Welcome to POSC240-012!
This is where you will be posting 10 blogs throughout the semester; 4 blogs in September, 3 in October, & 3 in November. Your entries should tackle current events, reactions to lectures and readings, & comments & questions about the class.
Make sure you write substantial and thought-provoking entries & write your full name at the end of each post!
Start blogging!
Nick & Sara
Monday, August 27, 2007
Comments on readings & lectures
You can use this space to ask questions or make comments about class lectures and assigned readings.
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
When reading the preface of the "Origins of the Modern World" book, I found myself rather disturbed by the determination of the author to present a "non-Eurocentric" viewpoint of the modern world. The author's argument that focusing on Europe implies that "Europeans are the only active makers of history" is complete nonsense. For better or for worse, it is European thought and activity that has shaped the modern world to the greatest degree, and while the contributions of other geographic areas (i.e. China) are important, it is quite apparent that they weren't significant enough to alter the development of European dominance. Now yes, I realize that, had Zheng He been allowed to continue his explorations in the early 1400s, China would have had the opportunity to dominate the world in the same manner as Europeans. But it is, at best, a delusion to say that European developments were primarily the result of regions like China, India, and Africa. If anything, the eventual rise of Europeans can be seen at the collapse of the Imperial Roman system; with numerous tiny, dynamic states in fierce competition with each other, as opposed to the ponderous empires of Ming China or Mughal India, Europeans were given impetus to develop and improve. There is no "racial spirit" or such that determined the eventual rise of Europeans; I believe that the primary factor has more to do with the aforementioned Balkanization of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, rather than on long-reaching "influences" from China and India.
I suppose the implication that got me "up in arms" about the author's "non-Eurocentric" viewpoint is the recent trend denigrating white European achievements and culture. More is said about the evils of slavery, the brutality of colonization, and of the belief in "racial superiority" by the European man.
To begin, let me state that these arguments have some merit. However, one must put things in perspective. While colonization was a uniquely European phenomenon, slavery and belief in the superiority of one's own race most certainly wasn't. Indeed, slavery was widespread throughout Africa and the Middle East as well as the New World, and almost every group of people in history have had xenephobic leanings (consider the Chinese, for example, and their view of the "round-eyed barbarians").
But this is not meant to be an excuse for the behavior of Europeans, by any means. However, together with these darker deeds, there is the brilliance of European ideals and theory. Liberalism, democracy, the rights of the individual; these are European ideas, and belong to no one else. So while Europeans may have ruthlessly conquered and exploited, they also developed the very values that we hold dear today.
This post is a response to the first post in this section.
First, I would recommend reading more than the introduction before making such criticisms. After all, the author provides quite a few examples for his point of view. He notes that European exploration of the New World would have done far less than it did had there not been a strong demand for silver in China.
I do not know that the author ever said that "European developments were primarily the result of regions like China, India, and Africa." His point is that a Eurocentric view of history distorts what actually happened. The Eurocentric view, like an Asian-centered view, is much less objective than a view that takes the whole world into account. The author is simply trying to make the point that the regions of the world are connected, that Europe and America did not get where they are today solely based on their democratic values. Activities in China and Africa have ramifications that extend to Europe (like the Black Death, for example). Perhaps if Europeans bathed regularly at the time, then the native populations of the Americas would not have been wiped out by disease. Perhaps if horses had been native to the Americas, the native populations would have been more difficult to conquer.
I am not certain that I understand why you think European culture achieved its dominance due to the fall of Rome. Yes, this resulted in a fractured Europe with warring states, but this is hardly unique to Europe. Chinese history is just full of fragmentation and warring states. But as the author points out on page 12, sometimes developments occur accidentally.
You say "There is no "racial spirit" or such that determined the eventual rise of Europeans." Do you think that America, which is culturally European, would have turned out the same if the founders had banned slavery? Do you think the slave states would have joined the Union at that point? The "racial spirit" is very much incorporated into America's founding, as the Constitution was in part a compromise between slave states and free states (slaves counting as three-fifths of a person).
In summary, the author's point is that Eurocentrism is too subjective a viewpoint to be very useful in obtaining accurate history. Robert Marks is not knocking European culture. He is demonstrating how the history of Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. are linked. I am certain he would be just as opposed to a viewpoint centered around Asia or Africa.
I came across an example of security dilemma in The Origins of the Modern World while reading this weekend in a section about trade in the Indian Ocean. It was stressed how important the Indian Ocean was to global trading giving access to both wealth and luxuries such as spices and manufactured goods. From 650 to 1500 trade was self-regulated in this area with no single dominating power nor need for force of arms. However, and relating to Friday’s discussion, from 1500 to 1750 the Portuguese, followed by the Dutch, English, and French brought about armed trading to the Indian Ocean. This made other neighboring traders insecure forcing them to arm themselves in defense. See Chapter 2 page 50.
I am not sure if this is where I should be posting this comment, but I guess it will do. Well let me first introduce myself as this is my first entry, my name is Kimberly Renner and I am a junior transfer student to Delaware. I spent 3 semesters as a political science major at Arcadia University then last spring I spent the semester in DC as an intern and took classes through American University.
Anyway, I wanted to discuss what was talked about in class today. The question was brought up if the United States was a nation. I think that without a doubt, the United States is a nation. Although we are called the "melting pot" where many different cultures, languages, etc. are brought together, we do share many things. As far as a more solid reason we are a nation is because although we have many languages, an overwhelming amount of the people do speak English of some sort. Also I agree with the idea that our shared culture is that we are a plethora of cultures. We are very different from any other country, as we were built on this fact. Also in the ideological sense the United States shares the culture which values democracy, hard work, self sufficiency, an idea of what is right and wrong, and many other ideas. Overall I believe the United States has many of the characteristics to be a nation.
I thought that "The Origins of the Modern World" did an exceptional job in chapter 6 at explaining how the communist and capitalist economies differed. The main point the author wanted to make was that it was productionism(communism) versus consumerism(capitalism). The Soviet model stressed industry to produce as much as was possible at the given time. Industry was used to create more industry. I think the idea there is that factories would be producing material to create other factories. If this is the case then it seems as though this is an everlasting growth process. The workers were theoretically supposed to be more connected and passionate about their work due to the fact that they had their hands on the finished product. The entire economy was based on large quotas. I think that this method of quotas was easy to manipulate by the workers. This is the opposite of a consumer economy where there was production, however there was a large demand for consumption of products. I suppose it was because of new inventions in the U.S. that increased consumerism so much. I thought that the idea to keep demand up for automobiles was brilliant. It must have escaped me before but it makes perfect sense. People buy new cars because there are new models, thus making their "old" cars obsolete. The consumer demand would spread out of the country to other nations who now wanted the products in the U.S.. It is obvious that consumerism was the more attractive choice among nations, with the exception of some.
The class following the exam hopefully was enlightening for some people regarding Iran. I have known for some time about the weekly "Death to America" chants that take place there. I know that many people believe that diplomacy can solve anything, but it makes it very difficult when the entire country has been brainwashed with death to America. Iran clearly hates us, and has also declared that they have intentions on destroying Israel. Would you rather live with a nuclear Iran or with a war against Iran? -Geoff Andersen
9 comments:
When reading the preface of the "Origins of the Modern World" book, I found myself rather disturbed by the determination of the author to present a "non-Eurocentric" viewpoint of the modern world. The author's argument that focusing on Europe implies that "Europeans are the only active makers of history" is complete nonsense. For better or for worse, it is European thought and activity that has shaped the modern world to the greatest degree, and while the contributions of other geographic areas (i.e. China) are important, it is quite apparent that they weren't significant enough to alter the development of European dominance. Now yes, I realize that, had Zheng He been allowed to continue his explorations in the early 1400s, China would have had the opportunity to dominate the world in the same manner as Europeans. But it is, at best, a delusion to say that European developments were primarily the result of regions like China, India, and Africa. If anything, the eventual rise of Europeans can be seen at the collapse of the Imperial Roman system; with numerous tiny, dynamic states in fierce competition with each other, as opposed to the ponderous empires of Ming China or Mughal India, Europeans were given impetus to develop and improve. There is no "racial spirit" or such that determined the eventual rise of Europeans; I believe that the primary factor has more to do with the aforementioned Balkanization of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, rather than on long-reaching "influences" from China and India.
- Luke Kaczmarek
I suppose the implication that got me "up in arms" about the author's "non-Eurocentric" viewpoint is the recent trend denigrating white European achievements and culture. More is said about the evils of slavery, the brutality of colonization, and of the belief in "racial superiority" by the European man.
To begin, let me state that these arguments have some merit. However, one must put things in perspective. While colonization was a uniquely European phenomenon, slavery and belief in the superiority of one's own race most certainly wasn't. Indeed, slavery was widespread throughout Africa and the Middle East as well as the New World, and almost every group of people in history have had xenephobic leanings (consider the Chinese, for example, and their view of the "round-eyed barbarians").
But this is not meant to be an excuse for the behavior of Europeans, by any means. However, together with these darker deeds, there is the brilliance of European ideals and theory. Liberalism, democracy, the rights of the individual; these are European ideas, and belong to no one else. So while Europeans may have ruthlessly conquered and exploited, they also developed the very values that we hold dear today.
-Luke Kaczmarek
This post is a response to the first post in this section.
First, I would recommend reading more than the introduction before making such criticisms. After all, the author provides quite a few examples for his point of view. He notes that European exploration of the New World would have done far less than it did had there not been a strong demand for silver in China.
I do not know that the author ever said that "European developments were primarily the result of regions like China, India, and Africa." His point is that a Eurocentric view of history distorts what actually happened. The Eurocentric view, like an Asian-centered view, is much less objective than a view that takes the whole world into account. The author is simply trying to make the point that the regions of the world are connected, that Europe and America did not get where they are today solely based on their democratic values. Activities in China and Africa have ramifications that extend to Europe (like the Black Death, for example). Perhaps if Europeans bathed regularly at the time, then the native populations of the Americas would not have been wiped out by disease. Perhaps if horses had been native to the Americas, the native populations would have been more difficult to conquer.
I am not certain that I understand why you think European culture achieved its dominance due to the fall of Rome. Yes, this resulted in a fractured Europe with warring states, but this is hardly unique to Europe. Chinese history is just full of fragmentation and warring states. But as the author points out on page 12, sometimes developments occur accidentally.
You say "There is no "racial spirit" or such that determined the eventual rise of Europeans."
Do you think that America, which is culturally European, would have turned out the same if the founders had banned slavery? Do you think the slave states would have joined the Union at that point? The "racial spirit" is very much incorporated into America's founding, as the Constitution was in part a compromise between slave states and free states (slaves counting as three-fifths of a person).
In summary, the author's point is that Eurocentrism is too subjective a viewpoint to be very useful in obtaining accurate history. Robert Marks is not knocking European culture. He is demonstrating how the history of Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. are linked. I am certain he would be just as opposed to a viewpoint centered around Asia or Africa.
Andrew Lewis
I came across an example of security dilemma in The Origins of the Modern World while reading this weekend in a section about trade in the Indian Ocean. It was stressed how important the Indian Ocean was to global trading giving access to both wealth and luxuries such as spices and manufactured goods. From 650 to 1500 trade was self-regulated in this area with no single dominating power nor need for force of arms. However, and relating to Friday’s discussion, from 1500 to 1750 the Portuguese, followed by the Dutch, English, and French brought about armed trading to the Indian Ocean. This made other neighboring traders insecure forcing them to arm themselves in defense. See Chapter 2 page 50.
Francesca Carregal
Good job Francesca, that is indeed an example of a security dilemma.
sorry, forgot to sign my post:
nick galasso
I am not sure if this is where I should be posting this comment, but I guess it will do. Well let me first introduce myself as this is my first entry, my name is Kimberly Renner and I am a junior transfer student to Delaware. I spent 3 semesters as a political science major at Arcadia University then last spring I spent the semester in DC as an intern and took classes through American University.
Anyway, I wanted to discuss what was talked about in class today. The question was brought up if the United States was a nation. I think that without a doubt, the United States is a nation. Although we are called the "melting pot" where many different cultures, languages, etc. are brought together, we do share many things. As far as a more solid reason we are a nation is because although we have many languages, an overwhelming amount of the people do speak English of some sort. Also I agree with the idea that our shared culture is that we are a plethora of cultures. We are very different from any other country, as we were built on this fact. Also in the ideological sense the United States shares the culture which values democracy, hard work, self sufficiency, an idea of what is right and wrong, and many other ideas. Overall I believe the United States has many of the characteristics to be a nation.
-Kimberly Renner
I thought that "The Origins of the Modern World" did an exceptional job in chapter 6 at explaining how the communist and capitalist economies differed. The main point the author wanted to make was that it was productionism(communism) versus consumerism(capitalism). The Soviet model stressed industry to produce as much as was possible at the given time. Industry was used to create more industry. I think the idea there is that factories would be producing material to create other factories. If this is the case then it seems as though this is an everlasting growth process. The workers were theoretically supposed to be more connected and passionate about their work due to the fact that they had their hands on the finished product. The entire economy was based on large quotas. I think that this method of quotas was easy to manipulate by the workers. This is the opposite of a consumer economy where there was production, however there was a large demand for consumption of products. I suppose it was because of new inventions in the U.S. that increased consumerism so much. I thought that the idea to keep demand up for automobiles was brilliant. It must have escaped me before but it makes perfect sense. People buy new cars because there are new models, thus making their "old" cars obsolete. The consumer demand would spread out of the country to other nations who now wanted the products in the U.S.. It is obvious that consumerism was the more attractive choice among nations, with the exception of some.
Jordan Naftzinger
The class following the exam hopefully was enlightening for some people regarding Iran. I have known for some time about the weekly "Death to America" chants that take place there. I know that many people believe that diplomacy can solve anything, but it makes it very difficult when the entire country has been brainwashed with death to America. Iran clearly hates us, and has also declared that they have intentions on destroying Israel. Would you rather live with a nuclear Iran or with a war against Iran?
-Geoff Andersen
Post a Comment