We’ve seen throughout the book that empires rose and fell, and that is the case for the new empires of the 20th and 21st centuries; corporations, that is.
It was very interesting to find in the book the map of the world with a visual representation of the McDonald’s restaurants on p.732, and that made me think about all the other products that I had seen coming, going, and staying in Buenos Aires (Argentina), as well as their transformation.
In Buenos Aires, aside from McDonald’s we also had Burger King and Wendy’s. Burger King managed to survive, but Wendy’s was short-lived, and it closed its doors a few years after it opened. Similar fate awaited Dunkin Donuts and Pizza Hut; they vanished in just a couple of years. Who, if I may ask, did the market research for these last two companies, and convinced them that it was a good idea to open businesses in a city with more Italian pizzerias and French/Italian-style bakeries than the market can handle? Who knows… In any case, aside from McDonald’s and Burger King, people did not like the rest. That was until Starbucks.
Starbucks sells a product, but also a style. It’s the invasion of the paper cup and plastic lid, but it’s also the crude reflection of social change: people are abandoning taking the time to sit down and have coffee with friends or relatives. The “Starbucks culture” praises individuality and a certain alienation from the rest. Before Starbucks, coffee shops did not serve coffee in paper coffee cups… that was heretical! Coffee was always served in porcelain cups, even when it was delivered from a nearby coffee shop to your office. Granted, some people are still going to coffee shops and enjoying coffee with friends (luckily there aren’t enough Starbucks in Bs. As. yet, though they are rapidly multiplying), but Starbucks is definitely marking a shift in “porteños’”societal habits. The Starbucks culture says “I am hip, trendy, I don’t have time for you, and I don’t need you” and it is appealing to certain sectors of society. That is the kind of cultural invasion that I don’t particularly like.
In that regard McDonalds was less harmful, although we can’t say the same about its food! Joking aside, it was interesting to see that the “porteño” culture actually transformed McDonalds. We don’t like drip coffee, especially if it has been sitting there for hours. We simply don’t pay for drip coffee (we call it “umbrella juice”), and we do not like the pastries that were offered with it, so that was an area that did not make McDonald’s any profit. The Styrofoam cup that burns like hell didn’t catch anybody’s attention, either. So McDonald’s opened an espresso McCafe, and added local pastries, and that’s when it started being profitable. That was an example of the local culture assimilating the “cultural penetration” as Strayer calls it, but also modifying it to its taste.
Now, behind the cultural invasion, there is also the willingness of the invaded to accept and assimilate, and that is the problem when it comes to products and services and the image they bring with them: the fact that they are appealing. People try to emulate or live the fabricated life that is sold, through the consumption of such products and services. Unlike the colonialist invasions, cultural invasions are less rejected, less fought against; they are even embraced willingly in some cases.
I hope there are still “traditional” coffee shops in Bs.As. by the time I go back... and that I still have friends who are willing to sit with me and enjoy a "real" cup of coffee!
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Chapters 21-22, follow up on last post
Continuing along the lines of the previous post, here is my modest contribution of events that were happening in Argentina during the same period covered in chapters 21-22. Strayer touched a bit on the beginning of the times I’ll describe here, when he mentioned in Chapter 18 the 2.5 million European immigrants that arrived in Bs.As. between 1870 and 1915 (Strayer, p.552).
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, Buenos Aires received a huge wave of European immigrants. With exports on the rise and the political power in the hands of the elite, the Argentinean middle and lower classes began to push for more political representation and social recognition. The immigrants had brought with them communism, anarchism, and socialism, and their ideas started finding fertile grounds among the middle and lower classes; mostly an ideological movement with few actual attacks on the elite or its property. At the other extreme of this movement was the Argentine Patriotic League, an alliance of upper class youths characterized by their anti-Semitism, anti-communism, and xenophobia. The League made immigrant and, in particular anarchists, the target of violent attacks.[1]
This was, in a few words, the socio-political context of the early 1900s in Buenos Aires. It is important to note that, aside from two particular incidents that decidedly scarred the history of the country, communism, socialism and anarchism in Argentina were never as extreme in their behavior as they were in other parts of the world. While the basic ideals were professed, these groups were mostly interested in a moderate version of what they preached.
What followed in Argentina were the populist governments of Hipolito Yrigoyen (who paid no attention to the already weakened anarchist movement, and had no intentions of supporting them, or of entering any conflict) [1], then the Peronist era, and during this long period governments made every effort to stay away from any form of extreme leftist movement or ideology.
Yrigoyen’s first presidency largely avoided the violent police repressions of anarchists, communists and socialists of his predecessor (President Alvear), therefore chilling confrontations. Later on, and in a political move, Yrigoyen still avoided anarchists, but began dealing with trade unions [1]. Peron’s government fostered the syndicalist’s relationship with his government, and syndicalism rapidly replaced the “fresh-from-Europe” anarchism, communism and socialism of the early 1900s.
The beginnings of the populist movements in the early 1900s are significant in Argentinean history for what happened decades later. Although revolutionary ideas of communist, socialist and anarchist nature never reached massive support, they stained the Argentinean political scene for decades to come. They were part of the chaos that unleashed after Peron’s death, and part of the reason for the military coups that followed. With the missile crisis still fresh in its mind, the U.S. backed and supported these military “anti-Communist” governments [1], which ended the lives of tenths of thousands of “disappeared” people, and ruined forever the lives of tenths of thousands of others. The bloodiest chapter of state violence in Argentinean history had begun.
Note: The two incidents (their full descriptions would merit several more posts) were the violent police repression of workers during a protest on May 1st, 1909, commanded by the chief of police Ramon L. Falcon; and the vengeance (at the hands of the anarchists) for the workers killed during that protest. In short, Falcon repressed the anarchists violently, then Simon Radowitzky, an 18 year-old Russian immigrant, dropped a bomb in Falcon’s coach, killing him and his assistant. A full description of these particular events can be found in Osvaldo Bayer’s essay titled “Simon Radowitzky.”
[1] Nouzeilles, G. & Montaldo, G. (Eds) The Argentina Reader: History, Culture, Politics. Duke University Press, 2002
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, Buenos Aires received a huge wave of European immigrants. With exports on the rise and the political power in the hands of the elite, the Argentinean middle and lower classes began to push for more political representation and social recognition. The immigrants had brought with them communism, anarchism, and socialism, and their ideas started finding fertile grounds among the middle and lower classes; mostly an ideological movement with few actual attacks on the elite or its property. At the other extreme of this movement was the Argentine Patriotic League, an alliance of upper class youths characterized by their anti-Semitism, anti-communism, and xenophobia. The League made immigrant and, in particular anarchists, the target of violent attacks.[1]
This was, in a few words, the socio-political context of the early 1900s in Buenos Aires. It is important to note that, aside from two particular incidents that decidedly scarred the history of the country, communism, socialism and anarchism in Argentina were never as extreme in their behavior as they were in other parts of the world. While the basic ideals were professed, these groups were mostly interested in a moderate version of what they preached.
What followed in Argentina were the populist governments of Hipolito Yrigoyen (who paid no attention to the already weakened anarchist movement, and had no intentions of supporting them, or of entering any conflict) [1], then the Peronist era, and during this long period governments made every effort to stay away from any form of extreme leftist movement or ideology.
Yrigoyen’s first presidency largely avoided the violent police repressions of anarchists, communists and socialists of his predecessor (President Alvear), therefore chilling confrontations. Later on, and in a political move, Yrigoyen still avoided anarchists, but began dealing with trade unions [1]. Peron’s government fostered the syndicalist’s relationship with his government, and syndicalism rapidly replaced the “fresh-from-Europe” anarchism, communism and socialism of the early 1900s.
The beginnings of the populist movements in the early 1900s are significant in Argentinean history for what happened decades later. Although revolutionary ideas of communist, socialist and anarchist nature never reached massive support, they stained the Argentinean political scene for decades to come. They were part of the chaos that unleashed after Peron’s death, and part of the reason for the military coups that followed. With the missile crisis still fresh in its mind, the U.S. backed and supported these military “anti-Communist” governments [1], which ended the lives of tenths of thousands of “disappeared” people, and ruined forever the lives of tenths of thousands of others. The bloodiest chapter of state violence in Argentinean history had begun.
Note: The two incidents (their full descriptions would merit several more posts) were the violent police repression of workers during a protest on May 1st, 1909, commanded by the chief of police Ramon L. Falcon; and the vengeance (at the hands of the anarchists) for the workers killed during that protest. In short, Falcon repressed the anarchists violently, then Simon Radowitzky, an 18 year-old Russian immigrant, dropped a bomb in Falcon’s coach, killing him and his assistant. A full description of these particular events can be found in Osvaldo Bayer’s essay titled “Simon Radowitzky.”
[1] Nouzeilles, G. & Montaldo, G. (Eds) The Argentina Reader: History, Culture, Politics. Duke University Press, 2002
Thursday, June 23, 2011
The Trench, and food for thought
Now that, finally, Latin, and in particular South America enters the scene, I’ll talk about “political life [being] turbulent and unstable” in Latin America, as Strayer puts it in Chapter 18. Some of the events that happened in the 1800s in Argentina will probably make us think about, and reflect, on certain endeavors we embark on today.
During the 1800s Argentina was basically a group of powerful centers, called provinces. As a side note, just like we have primarily a Eurocentric view of the world, Argentineans have a Buenos Aires-centric view of the country, so most of the historical accounts have a “porteño” (from the port) perspective. Back then, it is true that Buenos Aires, being the main port of entry, was important and it received most of the European influence; however, there were other powerful provinces that played a major role in Argentinean history, like Tucuman (“the garden of the Republic”), Cordoba, Entre Rios, Corrientes, and Santa Fe, to name a few.
Side note done, the 1800s were turbulent in many ways. At the beginning of the century the country was organizing its political environment, fighting Brazilian invasions, and in plain chaos, with almost all provinces fighting for power on either the Unitarist or Federalist sides. By 1816, Argentina declares independence from Spain and all other foreign powers. In addition to the chaos, the Argentineans were also, from about mid 1800s on, conducting the infamous “Campaigns to the Desert,” fighting, and mostly exterminating, the different Native populations that existed in the country. See, by then that was the “patriotic” thing to do. Argentineans were so “European” just 300 years after the founding of the city of Buenos Aires (1536), that they had a view of the natives pretty much like the one the first Conquistadors had: they are uncivilized, and barbaric. So the Argentineans fought them.
At this point is where a bright idea occurred to government official Adolfo Alsina: to dig a trench over 8 feet deep, 10 feet wide, and 600 miles long, from the Atlantic to the Andes [1], to secure the frontier of “civilization” and keep away the natives. Sounds laughable? That was the 1800s in Argentina, fast forward to today, and see if you recognize this:
It’s the U.S.-Mexico border. The wall. The fence. I think this is why we need to learn about World history, and not just the major events, but also the ones that seem small and silly. Alsina’s trench was not much different than today’s U.S.-Mexico fenced border. Did it work back then? Nope. Will this “contemporary trench” work? I doubt it. 150 years later, we keep not focusing on the real issue.
[1] Nouzeilles, G. & Montaldo, G. (Eds) The Argentina Reader: History, Culture, Politics. Duke University Press, 2002
During the 1800s Argentina was basically a group of powerful centers, called provinces. As a side note, just like we have primarily a Eurocentric view of the world, Argentineans have a Buenos Aires-centric view of the country, so most of the historical accounts have a “porteño” (from the port) perspective. Back then, it is true that Buenos Aires, being the main port of entry, was important and it received most of the European influence; however, there were other powerful provinces that played a major role in Argentinean history, like Tucuman (“the garden of the Republic”), Cordoba, Entre Rios, Corrientes, and Santa Fe, to name a few.
Side note done, the 1800s were turbulent in many ways. At the beginning of the century the country was organizing its political environment, fighting Brazilian invasions, and in plain chaos, with almost all provinces fighting for power on either the Unitarist or Federalist sides. By 1816, Argentina declares independence from Spain and all other foreign powers. In addition to the chaos, the Argentineans were also, from about mid 1800s on, conducting the infamous “Campaigns to the Desert,” fighting, and mostly exterminating, the different Native populations that existed in the country. See, by then that was the “patriotic” thing to do. Argentineans were so “European” just 300 years after the founding of the city of Buenos Aires (1536), that they had a view of the natives pretty much like the one the first Conquistadors had: they are uncivilized, and barbaric. So the Argentineans fought them.
At this point is where a bright idea occurred to government official Adolfo Alsina: to dig a trench over 8 feet deep, 10 feet wide, and 600 miles long, from the Atlantic to the Andes [1], to secure the frontier of “civilization” and keep away the natives. Sounds laughable? That was the 1800s in Argentina, fast forward to today, and see if you recognize this:
It’s the U.S.-Mexico border. The wall. The fence. I think this is why we need to learn about World history, and not just the major events, but also the ones that seem small and silly. Alsina’s trench was not much different than today’s U.S.-Mexico fenced border. Did it work back then? Nope. Will this “contemporary trench” work? I doubt it. 150 years later, we keep not focusing on the real issue.
[1] Nouzeilles, G. & Montaldo, G. (Eds) The Argentina Reader: History, Culture, Politics. Duke University Press, 2002
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Chapter 14 and current diversity issues
A note before I begin: technically, the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” (short for “Latino American”) group all Spanish- AND Portuguese-speaking America, sometimes even including Spain and Portugal. However, the way these terms are used today varies greatly, particularly for U.S. government agencies. And when I say America, I refer to the continent, not the United States.
Here in the U.S., every time there is a census or when we are close to big elections, the word “Hispanic” resurfaces... but what does it mean to be “Hispanic,” and why most “Hispanics don’t want to self-identify as such? I think that part of the answer lies in the multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic make-up of Latin America, and Chapter 14 does a nice job at illustrating how the mixed races came to be, as well as highlighting the social impact of these differences.
The different unions in different parts of the conquered territories (Portuguese or Spaniards with natives and with African slaves) led to the multiracial landscape we see today in Brazil and in Spanish-speaking countries. As Strayer briefly touches on, it also led, from very early on, to a hierarchical social system that had long-term effects that last until today.
From personal experiences, in Argentina for example, the lighter skinned still enjoys more opportunities. Buenos Aires received a new wave of European immigrants (19th and 20th century), and its subsequent racial/ethnic mix created an even stronger disparity between people from the capital and people from the rest of the country. People from the capital city became not only whiter, but also more “European” in customs, and people from the rest of the country is seen as “darker” and less sophisticated in comparison. When people from the rest of the country move to the capital city in search for better opportunities, they face discrimination in many different forms. The “superiority” of the “European-like” still prevails. When the opposite happens, people from the capital city move to other provinces in search for an idyllic way of life away from the craziness of the capital, people from the provinces make the “capitalinos” feel like fish out of water, and they in turn get discriminated. However, if the “capitalinos” are lighter-skinned it is very likely they will still find jobs.
Now, if even within the same country (and I am sure Argentina is not the only country that suffers from the issues I just described) we have many different identities as a result of local variables, one can just imagine what happens if one throws in the bag another 20 or so other countries and territories, and then ask people to self-identify as “Hispanic” or “Latino.” Again, What do those labels mean??? In the minds of people, in the visual images one gets when faced with those words, it’s certainly more than what is described in a dictionary or in a census definition; and some people have a really hard time with that. Are Hispanics white? Are they brown? Is being Hispanic a race? If so, what are the characteristics of that race? Spanish-speaking people from 21 countries and territories cannot be grouped into one “Hispanic race” simply because we don’t have much more in common other than the language and a handful of customs. To illustrate this point, the fact that there were no major civilizations like the Aztecs or the Incas** settled in Argentina already makes our societal make-up very different from that of Peru or Mexico. Argentina received very little African slave influx, and they mostly perished during our civil wars or the yellow fever epidemic, therefore their impact and legacy is very weak compared to that in Cuba, for example. Do we in these four countries (Cuba, Argentina, Mexico, Peru) have much in common? No. Just because we speak the same language or happened to be conquered by Iberians does not mean we belong in the same group, nor do we necessarily have a shared identity. Labeling destroys identities, it gets to the core of who one is, even if it is for a good reason. I understand that in the U.S. there are actually benefits associated with identifying oneself as Hispanic, but at the same time it is an uncomfortable feeling for many. I don’t have mighty Aztec blood or Kongo-Angolan rhythms flowing through my veins, but I am still ME. I think that this chapter explains why millions of “Hispanics” refuse racial categorization, for example for the census... And I haven't talked about how Brazilians feel about it!
**(although the Incas conquered a fraction of the Argentinian northwest under the Tupa(c) Inca expansion)
Here in the U.S., every time there is a census or when we are close to big elections, the word “Hispanic” resurfaces... but what does it mean to be “Hispanic,” and why most “Hispanics don’t want to self-identify as such? I think that part of the answer lies in the multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic make-up of Latin America, and Chapter 14 does a nice job at illustrating how the mixed races came to be, as well as highlighting the social impact of these differences.
The different unions in different parts of the conquered territories (Portuguese or Spaniards with natives and with African slaves) led to the multiracial landscape we see today in Brazil and in Spanish-speaking countries. As Strayer briefly touches on, it also led, from very early on, to a hierarchical social system that had long-term effects that last until today.
From personal experiences, in Argentina for example, the lighter skinned still enjoys more opportunities. Buenos Aires received a new wave of European immigrants (19th and 20th century), and its subsequent racial/ethnic mix created an even stronger disparity between people from the capital and people from the rest of the country. People from the capital city became not only whiter, but also more “European” in customs, and people from the rest of the country is seen as “darker” and less sophisticated in comparison. When people from the rest of the country move to the capital city in search for better opportunities, they face discrimination in many different forms. The “superiority” of the “European-like” still prevails. When the opposite happens, people from the capital city move to other provinces in search for an idyllic way of life away from the craziness of the capital, people from the provinces make the “capitalinos” feel like fish out of water, and they in turn get discriminated. However, if the “capitalinos” are lighter-skinned it is very likely they will still find jobs.
Now, if even within the same country (and I am sure Argentina is not the only country that suffers from the issues I just described) we have many different identities as a result of local variables, one can just imagine what happens if one throws in the bag another 20 or so other countries and territories, and then ask people to self-identify as “Hispanic” or “Latino.” Again, What do those labels mean??? In the minds of people, in the visual images one gets when faced with those words, it’s certainly more than what is described in a dictionary or in a census definition; and some people have a really hard time with that. Are Hispanics white? Are they brown? Is being Hispanic a race? If so, what are the characteristics of that race? Spanish-speaking people from 21 countries and territories cannot be grouped into one “Hispanic race” simply because we don’t have much more in common other than the language and a handful of customs. To illustrate this point, the fact that there were no major civilizations like the Aztecs or the Incas** settled in Argentina already makes our societal make-up very different from that of Peru or Mexico. Argentina received very little African slave influx, and they mostly perished during our civil wars or the yellow fever epidemic, therefore their impact and legacy is very weak compared to that in Cuba, for example. Do we in these four countries (Cuba, Argentina, Mexico, Peru) have much in common? No. Just because we speak the same language or happened to be conquered by Iberians does not mean we belong in the same group, nor do we necessarily have a shared identity. Labeling destroys identities, it gets to the core of who one is, even if it is for a good reason. I understand that in the U.S. there are actually benefits associated with identifying oneself as Hispanic, but at the same time it is an uncomfortable feeling for many. I don’t have mighty Aztec blood or Kongo-Angolan rhythms flowing through my veins, but I am still ME. I think that this chapter explains why millions of “Hispanics” refuse racial categorization, for example for the census... And I haven't talked about how Brazilians feel about it!
**(although the Incas conquered a fraction of the Argentinian northwest under the Tupa(c) Inca expansion)
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Masai warrior presentation, experience related to WW ch. 12 (pp.340-341)
Last year I had an opportunity to attend a presentation of over an hour, given by a Masai warrior named Sabore Ole Oyie. He was in the Bay Area helping educate people about the Masai, and raising funds to build a school for Masai children, as well as to bring water to their community. Note that Sabore is one of the few members of the Masai tribe who is educated and who speaks fluent English.
In his presentation, Sabore explained how they become warriors, what it means, and what purpose it serves. The Masai are cattle peoples, as I had heard during Sabore’s presentation and as the book described, therefore they become warriors to fight the animals that endanger their cattle. Sabore talked about killing lions (a practice that has been banned), about the rituals before and after the killing (they ask for forgiveness), and how becoming a warrior is a learning process, a journey that culminates with the killing of the lion and the keeping of the lion’s mane. The learning process involves spending time alone in the wild, learning to imitate animal sounds, to find water, and subsisting on roots and wild berries. At the end of the presentation, Sabore performed the “hyena chant” for the audience.
Sabore explained that the Masai used to live in a state of semi-sedentarism, now restricted by the growth of urbanization and the confinement of Masai people to reservations. In the past, they would settle for certain periods of time, while the grass was suitable for the raising of cattle and then moving with the seasons; their huts were (and still are) made of sticks and cattle manure. In the present times, they have no choice but to live in the reservations.
Sabore wore his traditional Masai clothes and weapons. His garment consisted of a big animal skin and plaid clothes in red and blue, black, or white. Red seems to be the color that characterizes the Masai. He brought with him his sticks and sword, which he carries everywhere he goes.
During the presentation, Sabore also talked about the Masai “diet of milk, meat and blood derived from their cattle,” (Strayer, 2009) going into a detailed explanation of how the “village” got together for the butchering of animals for food. He explained that the butchered animal has to be consumed right away, and it’s consumed in its entirety (insides too). He also explained that the Masai go several days with just drinking milk: it is hard work to raise the cattle, so they do not eat meat every day.
Now, the presentation that I attended was geared to elementary school children, so the military aspects of the Masai people, their organization and conflicts that Strayer brings up in the book were tactfully spared. Still, it was a very charming presentation, and it was very interesting how Sabore patiently answered all the kids’ questions and connected with them. His calm nature and his huge smile had the kids’ attention the whole entire time. Towering at above 6 ft tall and in full traditional garments, he was at first intimidating, until he actually started sharing his culture and customs with a deep, sweet voice. My experience contrasts sharply with the "raiding and warfare" depicted in Strayer, but, again, I got the "Approved for all audiences" version of the Masai culture.
For a brief intro to Sabore, here is a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjArHyP238A
As a last bit of interesting info, when prompted by a kids' question Sabore said that he does not know how old he is, but he is considered an elder because of his knowledge, the fact that he studied, and the leadership he assumed for the advancement of his community.
In his presentation, Sabore explained how they become warriors, what it means, and what purpose it serves. The Masai are cattle peoples, as I had heard during Sabore’s presentation and as the book described, therefore they become warriors to fight the animals that endanger their cattle. Sabore talked about killing lions (a practice that has been banned), about the rituals before and after the killing (they ask for forgiveness), and how becoming a warrior is a learning process, a journey that culminates with the killing of the lion and the keeping of the lion’s mane. The learning process involves spending time alone in the wild, learning to imitate animal sounds, to find water, and subsisting on roots and wild berries. At the end of the presentation, Sabore performed the “hyena chant” for the audience.
Sabore explained that the Masai used to live in a state of semi-sedentarism, now restricted by the growth of urbanization and the confinement of Masai people to reservations. In the past, they would settle for certain periods of time, while the grass was suitable for the raising of cattle and then moving with the seasons; their huts were (and still are) made of sticks and cattle manure. In the present times, they have no choice but to live in the reservations.
Sabore wore his traditional Masai clothes and weapons. His garment consisted of a big animal skin and plaid clothes in red and blue, black, or white. Red seems to be the color that characterizes the Masai. He brought with him his sticks and sword, which he carries everywhere he goes.
During the presentation, Sabore also talked about the Masai “diet of milk, meat and blood derived from their cattle,” (Strayer, 2009) going into a detailed explanation of how the “village” got together for the butchering of animals for food. He explained that the butchered animal has to be consumed right away, and it’s consumed in its entirety (insides too). He also explained that the Masai go several days with just drinking milk: it is hard work to raise the cattle, so they do not eat meat every day.
Now, the presentation that I attended was geared to elementary school children, so the military aspects of the Masai people, their organization and conflicts that Strayer brings up in the book were tactfully spared. Still, it was a very charming presentation, and it was very interesting how Sabore patiently answered all the kids’ questions and connected with them. His calm nature and his huge smile had the kids’ attention the whole entire time. Towering at above 6 ft tall and in full traditional garments, he was at first intimidating, until he actually started sharing his culture and customs with a deep, sweet voice. My experience contrasts sharply with the "raiding and warfare" depicted in Strayer, but, again, I got the "Approved for all audiences" version of the Masai culture.
For a brief intro to Sabore, here is a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjArHyP238A
As a last bit of interesting info, when prompted by a kids' question Sabore said that he does not know how old he is, but he is considered an elder because of his knowledge, the fact that he studied, and the leadership he assumed for the advancement of his community.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Part 3: Reflections on Chapter 10
There were several points in Chapter 10 that I found interesting, so I will mention some of them here and then I will elaborate on just one of those aspects.
It is interesting to me how much of those early characteristics of Eastern Orthodoxy we have preserved well to this day in our society, considering the widespread of other religions and a continuously evolving globalization. In particular, it sounded very familiar when in the book it talks about “intolerance toward other religions” and “fear of Islam” (Strayer, 2009).
Also, particularly enlightening in this chapter was the account of the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Latin Christianity, something I always had difficulty understanding where they came from. As to Orthodox churches, I had the amazing opportunity to visit Russia a couple of years ago and I visited different churches, in the Kremlin and in other places. I can attest to the “extensive use of icons” and the fact that one “does not know if we are on Heaven or Earth.” The churches I visited were absolutely covered with images, even the ceilings. I imagine that the gold in the images must have given them an eerie look (in the sense of not form this Earth) under candlelight.
Now, to the point I decided to elaborate a bit. Not that it was a surprise to me, but it is still kind of disturbing how many aspects of religion were fabricated, such as selecting the birth of Jesus on December 25 to match the winter solstice (at least for the northern hemisphere, anyway-for the southern hemisphere is the opposite season). Not just Christianity did it, other religions did the same, the disturbing part is that some people believe in these fabricated dates… some people actually believe it was absolutely true that Jesus was born on December 25.
In that section of the book it also talks about how churches were built near or on existing sacred places, as well as how festivals and other dates that honored different deities became holy days; which reminded me of the Christendom of the Americas, in particular this aspect of “blending” Christianity and existing religious practices and symbols. Note to Strayer: a better term to designate a “hybrid” religion is syncretism, there was no need to dumb it down. The period of conversion to Catholicism, particularly in what became Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking America, lasted centuries, it began with converting the natives, and it continued with the slaves. Let’s look at Caribbean countries for example, which received a heavier influx of African slaves than southern Spanish-speaking countries. African slaves brought with them the rituals they practiced in their own African regions, which were ethnically different from each other. For example, the Yoruba, the Fon, and the Ewe came from Dahomey (Benin, Togo, and parts of Ghana and Nigeria), while the Kongo came from the Kongo-Angola region. Each of these peoples worshipped different deities, and had assigned a complex set of rituals for each deity, which even included different drumming patterns (music is strictly tied to the rituals, most of the African religions that made it to the Americas are danced religions). Santeria is a clear example of syncretism; it mixes Catholicism with Yoruba spirituality. The Yoruba Orishas (ancestral spirits) ended up associated with Catholic saints, and Santeria rituals display a mix of icons and African music. Shango (also spelled Chango or Xango), the god of thunder in the Yoruba tradition of Nigeria, ended up associated (and celebrated together with) Saint Barbara, who, what a coincidence (!) was the saint of the storms, and who also, oh! coincidence again! wears red and white, the traditional colors associated with Shango. They are both celebrated/honored on December 4. I guess my point is that several centuries later, the spreading Christian faith continued to use the same methods as it did in 1100, as described in the book: associating elements of the existing religion with those of Christianity, and if there were none, they got invented.
In the picture above, altar for Shango and Saint Barbara (and, yes, soetimes Shango is portrayed with three eyes)...
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/shango.html
http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/people/yoruba.html
It is interesting to me how much of those early characteristics of Eastern Orthodoxy we have preserved well to this day in our society, considering the widespread of other religions and a continuously evolving globalization. In particular, it sounded very familiar when in the book it talks about “intolerance toward other religions” and “fear of Islam” (Strayer, 2009).
Also, particularly enlightening in this chapter was the account of the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Latin Christianity, something I always had difficulty understanding where they came from. As to Orthodox churches, I had the amazing opportunity to visit Russia a couple of years ago and I visited different churches, in the Kremlin and in other places. I can attest to the “extensive use of icons” and the fact that one “does not know if we are on Heaven or Earth.” The churches I visited were absolutely covered with images, even the ceilings. I imagine that the gold in the images must have given them an eerie look (in the sense of not form this Earth) under candlelight.
Now, to the point I decided to elaborate a bit. Not that it was a surprise to me, but it is still kind of disturbing how many aspects of religion were fabricated, such as selecting the birth of Jesus on December 25 to match the winter solstice (at least for the northern hemisphere, anyway-for the southern hemisphere is the opposite season). Not just Christianity did it, other religions did the same, the disturbing part is that some people believe in these fabricated dates… some people actually believe it was absolutely true that Jesus was born on December 25.
In that section of the book it also talks about how churches were built near or on existing sacred places, as well as how festivals and other dates that honored different deities became holy days; which reminded me of the Christendom of the Americas, in particular this aspect of “blending” Christianity and existing religious practices and symbols. Note to Strayer: a better term to designate a “hybrid” religion is syncretism, there was no need to dumb it down. The period of conversion to Catholicism, particularly in what became Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking America, lasted centuries, it began with converting the natives, and it continued with the slaves. Let’s look at Caribbean countries for example, which received a heavier influx of African slaves than southern Spanish-speaking countries. African slaves brought with them the rituals they practiced in their own African regions, which were ethnically different from each other. For example, the Yoruba, the Fon, and the Ewe came from Dahomey (Benin, Togo, and parts of Ghana and Nigeria), while the Kongo came from the Kongo-Angola region. Each of these peoples worshipped different deities, and had assigned a complex set of rituals for each deity, which even included different drumming patterns (music is strictly tied to the rituals, most of the African religions that made it to the Americas are danced religions). Santeria is a clear example of syncretism; it mixes Catholicism with Yoruba spirituality. The Yoruba Orishas (ancestral spirits) ended up associated with Catholic saints, and Santeria rituals display a mix of icons and African music. Shango (also spelled Chango or Xango), the god of thunder in the Yoruba tradition of Nigeria, ended up associated (and celebrated together with) Saint Barbara, who, what a coincidence (!) was the saint of the storms, and who also, oh! coincidence again! wears red and white, the traditional colors associated with Shango. They are both celebrated/honored on December 4. I guess my point is that several centuries later, the spreading Christian faith continued to use the same methods as it did in 1100, as described in the book: associating elements of the existing religion with those of Christianity, and if there were none, they got invented.
In the picture above, altar for Shango and Saint Barbara (and, yes, soetimes Shango is portrayed with three eyes)...
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/shango.html
http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/people/yoruba.html
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Chapter 4-Eurasian empires of the Classical Era: Persian, Greek, Roman, Chinese, and Indian empires
PERSIAN AND GREEK EMPIRES
The Persian Empire
Time span: ~557 B.C.E. ~ 333 B.C.E.
Location: Iranian plateau, north of the Persian Gulf
Organization and Government:
• Absolute Monarch
Their economy included a standard coinage, at the same time as there were vast improvements so that local economies could grow and benefit from intense commerce (1700 miles of royal roads, a canal linking the red sea and the Nile, and an extremely efficient postal service).
Other important aspects:
• It was the largest and most impressive empire
• The two most famous emperors were Cyrus 557-530 B.C.E. and Darius 522-486 B.C.E.
• Conquests reached from Egypt to India, 35 million diverse people
• The monarch: cult of kinship, only approached through an elaborate ritual-but they were highly respected
• Respect for the many non-Persian cultural traditions, which helped them be even more respected
• Persian imperial bureaucracy permeated and served as a model for many regimes in the region, such as the ones in the Islamic world.
The Greek Empire
Time span: ~800 B.C.E. ~ 336 B.C.E.
Location: Mediterranean basin, along the coasts of the Mediterranean and Black seas
Organization:
• Greece was originally organized in small city-states, which fiercely competed with each other.
Political situation Government:
• Popular participation in political matters was what contrasted the most with imperial Persia, in particular, free people, equality of citizenship before the law, and representation.
• Political participation varied in the city-states, some of them were governed by tyrants (dictators) for a period of time, some were governed by the wealthy and in the case of Sparta, they were governed by 28 elders over the age of 60, who were also wealthy and influential, and served for life.
• Athenian democracy was not like modern democracy. Women, slaves, and foreigners could not participate in politics, and it was not representative.
Pattern of migration:
The Greeks expanded, but instead of forming empires, they settled in distant lands, mostly emigrating in search for iron and land to work. They established settlements all around the Mediterranean and the Black sea.
Commonalities:
What all these small city-states had in common is that they spoke the same language and shared the same religion. Every four years they would get together to celebrate the Olympic Games, and would not fight during that period.
Other important aspects:
• The Greeks called themselves Hellenes
• They had a population of 2-3 million
• Geography played a major role in Greece being organized into the original city-states, they were located in a small peninsula, with deep valleys and steep mountains
• Athens was the cradle of democracy
• During the reformist movement (moving towards democracy) many things were accomplished: debt slavery was abolished, access to public office was opened to a wider group of men, and all citizens were allowed to take part in the Assembly (not just the elite).
COLLISION
a) The Greco-Persian Wars
In their expansion, Persians to the West and Greeks to the East, they fought on both, land and sea. The Greeks settled in Ionia sought the help of the mainland (particularly Athens) in battling the Persian army, and they succeeded to defeat them, which instilled in the Greeks a great sense of pride.
This is the time when expressions of Greek culture flourished, particularly in Athens, promoting the expansion of Athenian democracy. Ironically, since Athens led the naval efforts against the Persian Empire and its leadership was undisputable, Athens began to assume a dominant position over the other city-states, therefore turning into an empire of its own. Sparta, another city-state of great military power, fought against Athens for the independence of Greek city-states in the Peloponnesian wars (Hellenes against Hellenes). Athens was defeated, which subsequently facilitated the invasion by Macedonians from the North, given that all Greek armies were exhausted and divided.
b) Alexander and the Hellenistic Era:
• Phillip II led the Macedonian conquest of Greece, and unified the city-states under the same political umbrella.
• Just five years after the Macedonians took over Greece, Alexander the Great began the legendary ten year expedition against the Persian empire, succeeding in defeating it, and extending the Greek empire over Egypt, Anatolia, Afghanistan and India.
• Upon Alexander’s death, the empire was divided into three kingdoms ruled by Macedonian generals.
• The Hellenistic rulers that followed took advantage of the existing Persian avenues of long-distance commerce and communication, which facilitated the Greek expansion in the form of settlers who served as public officials, traders, or soldiers, and also the expansion of the Greek culture through the building of monuments and sculptures, markets and theaters.
• The Greek language was simplified, which helped with the expansion, as more people could communicate with each other.
Differences between Greek mainland/original city-states, and the conquered cities:
• The conquered cities experienced greater diversity
• Absence of independence
• Some imperial states, like the Ptolemaic in Egypt and Seleucid in Persia, maintained their older ways. Since the Greeks were a minority, they did not intervene, and separated themselves as an elite
• Aside from some separation, the Greeks encouraged intermarriage, which fostered cultural interaction and blending.
• In India, the Greeks were assimilated into a new caste, the warriors
• In Bactria, the Greeks converted to Buddhism
ROMAN AND CHINESE EMPIRES
Similarities:
• Flourished at roughly the same time (200 B.C.E.-200 C.E.)
• They occupied almost the same area, about 1.5 million square miles
• They encompassed a population of roughly the same size 50-60 million
• Both were brutal in their use of military force• Both defined themselves in universal terms
• Both invested in public roads, bridges, aqueducts, canals, protective walls, etc.
• Both sought to integrate and unify• Both invoked supernatural sanctions to justify their rulings: The Romans through making their deceased emperors as gods, and the Chinese by investing their emperor with the title “The Son of Heaven,” governing by the “Mandate of Heaven.”
• Both adopted a foreign religion: the Romans adopted Christianity, and the Chinese adopted Buddhism
They were barely aware of each other, and had almost no contact with each other.
Differences:
• The Romans built an empire by conquering different lands and peoples, the Chinese fought to restore a previously existing empire that was at the time divided into seven kingdoms.
• The Romans were a minority in the empire, whereas the Chinese were already Chinese and shared much of the culture.
• The process of acquiring religion was different: Christianity was born as a sect that spread slowly until it obtained state support in the fourth century C.E. In China, Buddhism was introduced by Central Asian traders coming from India, and it flourished after the Han dynasty collapsed.
Rome:
The Roman Empire rose when the roman aristocrats threw off the monarchs and established a republic in which the executive authority consisted of two consuls, advised by an assembly called the Senate. They had a written code of law, which granted citizens protection and rights. The Romans built their empire over a span of 500 years, and it spanned over the entire Mediterranean basin.
As it happened with Athens and democracy, Rome could not sustain a republican government when it became an empire, and differences and inequalities brought civil war to it. Although the empire tried to save face by maintaining the senate and public assemblies, the sole authority rested on the emperor, and was backed by his army.
The Roman administration was in the hands of regional elites and the army. With regards to law, the Romans developed a body of law that applied to all people in the empire, and the law dealt with matters of justice, property, commerce, and family life.
In terms of language, Latin gave rise to a variety of languages, like Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, etc., and it was the vehicle that helped them maintain separate identities.
China:
The “first emperor” Shihuangdi, after winning the war against the other kingdoms in his quest to reunify China, imposed a uniform system of weights, measures, and currency, as well as standardizing the written form of Chinese language. His dynasty did not last long, and it was the dynasty that followed, the Han, that consolidated imperial China and established the political patterns that lasted into the twentieth century.
The Han dynasty’s biggest accomplishment was an elaborate system of bureaucracy, where officials were trained in an imperial academy, which provided standardized training. This system helped maintain the empire together, and it was civil service (versus the elite or military administration of the Romans).
Chinese language, even if it was spoken in different dialects, could be understood by literate people in its written form. In this case, Chinese language served to reunify Chinese people and their cultural identity.
Collapse of empires:
Common factors that led to the partial fall of the Roman Empire, and the fall of the Chinese Empire under the Han dynasty:
• They got too big
• They got too overextended
• They got too expensive to sustain with the available resources
• There was a lack of technological breakthrough that could supply the resources needed
• The growth of the landowning families led to impoverished farmers, and diminished the authority of the central government
• There was rivalry among elite factions, which created instability and eroded imperial authority
• Epidemic diseases
• Growing threat from nomadic or semi-agricultural peoples occupying the frontiers
Differences:
Chinese Empire:
• After over 300 years of political chaos, war, and disunion, China became an empire again under the Sui dynasty; followed by the Tang and the Song dynasties well into 1279 C.E.
Roman Empire:
• Although half of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, lasted almost another thousand years, no large-scale, centralized imperial authority ever ruled again over all of Western Europe, they dissolved into kingdoms.
INDIA
• The largest of First Civilizations flourished in the Indus River valley
• By 600 B.C.E., the classic civilization of South Asia had begun to take shape:
*They were a fragmented collection of towns, cities, small republics, and kingdoms.
*They were very diverse in terms of ethnicity, cultural background, and language
*They were organized socially in a caste system
*Their religious tradition was Hinduism
• Northern India had been conquered by the Persians and later on by Alexander the Great, therefore they had Persian and Greek influences
• From 326 B.C.E.to 184 B.C.E., India (except for the southern tip of the sub-continent) was ruled by the Mauryan empire
*They had a powerful army
*They had a system of bureaucracy
*They operated many industries
Ashoka:
• Is the best known of the Mauryan rulers, because he left a record of his activities and his thinking
• After a particular bloody battle:
*he converted to Buddhism
* he turned to more peaceful practices
* he had a philosophy of nonviolence and of toleration for the other religions practiced in India
* he eliminated animal sacrifices
* he abandoned royal-hunts
* eliminated most meat from the royal menu
* he ordered the digging of wells, the planting of trees, and the building of rest stops along the empire’s major highways
After Ashoka’s death, the Mauryan Empire broke apart into competing regional states. Other factors that contributed to India’s never reaching an empire again were:
• India’s cultural diversity-difficult to unite
• Frequent invasions from Central Asia
• Caste system linked to occupational groups-local loyalties versus a wider identity
Although there were other attempts at empires in India, they were short-lived. Even if they lacked imperial ruling, India still evolved into a complex civilization. They had an extensive network of trade, particularly cotton and textiles; the political aspect was dominated by the wealthy and the merchants; Indian advances in mathematics and astronomy were impressive; and their creativity generated the Hindu and Buddhist traditions that later extended to other parts of Asia.
Quiz questions:
1. What facilitated the invasion of Greece by the Macedonians?
2. What was the role of language, culture, and ethnic composition in all these empires? What purpose did it serve?
3. What were the similarities between India and Western Europe that prevented them from reaching imperial status after their empires failed?
The Persian Empire
Time span: ~557 B.C.E. ~ 333 B.C.E.
Location: Iranian plateau, north of the Persian Gulf
Organization and Government:
• Absolute Monarch
• System of Governors (satraps)
• 23 provinces• Officials of lower ranks were from local authorities
• System of spies in remote areas• Bureaucracy
Economy:Their economy included a standard coinage, at the same time as there were vast improvements so that local economies could grow and benefit from intense commerce (1700 miles of royal roads, a canal linking the red sea and the Nile, and an extremely efficient postal service).
Other important aspects:
• It was the largest and most impressive empire
• The two most famous emperors were Cyrus 557-530 B.C.E. and Darius 522-486 B.C.E.
• Conquests reached from Egypt to India, 35 million diverse people
• The monarch: cult of kinship, only approached through an elaborate ritual-but they were highly respected
• Respect for the many non-Persian cultural traditions, which helped them be even more respected
• Persian imperial bureaucracy permeated and served as a model for many regimes in the region, such as the ones in the Islamic world.
The Greek Empire
Time span: ~800 B.C.E. ~ 336 B.C.E.
Location: Mediterranean basin, along the coasts of the Mediterranean and Black seas
Organization:
• Greece was originally organized in small city-states, which fiercely competed with each other.
Political situation Government:
• Popular participation in political matters was what contrasted the most with imperial Persia, in particular, free people, equality of citizenship before the law, and representation.
• Political participation varied in the city-states, some of them were governed by tyrants (dictators) for a period of time, some were governed by the wealthy and in the case of Sparta, they were governed by 28 elders over the age of 60, who were also wealthy and influential, and served for life.
• Athenian democracy was not like modern democracy. Women, slaves, and foreigners could not participate in politics, and it was not representative.
Pattern of migration:
The Greeks expanded, but instead of forming empires, they settled in distant lands, mostly emigrating in search for iron and land to work. They established settlements all around the Mediterranean and the Black sea.
Commonalities:
What all these small city-states had in common is that they spoke the same language and shared the same religion. Every four years they would get together to celebrate the Olympic Games, and would not fight during that period.
Other important aspects:
• The Greeks called themselves Hellenes
• They had a population of 2-3 million
• Geography played a major role in Greece being organized into the original city-states, they were located in a small peninsula, with deep valleys and steep mountains
• Athens was the cradle of democracy
• During the reformist movement (moving towards democracy) many things were accomplished: debt slavery was abolished, access to public office was opened to a wider group of men, and all citizens were allowed to take part in the Assembly (not just the elite).
COLLISION
a) The Greco-Persian Wars
In their expansion, Persians to the West and Greeks to the East, they fought on both, land and sea. The Greeks settled in Ionia sought the help of the mainland (particularly Athens) in battling the Persian army, and they succeeded to defeat them, which instilled in the Greeks a great sense of pride.
This is the time when expressions of Greek culture flourished, particularly in Athens, promoting the expansion of Athenian democracy. Ironically, since Athens led the naval efforts against the Persian Empire and its leadership was undisputable, Athens began to assume a dominant position over the other city-states, therefore turning into an empire of its own. Sparta, another city-state of great military power, fought against Athens for the independence of Greek city-states in the Peloponnesian wars (Hellenes against Hellenes). Athens was defeated, which subsequently facilitated the invasion by Macedonians from the North, given that all Greek armies were exhausted and divided.
b) Alexander and the Hellenistic Era:
• Phillip II led the Macedonian conquest of Greece, and unified the city-states under the same political umbrella.
• Just five years after the Macedonians took over Greece, Alexander the Great began the legendary ten year expedition against the Persian empire, succeeding in defeating it, and extending the Greek empire over Egypt, Anatolia, Afghanistan and India.
• Upon Alexander’s death, the empire was divided into three kingdoms ruled by Macedonian generals.
• The Hellenistic rulers that followed took advantage of the existing Persian avenues of long-distance commerce and communication, which facilitated the Greek expansion in the form of settlers who served as public officials, traders, or soldiers, and also the expansion of the Greek culture through the building of monuments and sculptures, markets and theaters.
• The Greek language was simplified, which helped with the expansion, as more people could communicate with each other.
Differences between Greek mainland/original city-states, and the conquered cities:
• The conquered cities experienced greater diversity
• Absence of independence
• Some imperial states, like the Ptolemaic in Egypt and Seleucid in Persia, maintained their older ways. Since the Greeks were a minority, they did not intervene, and separated themselves as an elite
• Aside from some separation, the Greeks encouraged intermarriage, which fostered cultural interaction and blending.
• In India, the Greeks were assimilated into a new caste, the warriors
• In Bactria, the Greeks converted to Buddhism
ROMAN AND CHINESE EMPIRES
Similarities:
• Flourished at roughly the same time (200 B.C.E.-200 C.E.)
• They occupied almost the same area, about 1.5 million square miles
• They encompassed a population of roughly the same size 50-60 million
• Both were brutal in their use of military force• Both defined themselves in universal terms
• Both invested in public roads, bridges, aqueducts, canals, protective walls, etc.
• Both sought to integrate and unify• Both invoked supernatural sanctions to justify their rulings: The Romans through making their deceased emperors as gods, and the Chinese by investing their emperor with the title “The Son of Heaven,” governing by the “Mandate of Heaven.”
• Both adopted a foreign religion: the Romans adopted Christianity, and the Chinese adopted Buddhism
They were barely aware of each other, and had almost no contact with each other.
Differences:
• The Romans built an empire by conquering different lands and peoples, the Chinese fought to restore a previously existing empire that was at the time divided into seven kingdoms.
• The Romans were a minority in the empire, whereas the Chinese were already Chinese and shared much of the culture.
• The process of acquiring religion was different: Christianity was born as a sect that spread slowly until it obtained state support in the fourth century C.E. In China, Buddhism was introduced by Central Asian traders coming from India, and it flourished after the Han dynasty collapsed.
Rome:
The Roman Empire rose when the roman aristocrats threw off the monarchs and established a republic in which the executive authority consisted of two consuls, advised by an assembly called the Senate. They had a written code of law, which granted citizens protection and rights. The Romans built their empire over a span of 500 years, and it spanned over the entire Mediterranean basin.
As it happened with Athens and democracy, Rome could not sustain a republican government when it became an empire, and differences and inequalities brought civil war to it. Although the empire tried to save face by maintaining the senate and public assemblies, the sole authority rested on the emperor, and was backed by his army.
The Roman administration was in the hands of regional elites and the army. With regards to law, the Romans developed a body of law that applied to all people in the empire, and the law dealt with matters of justice, property, commerce, and family life.
In terms of language, Latin gave rise to a variety of languages, like Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, etc., and it was the vehicle that helped them maintain separate identities.
China:
The “first emperor” Shihuangdi, after winning the war against the other kingdoms in his quest to reunify China, imposed a uniform system of weights, measures, and currency, as well as standardizing the written form of Chinese language. His dynasty did not last long, and it was the dynasty that followed, the Han, that consolidated imperial China and established the political patterns that lasted into the twentieth century.
The Han dynasty’s biggest accomplishment was an elaborate system of bureaucracy, where officials were trained in an imperial academy, which provided standardized training. This system helped maintain the empire together, and it was civil service (versus the elite or military administration of the Romans).
Chinese language, even if it was spoken in different dialects, could be understood by literate people in its written form. In this case, Chinese language served to reunify Chinese people and their cultural identity.
Collapse of empires:
Common factors that led to the partial fall of the Roman Empire, and the fall of the Chinese Empire under the Han dynasty:
• They got too big
• They got too overextended
• They got too expensive to sustain with the available resources
• There was a lack of technological breakthrough that could supply the resources needed
• The growth of the landowning families led to impoverished farmers, and diminished the authority of the central government
• There was rivalry among elite factions, which created instability and eroded imperial authority
• Epidemic diseases
• Growing threat from nomadic or semi-agricultural peoples occupying the frontiers
Differences:
Chinese Empire:
• After over 300 years of political chaos, war, and disunion, China became an empire again under the Sui dynasty; followed by the Tang and the Song dynasties well into 1279 C.E.
Roman Empire:
• Although half of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, lasted almost another thousand years, no large-scale, centralized imperial authority ever ruled again over all of Western Europe, they dissolved into kingdoms.
INDIA
• The largest of First Civilizations flourished in the Indus River valley
• By 600 B.C.E., the classic civilization of South Asia had begun to take shape:
*They were a fragmented collection of towns, cities, small republics, and kingdoms.
*They were very diverse in terms of ethnicity, cultural background, and language
*They were organized socially in a caste system
*Their religious tradition was Hinduism
• Northern India had been conquered by the Persians and later on by Alexander the Great, therefore they had Persian and Greek influences
• From 326 B.C.E.to 184 B.C.E., India (except for the southern tip of the sub-continent) was ruled by the Mauryan empire
*They had a powerful army
*They had a system of bureaucracy
*They operated many industries
Ashoka:
• Is the best known of the Mauryan rulers, because he left a record of his activities and his thinking
• After a particular bloody battle:
*he converted to Buddhism
* he turned to more peaceful practices
* he had a philosophy of nonviolence and of toleration for the other religions practiced in India
* he eliminated animal sacrifices
* he abandoned royal-hunts
* eliminated most meat from the royal menu
* he ordered the digging of wells, the planting of trees, and the building of rest stops along the empire’s major highways
After Ashoka’s death, the Mauryan Empire broke apart into competing regional states. Other factors that contributed to India’s never reaching an empire again were:
• India’s cultural diversity-difficult to unite
• Frequent invasions from Central Asia
• Caste system linked to occupational groups-local loyalties versus a wider identity
Although there were other attempts at empires in India, they were short-lived. Even if they lacked imperial ruling, India still evolved into a complex civilization. They had an extensive network of trade, particularly cotton and textiles; the political aspect was dominated by the wealthy and the merchants; Indian advances in mathematics and astronomy were impressive; and their creativity generated the Hindu and Buddhist traditions that later extended to other parts of Asia.
Quiz questions:
1. What facilitated the invasion of Greece by the Macedonians?
2. What was the role of language, culture, and ethnic composition in all these empires? What purpose did it serve?
3. What were the similarities between India and Western Europe that prevented them from reaching imperial status after their empires failed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)