RE#6: WW19 - Internal Troubles, External Threats

"Now that's some racism right there!" A common declaration made by a friend of mine.

I have a friend who is extremely observant of people and their actions, and is quick to point out when moments of discrimination have been made, whether directed towards herself or others around her. Any type of discrimination always has the possibility of being rooted in a dislike for the other person's ethnicity, which I assume she would definitely agree with. She points out "racist" moments so often that we've come to use it for silly things as well - if at breakfast, the chef randomly gives her one of the smaller pieces of french toast while he gives me the larger one, she would say that it was due to racism, that his act was against her "just because she's (insert ethnicity here)". Of course, she wouldn't say that to his face and she didn't seriously mean it - it was simply a lighthearted joke in that situation. But reading the section on the European perspective of race at during the 19th century reminded me of how serious the issue of racism is.

To the Europeans, society was divided into two main kinds of people: "heathens" or non-believers, or Christians or believers. These were rooted in their strong value for religion; rightfully so since religion governed their lives, ran their societies, organized their priorities and laws of conduct. The Industrial age, however, drastically changed their views on the human population with their new-found knowledge and utilization of machinery, nature, and science. Through the dissection of human bodies, they discovered that the brains and skulls of white people were bigger than all others. Obviously, to them, this meant that they were the physically and intellectually superior race. While it may seem logical to think this way and it may be true that a certain level of intelligence/physical attributes are heredity for certain races, to act so strongly on such a belief is ridiculous. Especially their belief that "contact with 'inferior' peoples threatened the health and even the biological future of more advanced or 'superior' peoples" (pg. 563). The European evolution chart on page 564 also astonished me - monkey ->africans->aboriginals/natives->asians->whites. To say that that's offensive would be an understatement, but I'm glad that I live in a time period where such affirmations have drastically changed and people are, for the most part, no longer looked at as being part of a "evolutionary hierarchy" as decided by their race.

It's important to point out the fact that while Europeans have aggressively taken over neighboring countries and transformed their religions, boundaries, governments, and people, the victims were not entirely passive. They also willingly adopted some, if not all, aspects of European society and rule. Where would Japan be if not for their adoption of Western industrialization? We would be living in a world without PlayStation. Gasp. Of course, Japan's modernization is also credited to the centuries of peace ruled by shoguns, where the ancient samurais and fighters traded in their swords for the benefits of commerce.

On a final note, the intro spoke about Japan altering their textbooks in an attempt to remove the blemishes on the perfect face of their Japanese history. History should portray not only the oppressor, but also the oppressed. While the truth may be ugly, its much better for them (students, society) to hear it from you than for them to find out on their own. Learning life lessons through a history book. :)

RE#5: WW 17 - Atlantic Revolutions

I really like the intro to Part 5 - I totally didn't realize the Eurocentric nature of everything we do. Time is noted according to their offset from the time in Greenwich, London (-10 hours for Hawaii), and location according to their distance from Europe. For the longest time, when the Middle-East countries were spoken of, or when I learned that China and Japan were part of the Far-East, I wondered, "east of what?". Now I know - east of Europe. Hmm... I appreciate how the textbook has a chapter entitled "Countering Eurocentrism" to display their neutrality - it shows how much more well-rounded the information given to the public has become, and leaves it to the reader to make their own opinions rather than the earlier years when the argument, viewpoint, and opinion was given to you instead.

The European Enlightenment brought to life the belief that social and political order could be improved by human action. The power of the individual, of the people were made aware, strengthened, and ultimately idealized. It's interesting to see how the values and ideas that fueled the American Revolution originated from the very place they were trying to distance themselves from. And while the United States at that time were heavily influenced by their European oppressors, it was noted that the US had less social divisions, less black-and-white laws, and overall more open and free - a new and improved Europe.

"How far should liberty be extended?" - page 501
Democracy. Letting the people have a say/control the government. Sounds sensible since political decisions affect not only the ruler, but every citizen. But who exactly are "the people"? Government officials, schoolteachers, supermarket managers, the general public... prisoners, murderers, babies? If you were to put the future of the country in the hands of uneducated, reckless people, democracy doesn't sound like such a good thing. By this definition, I should be able to murder someone just because I feel like it, and not be punished. There can be no such thing as purely democratic government - it's impossible to please everyone and standards must be kept to maintain a safe, orderly society. Quite the irony.

Random note: Being an art major and taking a class the requires lots of reading like this one, I tend to rely on the pictures to get me through the pages of text. I'm a visual learner, so I like to spend some time on the diagrams, maps, and artwork that correspond with what I'm reading. So I'm going to comment on another picture, which is something I've in almost every post so far. On page 502 is a map of the United States, pre-50-state-ified, which is supposed to display the "original thirteen colonies". The map, however, is divided into 10 colored sections over the entire US, which confused me for a while since I thought they were referring to those colored sections as the original 13 colonies. Then I noticed the small text on the east coast which stated "THIRTEEN ORIGINAL COLONIES" near a bunch of black dots, but then I only counted 10 of them as well. It just would've helped a lot if the map clearly marked the 13 colonies , like this one on the right. It would've saved me 10 minutes of confusion... :)