I can't believe we read the entire book! (well, almost...)

            The final two chapters in the book were about the struggles of countries for their own independence, the dissolution of empires, and globalization.  Strayer notes that “humankind was naturally divided into distinct peoples or nations, each of which deserved an independent state of its own”; this does seem to be holding true in some areas of the world.

            Africa, oh Africa…  The struggle of Africa is very hard to read about, particularly from this America-centric perspective from which I view the world.  It’s hard for me to understand what it takes to build a democracy from zero, and how relatively easy it is for warlords to take control and push people around with the threat of violence and death.  I am still stinging from my research paper on “conflict minerals.”  I just want someone to go in there and STOP THE VIOLENCE, and let the people of the Congo experience some of the financial benefits due them as a result of the richness of their natural resources.

            But, as always, greed prevails. In the U.S., we like to think we are more civilized, and yet we allow people to lose their life’s savings because of personal and collective greed, and we do nothing to rectify the situation, to punish the guilty, or to restore money that was stolen from the elderly and the poor.  We are not physically raping people like they are in the Congo (which, please do not misunderstand me—I am in no way comparing the two or attempting to downplay the horrific crimes against humanity that is occurring in Congo), we allow the wealthy to continue stomping on the poor and essentially “burning down their houses” and then laughing all the way to the bank.  As I have said many times here, history continues to be a depressing topic--especially when it bumps up uncomfortably close to the present.

            Can we switch to something happy?  I have to say I’m really proud of Gorbachev.  I had no idea what a true hero he is/was and what courage he showed in putting forth the ideas of glasnost in Russia.  I guess I have lived through an important time in history to have lived through the Cold War, glasnost, and the accompanying political freedoms that were unleashed in the Soviet Union.  That’s a very nice story from a democratic perspective (and from a global one as well).

            We also read about the religious and therefore political divisions in the Middle East, the distinctions between the Shia and the Sunnis, and the lovely Ayatollah Khomeini who wanted to repress everyone and suck all the joy out of every moment of living.  Did we ever figure out if he did anything for “fun”?  Seeing people unhappy probably cheered him up.

            Finally, I do believe that globalization is inevitable—and good.  It’s the great leveler.  HOWEVER—education is the key factor, and only those who have technology available to them will be able to realize the transformational possibilities available to them.  Sooooooooooooooo.  Keep going to school, and keep taking history classes!

            Thanks for the great class, Patti.  I believe it’s the best one I’ve taken in college—it’s been life-changing for me, and I have been able to affect other lives as well.  So, thanks again!

WAR--What is the good of war? Absolutely Nothing! (say it again)

I enjoyed reading about the two world wars because I never quite understood what was going on in the first, and the second has been talked about a lot.  The connection between the two wars, in that the way the first war was finally settled (the Treaty of Versailles) “set the stage” for the conditions of the second (631) was something that I hadn’t been aware of (I am very sorry to admit).

The physical isolation of the U.S. compared with superpowers of the past has come in handy in world conflicts, as we have been—and remain—fortunate to have limited the war on our own soil to the war we fought against one another.  It has therefore been more difficult for U.S. students to comprehend the divisions in countries in Europe and Asia.  I like that Strayer characterized WWI as “essentially a European civil war with a global reach” (625).  It makes it easier for this American to comprehend.  It is unsettling, however, that he says “the rulers of the major countries of Europe saw the world as an arena of conflict and competition among rival nation-states” (628, 9).  (I hope that this is no longer true.  It would be nice to think that today these rivalries can be limited to being fought with cash rather than with blood.  At least in terms of global power.)  I get really tired of countries (read, people in power) using human beings as tools to get their personal and global needs met.

What’s the deal with German aggression?  As a country, do they just need to be in control—are they the attack dogs on the block?  A friend of mine has a theory that they have finally ceded defeat militarily and are now going to buy their way to power, country by country, beginning with Greece…

Personally, the 2^nd WW is important to me, as my father was retired Navy, so he would have had some interesting stories to tell me.  He joined the service when he was 16, which would have been in 1941 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  I know that he was stationed in Japan for awhile, and my eldest sister was born in Yokosuka in 1950.  My father told me that he was in Japan while the country was repairing itself, and he made friends with some of the Japanese officers after the war.  It is really exciting for me to read about all of this, and sad at the same time because I cannot ask my dad more about his experiences (he passed away 15 years ago).

This time period is particularly interesting to me because I know people who had direct experience with the dramatic events that were happening at this time in history.  Since many people I know still have family members who were involved in the events of WW2, I think it’s important for them/us to gather as many personal stories as possible before these people pass away, taking their stories with them.  I got really excited when reading about this period, and as you can see, I tried to start a conversation with my friends on Facebook to post stories of family members.  I gave them until the 18^th to post, so hopefully I’ll get more “bites.”

I also have to say that I’m particularly disturbed by reading about the behavior of the Japanese.  I had heard that they were unbelievably cruel to the Chinese, and as I said above, my parents spent time in Japan after the second world war.  Neither of them displayed any animosity towards the Japanese whatsoever, so it has surprised me to learn the depth of their depravity.  I suppose there are not many civilized war stories after all.  War sucks.  But to compel 300,000 women in countries of their “possession” to “serve the sexual needs of Japanese troops as ‘comfort women,’” to accommodate “twenty to thirty men a day” (651).  TWENTY TO THIRTY A DAY?  That makes me physically ill.  You just cannot treat people like that.  You absolutely cannot treat people like that, and there must be a special place in hell (even though I don’t believe in hell…) for creatures that can treat other human beings like that.  

Moving on to the cold war, I must say I didn’t find that chapter very interesting.  That is probably because I have lived so much of my life during that war, and was fortunate to be oblivious about what was going on.  I used to have “discussions” with my father about Vietnam, and never understood the bigger picture, and what had instigated the rise and spread of communism, and why everyone was so afraid of it.  I feel very, very fortunate to have lived my life in this country, to have not been touched by war, to have not seen the atrocities and poverty that people have suffered.  I’m also pretty sad to see that the U.S. is losing ground globally as a power, and as an example of people with principles (thank you, George W. Bush, Cheney, et al. for the destruction of our image abroad, and all you idiots who elected them for a second term after they stole the first term with the help of the Supreme Court and Florida…).  Whatever.  I am tired and disappointed.  History continues to be a sad topic.  Second only to Political Science.  :-)

Friends Post Here re: WWII

Hi,

Thanks for stopping by.  Please "comment" on this post with your stories related to World War II.  I will get extra credit for your participation!

--Loni

Chapter 19 Review

                European imperialism was rampant, due in large part to the industrial revolution, and was seen as a way to avoid civil war.  It was an attempt to solve the class problem without dealing with the ever-present threat of revolution.  Because of the close proximity of each individual country, colonialization in other countries became important as a means of separateness and pride. It was emotionally satisfying as a way of cultural identity.  “Europeans developed a secular arrogance that fused with or in some cases replaced their notions of religions superiority” (Strayer 563).  Racism increased, but it became couched in terms of cultural achievement.  Biologists ranked people in the same way they had been ranking plants and animals.  This is how the idea of “other” came about, as it was easy to see other races—people who were simply different—as less developed biologically:  “Race, in this view, determined human intelligence, moral development and destiny” (563).

                This period saw the fall of China’s imperial state, largely due to population growth.  The State couldn’t keep tabs on its citizens, couldn’t collect the taxes, and gangs began to roam the countryside.  Peasant rebellion was imminent, with leaders adopting Christianity, one of them claiming to be Jesus’ younger brother.  J 

                The peasants began to think in terms of equalizing wealth and power, but the landowners supported the government and suppressed the rising desire for a shared wealth.  Communism therefore would be postponed…  China’s civil war had resulted in a loss of 20-30 million lives (566).  The abuse of opium became a problem, and while addiction didn’t exactly topple an empire, it did contribute to the weakening of China and its ability to remain a player.  In addition to the national problem of substance abuse, China’s import of opium accounted for almost 50% of all products coming in from Britain. 

                Similar to the dissolution of governmental power in China, the Ottoman Empire suffered as a result of European industrialism. The Empire attempted to make use of European advancements by sending ambassadors to study the innovations developing in the East.  The Empire became more secularized, and instituted a prohibition on discriminating based on religion, class, race or language.  While equalizing the people, it limited the power of the government to hold off the dilution in the region.  As the area became more secularized, the ability of the government to control its people began to crumble.  

                Japan was able to create their own industrial revolution through a foundation of Confucianism and dedication to education and “defensive modernization,” astounding the rest of the world.  An Egyptian nationalist said:  “We are amazed at Japan because it is the first Eastern government to utilize Western civilization to resist the shield of European imperialism in Asia” (585).

Science to the Rescue!

            We start off learning about the politics of sugar.  I found it interesting that the majority of African slaves were brought to Brazil to work on the growing and production of sugar—a product that today enslaves most of America.  We are slaves to a substance that was mass-produced on the backs of imported humans, and now we “free people” are shackled by it ourselves.

            I also thought it interesting that the Spaniards encouraged inter-racial marriage in Mesoamerica, creating three distinct groups of people that were not necessarily shunned because of their ethnicity, while the Portuguese used native women only as concubines, and therefore their children were “inauthentic.”  The offspring of the Spaniards were therefore more “legitimate” and had more social opportunities.  When the Europeans arrived, the women came with the men, resulting in less “cultural mixing.”

            By around 1750, slaves in North America became “self-reproducing,” and therefore importation was less necessary than in Brazil where slaves continued to be imported until the mid-late 1800s.  Another in note in the slave history of the Americas is that more slaves were set free-some after 7 years by the Portuguese, and the color of skin was less of a social stigma than what has occurred in North America.

            Switching to American colonialism, by the time Britain entered the picture, they came late in the game and got the American leftovers.  Needless to say, they made the most of it.  Because Britain had by this time become more industrialized than Spain or Portugal, they brought with them a more rapidly developing social environment.   Since many of the settlers of the British colonies wanted to escape their society, they had a desire to change things rather than to re-create the societies from which they came; this allowed the North Americas to be more socially innovative.  They were also more numerous, which allowed them to monopolize on the ownership of land and take over farm production, rather than mixing with the native population, which had largely been decimated from disease.

            Russia became a unique empire, spreading across north eastern Asia and dominating through military power.  This was necessary in order to maintain order among the diverse cultures that had occupied the land.

            As we head into chapter 15, I thought I’d make an observation about the size of a country relative to its power.  People often warn the U.S. that we are huge consumers with a relatively small population, but that has often been the case.  When you look at Portugal, Spain and France, and see how small they are and how much land and wealth they were able to accumulate, is it odd that the U.S. has done the same?  Or that we have sought expansion through military might, as did the Russians and the Chinese?  This is kind of the way of history.  Might does not make right, but it does make power, which then makes (takes) wealth, which then takes might to keep what it has gotten by might.  Right?  I may have mixed up the order here, but the fact remains that empires have forever been built on military strength, and countries have been won and lost based on financial and military power.  So is the winner the one who has enough money to buy the biggest and best guns?  In this case, perhaps the U.S. does have it right.  That is unless someone uses a bigger and better bomb before we do.  Or could people just give up and get along without having to conquer one another?  Have we evolved to a place where this world chess game can become a dance where we switch partners rather than demolishing cultures?  I don’t think so.  I really don’t think so.  It is totally naïve to think that people can ever live in peace.  We are all just insignificant ants.  And that’s where religion comes in.  It’s a way for the oppressed to feel powerful and hopeful.  And it’s so handy for a government, because they can control the people without physical violence.  The government can safeguard the “morals” of people’s children while the parents work at McDonald’s.

            I cannot even discuss the slave trade.

            Now comes the Catholics vs. the Protestants, with more people killing each other because of God—purportedly the SAME god!  Same Jesus, same Bible, same trinity, but different rituals—yeah, let’s kill 3,000 people in a day and thousands upon thousands of people in a week over this.  Kind of like sacrificing people to the gods, huh?  Yeah.  Christians are way more civilized than pagans.  I think I’ll leave off on discussing the religion thing, as I’m not a fan.  Let’s talk about science!

            Europe fortunately had a scientific revolution, known as Europe’s Scientific Revolution.  People began observing and discussing the laws of nature like crazy, and this began to change the ideas about the Church, questioning its ultimate authority, and we began to contemplate a division between church and state.  Universities sprung up that were able to exclude religious teaching from the curriculum; intellectuals were able to think and discuss ideas freely without fear from religious persecution.  In Islamic countries, the opposite happened, and the scientific thinkers studied outside formal educational institutions, which were structured around Quranic studies.  They had a saying, “May God protect us from useless knowledge;” I’m sure a Christian fundamentalist will pick this one up eventually, as it’s a handy quote, particularly for the intelligent designers.

            When Newton figured out gravity, things began to change rapidly and with an equal and opposite reaction.  Scientific thinkers turned away from angels and spirits to perception as only what we can ascertain through scientific means, and the Church freaked out.  Their power and authority was under attack by reason, and these two factions continue to be at odds today, and this division will probably never end.  People won’t stop thinking, nor will they stop trying to find a spiritual solution to their problems.  When a world contains such inhumanity and imbalance of power and wealth, it MUST have religion to keep people content while they are oppressed.

            I’m signing off now because this writing has been exhausting.  My opinionated mind is worn out from expressing itself.

Ch. 11, 12 and 13

Chapter 11 was about the spread of Islam to include the top half of Africa, the Middle East and Asia.  It never took hold in India because of the strong connection to polytheistic Hinduism that the people maintained.

We also read about the establishment of the Ottoman Empire as a result of the spread of Islam.  What continues to surprise me when I read this material is how much of the world is divided, and how many people have been killed because of religion.  I can more easily understand power and greed, but it seems to me that spirituality should be at the core of all religions, and I believe the founders would prefer that people not fight wars to spread their message.  I guess it IS a big power trip, though, because it becomes less about worshipping God(s), and more about telling people how to think and how to behave.

At least the Mongols let people have their own religions, and didn’t interfere much.  Nor did they adopt anyone else’s religion, but were content to maintain their belief in the connection to nature and the “great God.”

Chapter 12 focused on the nomadic people, and how they affected the world at large.  This group of people occupied land that was not suitable for agriculture, but was appropriate for grazing animals, and therefore their main “crop” was domesticated animals.  They used the meat, skins, milk and blood for making products for their own use, and to trade.  They also bread horses, which were in high demand for use in agriculture and war.  The pastoral people set up large encampments where they could graze their herds, and then moved on when the environment could no longer support the grazing. 

The nomadic people often traded with communities surrounding them.  They also offered them “protection money” to protect them from encroaching communities, other nomadic people, and themselves.  A group of Mongols, eventually led by Chinggis Khan finally just took over Asia and the neighboring territory, from west of Mongolia, gradually overtaking most of Eurasia, stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Black Sea, and the area south of Siberia and north of India and Vietnam.

While the pastoral communities were distinct among themselves, they shared many characteristics.  Women, for instance, were involved in caring for the smaller animals (sheep and goats), and they were also adept at riding horses.  Their opinions were valued in political discussions, even though it was only men who held any political positions of authority.  Widows were allowed to remarry, and married women were allowed to initiate divorce.

The biggest difference in nomadic societies was their ability to be mobile.  They set up large communities that were able to be deconstructed as the need arose, and the entire group was able to move on depending on the environmental conditions.  They carefully planned their movement based on the availability of land that would support the grazing of their animals.  They did have a social hierarchy, based on who had the biggest “flock” of animals.

Since they were adept at riding horses, they could make quick get-aways.  The fact that they did not own property allowed them to plunder agricultural communities and then pack up and move on if necessary.  Therefore, the established cities were afraid of them, and paid them the protection money in order to be safe from invasion.

Climate change necessitated the acquisition of additional land, and since aggression was their mode of moving forward, they used this means to handle the problem.  A great military leader, Chinggis Khan arose who was able to organize the Mongol people, and they proceeded to make their way across China, eventually taking territory from Southeast Asia to central Europe.  They became the “largest land-based empire in all of human history.

After almost a hundred years, the empire collapsed, but not before the Mongol people brought many innovations to the areas they had conquered.  They were very fond of the arts, and rewarded merchants and others that had not been favored by the Chinese.  After the collapse of the Mongolian empire, the Chinese got themselves back together and became unified once more.

Chapter 13 was all about the developments that took place in the 15^th century.  The time was characterized by many different cultures, with agricultural types with tribes living in Australia, the Americas and Southern Africa.  China and Europe developed naval abilities, and were able to trade more freely and potentially acquire more cities to add to their empires.  China, however, abandoned the seafaring idea, which is quite odd, as they had the capability of creating monstrous ocean-bound vessels.  Sea travel was a boon to Europe, as it made travel much faster than traversing by land.

In the Americas, the Aztec and Inca Empires were flourishing, the Inca society being much larger than the Aztecs.  Both were military empires, but each ruled in a very different way.  The Aztecs left their conquests alone without a means to integrate them into the larger culture.  The Incas had a bureaucratic system, and the people were grouped into hierarchical units that were headed by officials that were approved and supervised by a governor or the emperor.

This Paper is Causing me to Lose Sleep

            Is it possible that I still don’t have a topic for my paper?  At least I know that I want to write about China and the Mongolian occupation (can I call it an “occupation”?).  I’ve read a lot about Chinggis Khan (I even watched the movie “Mongol” although that gave me NO factual information, but perhaps a sense of time and place (which was my plan all along)) and what an extraordinary feat it was to unify the Mongols.  I have also read a lot about his grandson, Khubilai Khan who, among other things, built a summer capital known as “Xanadu” where “Kubla Khan a stately pleasure-dome decree[d]”, which keeps coming to mind, even though I know Coleridge was not thinking of Mongolia or China much while in his opium trance...  However, I digress.

            I think I want to write about how the Mongols got a bum rap in history because of all of the marauding and pillaging they did, and conquering so much of Asia.  I would like to point out some of the causes of their initiating this destruction, and that China was politically vulnerable because they lacked unification at the time.  And, uh, what did the baby Americans do to the native people, and we don’t exactly have the evil reputation that the Mongols do.

            Speaking of America, what also keeps coming up for me (and perhaps why I can’t sleep) is how the U.S. is very vulnerable because if one looks at us with a long lens, the political divide in this country continues to horrify me (if we look for example at China).  Yes, we have always been divided between the north and south, but this nationwide religious fervor that simply won’t die is terrifying.  (Are we becoming a theocracy?)  Between the economic disaster and the political split that has been so nasty over the past 20 years, I think we’re ripe for an economic “Chinggis Kahning,” if you know what I mean.  And then, it’s just a matter of time before the whole thing falls apart.  People may have been predicting the demise of America since its inception, but the deterioration I’ve seen in my own lifetime gives me a real sense of foreboding.  I’m relieved I have no children, and will therefore have no grandchildren to fear for.

            I suppose that’s a good reason to become a religious fanatic—you can ruin a whole country and then just sit tight until you die and go to heaven, or until you are raptured up and get to ruin paradise.  Which leads us back to Xanadu, doesn’t it?  All roads lead to China.  Hmmmmm….. Maybe I should just write about the Silk Roads.