on their agenda. They were now seeking a higher level of equality with a focus on employment and education.
Strayer often inserted a section concerning gender issues as the text covered the various time periods and cultures of world history. However, at some point it became largely repetitive and depressingly predictable. The update would usually point out some minor progress in gender equality, or what seemed like major progress, only to reveal that progress was subsequently wiped out. A recurring theme in this area was the acceptance of women as more equal when they were needed, only to be “relegated to marginal positions” when their services were no longer needed. A good example of this is when women were needed for labor.
Not until the chapter about the Atlantic revolutions and the beginning of an organized feminist movement was their truly significant progress to report, such as more access to educational opportunities and the right to vote. Even then, Strayer states, “Nowhere did nineteenth-century feminism have really revolutionary consequences. But as an outgrowth of the French and Industrial revolutions, it raised issues that echoed repeatedly and more loudly in the century that followed.”
That brings us to the feminism discussed in Chapter 24. Strayer says, “No expression of the global culture of liberation held a more profound potential for change than feminism.” Western feminism which was largely dormant from the 1920s through the 1950s reemerged with more than the right to vote on their agenda. They were now seeking a higher level of equality with a focus on employment and education.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Chapter 23 Post
Once again, the concept of nationalism plays an extremely important role in history. Decolonization throughout the 20th century was largely driven by nationalism. Strayer states, "never before had the end of empire been so associated with the mobilization of the masses around a nationalist ideology; nor had earlier cases generated a plethora of nation-states." I still find it fascinating that nationalism is a relatively new concept in world history. It is so embedded in today's world, it is hard to imagine a world arranged any differently.
I thought the text pointed out a very important difference between the decolonization of the Americas, and those of Asia and Africa. It says, "they not only asserted political independence but also affirmed the vitality of their cultures, which had been submerged and denigrated during the colonial era." This speaks to a whole other level of nationalism that includes race, ethnicity, language and other unique features of these societies.
I think the text has done a good job of addressing the 'why' in world history. In attempting to explain why decolonization was so rampant during the mid-twentieth century, the text brings up an important concept. Strayer talks about "the notion of 'conjuncture,' the coming together of several separate developments at a particular time." It is really just a fancy way of saying that historical events usually happen for several reasons, as opposed to any one particular reason. This seems like a pretty obvious concept, but I think it is important because many people like to have one clear-cut, simple answer, and that does a disservice to the complexity, interrelatedness, and enormous scope of world history.
Nationalism itself is not a clean and clear-cut concept. Clearly, nationalism had some positive outcomes for many oppressed peoples who gained their independence. However, the idea of defining a nation is an inexact science. Strayer describes these issues: "(nationalist movements) were fragile alliances of conflicting groups and parties representing different classes, ethnic groups, religions, or regions. Beneath the common goal of independence, they struggled with one another over questions of leadership, power, strategy, ideology, and the distribution of material benefits, even as they fought and negotiated with their colonial rulers." It's almost as if there is nationalism within nationalism, and these issues are ongoing and contribute heavily to the problems that still exist in these nations.
I thought the text pointed out a very important difference between the decolonization of the Americas, and those of Asia and Africa. It says, "they not only asserted political independence but also affirmed the vitality of their cultures, which had been submerged and denigrated during the colonial era." This speaks to a whole other level of nationalism that includes race, ethnicity, language and other unique features of these societies.
I think the text has done a good job of addressing the 'why' in world history. In attempting to explain why decolonization was so rampant during the mid-twentieth century, the text brings up an important concept. Strayer talks about "the notion of 'conjuncture,' the coming together of several separate developments at a particular time." It is really just a fancy way of saying that historical events usually happen for several reasons, as opposed to any one particular reason. This seems like a pretty obvious concept, but I think it is important because many people like to have one clear-cut, simple answer, and that does a disservice to the complexity, interrelatedness, and enormous scope of world history.
Nationalism itself is not a clean and clear-cut concept. Clearly, nationalism had some positive outcomes for many oppressed peoples who gained their independence. However, the idea of defining a nation is an inexact science. Strayer describes these issues: "(nationalist movements) were fragile alliances of conflicting groups and parties representing different classes, ethnic groups, religions, or regions. Beneath the common goal of independence, they struggled with one another over questions of leadership, power, strategy, ideology, and the distribution of material benefits, even as they fought and negotiated with their colonial rulers." It's almost as if there is nationalism within nationalism, and these issues are ongoing and contribute heavily to the problems that still exist in these nations.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Week #7 Post (Chapters 21 & 22)
I thought it was quite interesting that the competing states feature of Europe, which was a driving force in its rise to prominence, was also a significant contributor to its collapse. Strayer states, "Europe's modern transformation and its global ascendancy were certainly not accompanied by a growing unity or stability among its own peoples---quite the opposite."
In the category of "What would have happened if...?," I wonder what would have happened if Italy and Germany had been unified states earlier in history. It seems the fact that their governments were relatively new and unestablished heavily contributed to the receptive environment to a new form of government (fascism) in both countries. Would fascism have been relegated to a footnote in history ("small movements...that had little political impact")? Would WWII have been averted? Would the Holocaust have happened? I realize there were a multitude of factors involved in WWII, but it seems that fascism (in varying forms) was the unifying force behind the Axis powers. As for Japan, Strayer states that, "Like Italy and Germany, Japan had a rather limited experience with democratic politics."
This chapter really drove home the immense influence of nationalism, and its prominent role in both world wars. The extreme nationalism in Germany was especially frightening: "the Nazi Party under Hitler's leadership proclaimed a message of intense German nationalism cast in terms of racial superiority, bitter hatred for Jews as an alien presence..."
The far-ranging and history-altering effects of the Great Depression were also driven home in this chapter. Strayer states, "Much as Europe's worldwide empires had globalized the war, so too its economic linkages globalized the Great Depression." Also, the Great Depression's impact on the politics of many countries, and the backlash towards capitalism and democracy were eye opening. Strayer says, "...people had lost faith in the capacity of liberal democracy and capitalism to create a good society and to protect their interests."
Finally, I especially liked the 'Reflections' piece at the end of the chapter. It talks about how history is generally far too complex and subjective to be summed up by sayings such as, "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." As a society we like to draw parallels and make issues as clean and black and white as possible. Unfortunately, I believe history is full of gray area. This is not to say that we can't learn valuable lessons from history, just that we need to be cognizant of all aspects of historical events before drawing any conclusions.
In the category of "What would have happened if...?," I wonder what would have happened if Italy and Germany had been unified states earlier in history. It seems the fact that their governments were relatively new and unestablished heavily contributed to the receptive environment to a new form of government (fascism) in both countries. Would fascism have been relegated to a footnote in history ("small movements...that had little political impact")? Would WWII have been averted? Would the Holocaust have happened? I realize there were a multitude of factors involved in WWII, but it seems that fascism (in varying forms) was the unifying force behind the Axis powers. As for Japan, Strayer states that, "Like Italy and Germany, Japan had a rather limited experience with democratic politics."
This chapter really drove home the immense influence of nationalism, and its prominent role in both world wars. The extreme nationalism in Germany was especially frightening: "the Nazi Party under Hitler's leadership proclaimed a message of intense German nationalism cast in terms of racial superiority, bitter hatred for Jews as an alien presence..."
The far-ranging and history-altering effects of the Great Depression were also driven home in this chapter. Strayer states, "Much as Europe's worldwide empires had globalized the war, so too its economic linkages globalized the Great Depression." Also, the Great Depression's impact on the politics of many countries, and the backlash towards capitalism and democracy were eye opening. Strayer says, "...people had lost faith in the capacity of liberal democracy and capitalism to create a good society and to protect their interests."
Finally, I especially liked the 'Reflections' piece at the end of the chapter. It talks about how history is generally far too complex and subjective to be summed up by sayings such as, "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." As a society we like to draw parallels and make issues as clean and black and white as possible. Unfortunately, I believe history is full of gray area. This is not to say that we can't learn valuable lessons from history, just that we need to be cognizant of all aspects of historical events before drawing any conclusions.
Boston Tea Party
This is an interesting article that addresses what Dr. Fitzgerald mentioned in last week's class about the Boston Tea Party. It goes as far as to say that the Tea Act of 1773 was essentially a tax cut, but much like the politics of today, the truth is often secondary to political ideologies and motives.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
American subjects or citizens?
On the eve of July 4th, here is an interesting story about Jefferson 
and an apparently tough habit to break.
and an apparently tough habit to break.Monday, June 28, 2010
Week #6 Post (Chapters 17, 18 & 20)
I especially enjoyed reading about the Atlantic Revolutions. I was unaware of the interrelatedness of the revolutions. First, and most obvious, I did not realize or remember that these revolutions took place in such a short time frame. I had in the past learned about all of these revolutions separately, but the text did a great job of identifying the underlying currents that connected these events.
I found it interesting that the "British colonists were 'republican in their manners...and their government' well before their independence from England." This notion that the American Revolution "was not accompanied by any wholesale social transformation, but rather accelerated the established democratic tendencies of the colonial societies" is enlightening to me. When I learned about the American Revolution in the early 1980s, the focus was more heavily placed on the patriots and their belief that the revolution created "a new order for the ages" and "a new and more noble course." Certainly the American Revolution had a profound impact on much of the world and inspired other revolutions, but the fact that the existing society was already revolutionary is fascinating.
I was especially intrigued by the Haitian Revolution, "the only completely successful slave revolt in world history." I would love to learn more about the aftermath of the revolution, and if there was any way that what was once "the richest colony in the world" could have avoided the instability and poverty that has gripped that country ever since. Strayer mentions that the plantation system was largely destroyed, and that "Haiti became a nation of small-scale farmers producing mostly for their own needs, with a much smaller export sector." That is probably a key point. Haiti would probably have had a hard time trading with other nations after the revolution, as external opposition persisted. Another major obstacle included "its bitter internal divisions of race, color, and class."
On a lighter note, I found it amusing that taxation played a prominent role in the American, French, and Spanish revolutions. It seems that nothing fires up the people capable of starting a revolution (the wealthiest citizens) more than taking money out of their pocket.
I found it interesting that the "British colonists were 'republican in their manners...and their government' well before their independence from England." This notion that the American Revolution "was not accompanied by any wholesale social transformation, but rather accelerated the established democratic tendencies of the colonial societies" is enlightening to me. When I learned about the American Revolution in the early 1980s, the focus was more heavily placed on the patriots and their belief that the revolution created "a new order for the ages" and "a new and more noble course." Certainly the American Revolution had a profound impact on much of the world and inspired other revolutions, but the fact that the existing society was already revolutionary is fascinating.
I was especially intrigued by the Haitian Revolution, "the only completely successful slave revolt in world history." I would love to learn more about the aftermath of the revolution, and if there was any way that what was once "the richest colony in the world" could have avoided the instability and poverty that has gripped that country ever since. Strayer mentions that the plantation system was largely destroyed, and that "Haiti became a nation of small-scale farmers producing mostly for their own needs, with a much smaller export sector." That is probably a key point. Haiti would probably have had a hard time trading with other nations after the revolution, as external opposition persisted. Another major obstacle included "its bitter internal divisions of race, color, and class."
On a lighter note, I found it amusing that taxation played a prominent role in the American, French, and Spanish revolutions. It seems that nothing fires up the people capable of starting a revolution (the wealthiest citizens) more than taking money out of their pocket.
Week #5 Post (Chapters 14-16)
One thing that stood out to me in Chapter 14 was the demise of the nomadic way of life due to the empire building of Russia and China. I found the pastoral nomadic lifestyle fascinating. I admired their uniqueness in a world of agricultural society. Strayer states, “The incorporation of the heartland of Eurasian nomads into the Russian and Chinese empires eliminated permanently as a major actor on the historical stage the nomadic pastoralists, who had been the strongest alternative to settled agricultural society since the second millennium B.C.E.” This alternative type of society made history more interesting and less homogenous.
The Reflections section of Chapter 14 addresses the very important topic of Eurocentrism in history. Strayer uses the content and organization of this chapter to discuss the topic. He makes the point that he intentionally “places the more familiar narrative of European colonization of the Americas alongside the less well-known stories of Russian, Chinese, Mughal, and Ottoman empire building.” In general, I think Strayer does an admirable job of not being Eurocentric, and giving all peoples throughout history their due. In fact, at times he goes out of his way to highlight traditionally less prominent cultures.
Strayer defends the placement and quantity of the European story in this chapter by making some important distinctions. He believes that the Western European empires in the Americas were both “something wholly new in human history,” and “had a far heavier impact on the peoples they incorporated than did the others.” I agree with Strayer and believe that he does a fine job balancing the uniqueness of the European story with the importance of other prominent societies of the time. It is not an easy task to find that balance, and many people will disagree on this issue depending on an individual’s perspective. However, I think the most important point here is that the blind Eurocentrism of the not so distant past has decreased, and the awareness of the importance and contributions of other cultures is increasing.
The Reflections section of Chapter 14 addresses the very important topic of Eurocentrism in history. Strayer uses the content and organization of this chapter to discuss the topic. He makes the point that he intentionally “places the more familiar narrative of European colonization of the Americas alongside the less well-known stories of Russian, Chinese, Mughal, and Ottoman empire building.” In general, I think Strayer does an admirable job of not being Eurocentric, and giving all peoples throughout history their due. In fact, at times he goes out of his way to highlight traditionally less prominent cultures.
Strayer defends the placement and quantity of the European story in this chapter by making some important distinctions. He believes that the Western European empires in the Americas were both “something wholly new in human history,” and “had a far heavier impact on the peoples they incorporated than did the others.” I agree with Strayer and believe that he does a fine job balancing the uniqueness of the European story with the importance of other prominent societies of the time. It is not an easy task to find that balance, and many people will disagree on this issue depending on an individual’s perspective. However, I think the most important point here is that the blind Eurocentrism of the not so distant past has decreased, and the awareness of the importance and contributions of other cultures is increasing.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Summer Solstice
On the eve of the summer solstice, here is an interesting rundown of several impressive ancient places that have ties to the solstice.
Week #4 Post (Chapters 11-13)
Chapter 11:
The most outstanding aspect of Islam to me was how extraordinarily quick it grew, both as an empire and as a religion. It is hard to believe that one man with very little political power could unify warring tribes, conquer Mecca and nearly all of Arabia, and convert most of Arabia to Islam in a little over a decade. It really makes you wonder what type of man Muhammad must have been. Certainly he must have been an extremely charismatic man, while the book also suggests that he possessed military and political savvy.
Beyond the appeal of Muhammad himself, the message of Islam certainly had broad appeal. The notion that no person was inherently superior over another "except by piety and good action" and that "every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood" almost certainly appealed to a large portion of Arabs, as well as many other peoples. This is a big reason for the equally rapid expansion of Islam even after Muhammad's death.
It was also interesting to see how some core values of a religion with a founder (such as Islam and Buddhism) quickly change after their death. The "ideal of a unified Muslim community, so important to Muhammad" broke down soon after his death. Without his leadership and knowledge, various groups tried to take control or believed that their way was the right way. In Islam this resulted in the Sunnis and the Shias. In Buddhism, this similar process resulted in the Theravada and Mahayana forms of Buddhism. On the simplest level, this type of splintering makes sense. Once the founder is gone, there is no single authority to answer questions about the religion, and that leaves a lot open to interpretation by many individuals.
The most outstanding aspect of Islam to me was how extraordinarily quick it grew, both as an empire and as a religion. It is hard to believe that one man with very little political power could unify warring tribes, conquer Mecca and nearly all of Arabia, and convert most of Arabia to Islam in a little over a decade. It really makes you wonder what type of man Muhammad must have been. Certainly he must have been an extremely charismatic man, while the book also suggests that he possessed military and political savvy.
Beyond the appeal of Muhammad himself, the message of Islam certainly had broad appeal. The notion that no person was inherently superior over another "except by piety and good action" and that "every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood" almost certainly appealed to a large portion of Arabs, as well as many other peoples. This is a big reason for the equally rapid expansion of Islam even after Muhammad's death.
It was also interesting to see how some core values of a religion with a founder (such as Islam and Buddhism) quickly change after their death. The "ideal of a unified Muslim community, so important to Muhammad" broke down soon after his death. Without his leadership and knowledge, various groups tried to take control or believed that their way was the right way. In Islam this resulted in the Sunnis and the Shias. In Buddhism, this similar process resulted in the Theravada and Mahayana forms of Buddhism. On the simplest level, this type of splintering makes sense. Once the founder is gone, there is no single authority to answer questions about the religion, and that leaves a lot open to interpretation by many individuals.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Week #3 Post (Chapters 8-10)
Chapter 8:
It has become quite apparent in our reading that along with the actual goods that were exchanged during classical and postclassical era trade and commerce, so too were cultures, religions, ideas, technology and disease. However, disease seems like it is thrown in the mix as an afterthought.
Prior to this class, I had recently taken a California History class, and so had become quite familiar with the devastating consequences of imported disease for the natives of California and all of North America. I was not as familiar with the effects of disease on the classical and postclassical Eurasian societies.
After reading more specifically about the spread of disease in the text, I was struck by the massive devastation it caused and the enormous role it played in world history. The sheer number of deaths attributed to various diseases are astounding. The Black Death of the fourteenth century C.E. wiped out one-third of the population of Europe in a 5 year span. Many other civilizations experienced similarly devastating bouts with disease.
Beyond the number of deaths lies the most intriguing consequence of disease: it's effect on the direction of world history. Strayer states "Disease played an important role in preventing Byzantium from reintegrating Italy into its version of a renewed Roman Empire..." Also, "...recurrence of the disease...weakened the ability of Christendom to resist the Muslim armies..." Another example took place in the Central Asian steppes (home to many nomadic peoples including the Mongols), where disease "undermined Mongol rule and permanently altered the balance between pastoral and agricultural peoples to the advantage of settled farmers." These are crucial turning points in the history of the world.
Interestingly, Europeans exposure to so many diseases over a long period of time ended up benefitting them as they confronted peoples of the Western Hemisphere. They had built up "some degree of immunity to Eurasian diseases" of which the natives had none.
Perhaps disease is not as interesting or complex a topic as the spread of culture, technology and religion. It is certainly not a positive or fun aspect to discuss, but its importance in world history should not be overlooked, and can not be denied. Strayer sums this up by saying "...disease carried by long distance trade shaped the lives of millions and altered their historical development."
Sunday, June 6, 2010
'Lost Tomb' Discovered
Here is another recent article about the discovery (or re-discovery) of a 13th century BCE tomb in Egypt. If you really look for this type of stuff (which I have been doing since this class started), it is amazing how often significant discoveries happen.
Roman Colosseum
This link is to an article about the restoration and resulting public access to the underground portion of the Colosseum. It is packed full of interesting tidbits about the productions and usage of the landmark in its heyday.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Week #2 Post (Chapter 6)
The most thought provoking theme of Chapter 6 was the idea that elements, and in some cases much more than elements of the social hierarchies that existed several thousand years ago still exist today. For example, "caste, class, patriarchy, and even slavery" still play important roles in the lives of people around the world. Furthermore, it has only been in the last 250 years (a relatively short period in world history) that many of these hierarchies have been challenged or changed. Obviously we have all lived during these times of significant change to preexisting hierarchies, so we do not know anything different. However, as little as 250 years ago, these social structures were "assumed to be natural and permanent."
The following are things that I found interesting, or that struck me in some way about the social hierarchies in Classical Era Eurasia:
China: When describing the process (examinations) by which one could become a Chinese state official, the author says that it was "in theory open to all men." But he quickly dispels this notion by listing the many ways that those who came from wealth and privilege had a distinct advantage over those who did not. I find this to be one of Strayer's strong suits. He is very adept at presenting an issue broadly or theoretically, and then describing it in practice and reality.
I also found the landlord class' disdain for merchants amusing. The scholar-gentry honored and celebrated the peasants (whom they exploited and oppressed) for their hard work, but they looked down on merchants for "making a shameful profit from selling the work of others."
India: I thought I had a general understanding of India's unique caste system, but after the reading I realize that I had a very rudimentary understanding. I had a pretty firm grasp of the 4 varnas (classes), but was unaware of the much more numerous and intricate jatis. These "occupationally based groups" further defined social status within the varnas. In our current society, I compare this to calling the middle class a varna, and the upper middle class and lower middle class jatis. However, in classical India, there were many thousands of jatis, speaking to the specificity and complexity of the caste system.
Rome: While slavery played minor roles in China and India, Rome was built upon it. Again, I had a general understanding that slavery was widespread in Greece and Rome, but I had no idea just how widespread. The book states that one-third of the population (60,000) of Athens were slaves, and that 33-40% of the population (2-3 million) of Rome were slaves. Those are staggering numbers.
I also found it interesting that many Roman slaves worked as "skilled artisans, teachers, doctors, business agents, entertainers and actors." These are certainly not the type of occupations typically associated with slavery. Of course, the majority of slaves provided manual labor and performed domestic duties.
I especially enjoyed the small section on slave resistance and rebellion. When I read about the sheer number of slaves, I could not help but root for them to rise up against their oppressors. I would love to learn more about the Spartacus rebellion. I just finished watching the first season of Spartacus: Blood and Sand on the Starz network, and while I realize it is a cable program and not a history text, I enjoyed it immensely.
Patriarchy: The fact that women were less restricted and viewed more favorably by Sparta (highly militaristic and less democratic than Athens) than by Athens, is an interesting point. However, upon further investigation this "freedom" afforded the women of Sparta was highly self-serving. As Strayer states, "Sparta clearly was a patriarchy, with women serving as breeding machines for its military system and lacking any formal role in public life, but it was a lighter patriarchy than that of Athens."
I was also somewhat taken aback by the quotes about women by Greek writers and philosophers of the time, including Aristotle. For example, "a woman is, as it were, an infertile male. She is female in fact on account of a kind of inadequacy (her inability to generate sperm)."
There is a recurring theme in my learning of world history that I have mentioned several times throughout this post, but I feel is worth mentioning again. I came into this class with a general understanding of many of the topics and themes that we have covered thus far. However, after the reading, I realize how very general and vague my understanding really was. For example, the duration (actual years) of the classical social hierarchies existence, the specific details of the caste system, the numbers of slaves in Greece and Rome, and the specific quotes regarding a woman's role in society all serve to personalize, quantify, and better educate me about the true realities of history.
The following are things that I found interesting, or that struck me in some way about the social hierarchies in Classical Era Eurasia:
China: When describing the process (examinations) by which one could become a Chinese state official, the author says that it was "in theory open to all men." But he quickly dispels this notion by listing the many ways that those who came from wealth and privilege had a distinct advantage over those who did not. I find this to be one of Strayer's strong suits. He is very adept at presenting an issue broadly or theoretically, and then describing it in practice and reality.
I also found the landlord class' disdain for merchants amusing. The scholar-gentry honored and celebrated the peasants (whom they exploited and oppressed) for their hard work, but they looked down on merchants for "making a shameful profit from selling the work of others."
India: I thought I had a general understanding of India's unique caste system, but after the reading I realize that I had a very rudimentary understanding. I had a pretty firm grasp of the 4 varnas (classes), but was unaware of the much more numerous and intricate jatis. These "occupationally based groups" further defined social status within the varnas. In our current society, I compare this to calling the middle class a varna, and the upper middle class and lower middle class jatis. However, in classical India, there were many thousands of jatis, speaking to the specificity and complexity of the caste system.
Rome: While slavery played minor roles in China and India, Rome was built upon it. Again, I had a general understanding that slavery was widespread in Greece and Rome, but I had no idea just how widespread. The book states that one-third of the population (60,000) of Athens were slaves, and that 33-40% of the population (2-3 million) of Rome were slaves. Those are staggering numbers.
I also found it interesting that many Roman slaves worked as "skilled artisans, teachers, doctors, business agents, entertainers and actors." These are certainly not the type of occupations typically associated with slavery. Of course, the majority of slaves provided manual labor and performed domestic duties.
I especially enjoyed the small section on slave resistance and rebellion. When I read about the sheer number of slaves, I could not help but root for them to rise up against their oppressors. I would love to learn more about the Spartacus rebellion. I just finished watching the first season of Spartacus: Blood and Sand on the Starz network, and while I realize it is a cable program and not a history text, I enjoyed it immensely.
Patriarchy: The fact that women were less restricted and viewed more favorably by Sparta (highly militaristic and less democratic than Athens) than by Athens, is an interesting point. However, upon further investigation this "freedom" afforded the women of Sparta was highly self-serving. As Strayer states, "Sparta clearly was a patriarchy, with women serving as breeding machines for its military system and lacking any formal role in public life, but it was a lighter patriarchy than that of Athens."
I was also somewhat taken aback by the quotes about women by Greek writers and philosophers of the time, including Aristotle. For example, "a woman is, as it were, an infertile male. She is female in fact on account of a kind of inadequacy (her inability to generate sperm)."
There is a recurring theme in my learning of world history that I have mentioned several times throughout this post, but I feel is worth mentioning again. I came into this class with a general understanding of many of the topics and themes that we have covered thus far. However, after the reading, I realize how very general and vague my understanding really was. For example, the duration (actual years) of the classical social hierarchies existence, the specific details of the caste system, the numbers of slaves in Greece and Rome, and the specific quotes regarding a woman's role in society all serve to personalize, quantify, and better educate me about the true realities of history.
Week #1 Post (Chapters 1-3)
I am revisiting these chapters and my reading notes at the end of the course, which has given me a different perspective than had I commented after first reading them.
Far and away the most important point about the first few chapters is how they put time and history into perspective. With respect to time, the cosmic calendar is a great tool in attempting to comprehend time in terms of human existence. Everything human-related happens on the night of December 31st.
With respect to historical perspective, our species has existed for approximately 250,000 years, and 95% of that time was during the Paleolithic age, during which humans practiced the hunting and gathering way of life.
The Agricultural Revolution which occurred approximately 12,000 years ago changed everything. The effects of this development on human society were immense. As I looked back through the reading and my notes, so many issues that were present throughout the rest of the text and history, first surfaced in these beginning chapters. Most importantly, the Agricultural Revolution marked the beginning of social inequality. Strayer states, “Rich and poor, chiefs and commoners, landowners and dependent peasants, rulers and subjects, dominant men and subordinate women, slaves and free people…these distinctions, so common in the record of world history, took shape most extensively in productive agricultural settings, which generated an economic surplus.” Furthermore, he says, “The endless elaboration of such distinctions, for better or worse, is a major element in the story of civilization.”
Far and away the most important point about the first few chapters is how they put time and history into perspective. With respect to time, the cosmic calendar is a great tool in attempting to comprehend time in terms of human existence. Everything human-related happens on the night of December 31st.
With respect to historical perspective, our species has existed for approximately 250,000 years, and 95% of that time was during the Paleolithic age, during which humans practiced the hunting and gathering way of life.
The Agricultural Revolution which occurred approximately 12,000 years ago changed everything. The effects of this development on human society were immense. As I looked back through the reading and my notes, so many issues that were present throughout the rest of the text and history, first surfaced in these beginning chapters. Most importantly, the Agricultural Revolution marked the beginning of social inequality. Strayer states, “Rich and poor, chiefs and commoners, landowners and dependent peasants, rulers and subjects, dominant men and subordinate women, slaves and free people…these distinctions, so common in the record of world history, took shape most extensively in productive agricultural settings, which generated an economic surplus.” Furthermore, he says, “The endless elaboration of such distinctions, for better or worse, is a major element in the story of civilization.”
Friday, May 28, 2010
Ardi
This link is to an interesting article in today's SF Chronicle. As we've discussed in class, there is a lot of gray area surrounding human origins. However, I find that even the disagreements between scientists are educational. Furthermore, the actual discovery is still fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)