Nelson Mandela. Martin Luther King, Jr. Mahatma Ghandi. Amazing people with incredible character, determination, and vision. The introduction to this chapter speaks about Nelson Mandela's struggles towards achieving equality in South Africa. What's awesome is that he not only fought against white domination, but also black domination. He didn't want one to solely rule the other, but for both to rule and live side by side. This reminds me of a quote about friendship: "Don't walk behind me, I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend." Strange time to bring up this up, but it popped in my head just now as I was writing this response.
Back to Mr. Mandela. 27 years in prison, hard labor at a stone quarry, floor for a bed, bucket for a toilet, write/receive only 1 letter every 6 months - only a brief glimpse of the hell he had to endure to ensure a positive future for his people. And his punishments are totally ridiculous - 1 visitor a year for 36 minutes?! Whaaat. How did they even arrive at those numbers. I'd like to know the logic behind torturing someone like this because of his plea for equality. It wasn't like he was gonna blow their heads off or physically threatening them. This deprivation of basic human rights is preposterous. I just can't believe how much Nelson Mandela and all the other greats sacrificed and suffered for what they believe in, so much that they were willing to give up their life. The power of the human spirit, especially his human spirit, is crazy amazing. And just like Hitler, all it takes is one person to start a revolution.
If the Europeans didn't dominate the world and forcefully impose their views upon the natives, there wouldn't be this need for freedom wars and intense human sufferings for the sake of liberation. But then again, they planted the seed of industrialization and advancement into the entire world, and where would we all really be without that?
Jumping ahead to the section on "Experiments in Political Order", one of the arguments as to why democracy was initially rejected in Africa: "Others suggested that Africa's traditional culture, based on communal rather than individualistic values and concerned to achieve consensus rather than majority rule, was not compatible with the competitiveness of party politics." - pg 707. That's an interesting point, that one's natural culture affects and facilitates what economic and political system works best for them.
The chart on page 712-713 consumed most of time; countries from every continent are stacked up against each other in the areas of population growth, income, adult literacy, and life expectancy. My judgement about success definitely varies depending on which measure I use. Population growth would leave Russia in last place at a -1% rate and Saudi Arabia the winner at a 2.8%. The US and Japan blows everyone else away with their income of $41,000-37,000, while Africa barely makes $400. Literacy rates are pretty surprising as well. Russia has a literacy of 99%, which would assume that their adult population are well educated and well trained for high paying jobs that can secure a positive future for the country, yet their income-per-capita is only $3000, compared to US/Japan who also have a 99% literacy but with a $40000 income-per-capita. It's the communism, huh. It's no surprise that Japan has the highest life expectancy of 78/85 years, a few years higher than US's 75/80. The Japanese mastered the art of tea-making, which is one of their secrets to a long, healthy life. Also, their religion and culture seems to foster a much healthier life than as well.
Showing posts with label Euro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Euro. Show all posts
24 March 2010
RE#8: WW21 - Collapse/Recovery of Europe
I've read over and over again how the Europeans successfully conquered this country and that country, but it wasn't until we did the map activity on Monday that I visually saw how dominant they were on a global scale: they literally took over the entire world, marking each continent with some European ideal or belief. That left me wondering - if I were the most dominant and powerful country in the world (particularly the British and the French) and I've just finished dominating all the other countries in the world, what do I do now? The sensible answer would be to just... leave everything be. I'd be content with my achievements and work on my own country's happiness and success. I guess that wasn't a viable option for the Europeans back in the day, since they obviously chose to further perturb neighboring nations with their territorial, political, and economic greed. And like the analogy used in class, a full house facilitates angry siblings, especially if all the siblings are power hungry monsters who aren't willing to share their toys.
A positive thing came out of World War I - female involvement. Since all the men were gone fighting the war, women were left with the responsibility to carry on their work. Women even had the opportunity to rebel and shake up tradition, with their new social opportunities, new fashion styles, and taking part in voting. It's hard to say that without the war and this shift in perspective and lifestyle, that women would not still be stuck in the household and reduced to childbearing/housecleaning machines.
I particularly enjoyed reading the section of World War II. Not because I enjoy or encourage the suffering and pain of the war, but because of how close this war hits to home. Literally. WW2 officially started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. And Pearl Harbor is literally my backyard, specifically the backyard of my high school. Every morning of my junior/senior year, I would park my car in the back parking lot and take the scenic walking route on my way to homeroom. I would take a few minutes to just stare into the harbor, with all the navy ships and the shouts and noise from the workers. While it may seem like just a bunch of old, rusting ships to the rest of my classmates, I always stare at that harbor in awe - knowing that 60 years ago, all hell broke loose on these very waters and grounds. Within a few minutes, bombs exploded, fires ensued, soldiers died for our freedom. Such epic history lay right before me. It's such a shame that the kids my age don't appreciate things like that.
By the way, the identity of Russia always confused me. Are they part of Europe or part of Asia? They way I see it, they seem much more closer to the Europeans in terms of physical features, cultural practices, and phonetics of their language. This is similar to the question I raised in an earlier blog about whether the Philippines is part of Asia or considered a Pacific Island. The dictionary describes Russia as "part of Northern Asia and eastern Europe", but I think they should officially list it as a European nation. Plus it would save the dictionary printers a few words, and therefore save ink, and therefore save money. And super therefore, the govt can use that extra money to fix the residence halls on this campus. Hey, positive thinking :) But really, I don't understand what the big deal is, or perhaps there was/is some major tension between Russia with both Asia and Europe that they don't want to fully associate themselves with either one.
13 March 2010
RE#7: WW20 - Colonial Encounters
As I continue reading these chapters, I realize more and more what horrible things Europeans have done in the past. Not to be an anti or racist, it's just the way the history book explains it in reference to their colonialization/industrial/trade acts - when you read page after page of how Europeans brought diseases killing 90% of native populations, introduced alcohol and killer machinery whose smoke contributes greatly to the depleting ozone layer problem we have today, and their (somewhat selfish?) desire for political, territorial, religious conquest resulted in massacres, wars, drastic demographic changes ... it's hard NOT to say that the Europeans back then have, well, behaved horribly. Lol.
It is explained that the motives of the Europeans consists of many things, such as the need for resources, trading routes, and even a genuine belief that natives are in dire need of God, and some form of structure and law. But really, who are they to say "No, your ways are wrong and yes, our ways are right, so convert"? With the use of force and through introducing all those diseases, they've killed off most of the native peoples like in Australia and New Zealand (p. 592). Colonization and advancement is, of course, a beneficial thing and the Europeans may have argued that what they are doing will immensely benefit the natives - it's for the greater good. But how are the new Europeans ways supposed to help the greater good if the greater good is dead and gone? Furthermore, they've caused a severe disruption of cultural practices that have peacefully and successfully fostered and governed individual lands for centuries.
It makes me wonder though: would these lands be better off without European influence and colonization? It's hard to argue against such things though, since our adaptation to those ways and the luxuries we are used to as a product of them are so ingrained in our everyday lives that it is impossible to think of a life without it. Colonization, in our eyes now, was and is necessary to sustain the comfortable life we live now.
The conversion of certain African/Asian states to European colonization differed in each case, but a successful one was in the case of Ethiopia and Siam who could avoid complete European takeover through their strong diplomatic and negotiating skills. Also in the Mughal Empire territories where the people had nothing and there was an "absence of any overall sense of cultural or political unity" (p. 592), it seems right and even necessary for outside European powers to colonize it. It's the stable, rightfully governed, peaceful states that should be left alone, or at least consist of peaceful negotiations that don't include killing off most of its native population.
The global world would be pretty boring if each country had the same European culture, government, and people.
"Every soul was either shot or bayoneted... We burned all the huts and razed the banana plantations to the ground."- 1902, British soldier in East Africa.This quote from page 594 prompted those thoughts up above. Especially with the Industrial Revolution added to the mix and the creation of guns, firepower, and weapons of mass destruction, the use of force and threats with these kinds of military tools against the innocent natives generate such dreadful images in my head. The picture I drew up while reading the 1902 quote was even more devastating. The natives live so humbly, their huts and their plantations are literally all they have. What kind of human being could have the heart (or lack of) to do those kinds of things to entire villages, communities, countries?
It is explained that the motives of the Europeans consists of many things, such as the need for resources, trading routes, and even a genuine belief that natives are in dire need of God, and some form of structure and law. But really, who are they to say "No, your ways are wrong and yes, our ways are right, so convert"? With the use of force and through introducing all those diseases, they've killed off most of the native peoples like in Australia and New Zealand (p. 592). Colonization and advancement is, of course, a beneficial thing and the Europeans may have argued that what they are doing will immensely benefit the natives - it's for the greater good. But how are the new Europeans ways supposed to help the greater good if the greater good is dead and gone? Furthermore, they've caused a severe disruption of cultural practices that have peacefully and successfully fostered and governed individual lands for centuries.
It makes me wonder though: would these lands be better off without European influence and colonization? It's hard to argue against such things though, since our adaptation to those ways and the luxuries we are used to as a product of them are so ingrained in our everyday lives that it is impossible to think of a life without it. Colonization, in our eyes now, was and is necessary to sustain the comfortable life we live now.
The conversion of certain African/Asian states to European colonization differed in each case, but a successful one was in the case of Ethiopia and Siam who could avoid complete European takeover through their strong diplomatic and negotiating skills. Also in the Mughal Empire territories where the people had nothing and there was an "absence of any overall sense of cultural or political unity" (p. 592), it seems right and even necessary for outside European powers to colonize it. It's the stable, rightfully governed, peaceful states that should be left alone, or at least consist of peaceful negotiations that don't include killing off most of its native population.
The global world would be pretty boring if each country had the same European culture, government, and people.
21 February 2010
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. :)
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. :)
31 January 2010
RE#4: WW 16 - Religion & Science
Being a member of one of the non-Catholic, Protestant churches myself, I always wondered what the real differences were between my religion and Catholicism. I knew the general differences, such as the numerous traditions and rituals within a Catholic church that my church never did and how they have a priest/father and I have a pastor, but I did not know the specifics. The chart on page 464 was really helpful to me. Just wanted to point that out since this information was particularly interesting to me.
I think its ironic how religion is centered around what is holy, pure, and sacred, but yet they are linked to material ambitions, warfare, and large-scale deaths. The very thing that is supposed to bring people, societies together is actually tearing them apart. When I came across page 465, it surprised me at how many wars/actions were the product of conflict between the Europeans and the Catholic church - war between the Huguenots, Edict of Nantes, 30 Years War, Peace of Westphalia... Hah, that is quite a list.
The Protestant Reformation, however, was a vital and necessary part of European history because of what came of it - established divisions, separate countries that have agreed to run their people their own way. In many ways, it is a much better idea to divide the "work" rather than trying to control an entire continent of unhappy, suppressed people. In my religion class, I remembered a saying that all religions - Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism - have the same message/goal that are expressed to different groups of people in different ways. I like that. Perhaps if the early Europeans saw it from that perspective in the first place, they wouldn't have had to go through those hard, murder-inducing times.
And to think that all it took was one man to stand up and say something against the Catholic church, which I'm fairly sure were problematic for thousands of people as well.
I can't imagine what it would be like if there were only one religion in the world. It would pretty much suck to be forced into believing something, just because there were no other options. I don't think faith can be forced upon an individual because then it loses the joy that should come along with such beliefs.
I think its ironic how religion is centered around what is holy, pure, and sacred, but yet they are linked to material ambitions, warfare, and large-scale deaths. The very thing that is supposed to bring people, societies together is actually tearing them apart. When I came across page 465, it surprised me at how many wars/actions were the product of conflict between the Europeans and the Catholic church - war between the Huguenots, Edict of Nantes, 30 Years War, Peace of Westphalia... Hah, that is quite a list.
The Protestant Reformation, however, was a vital and necessary part of European history because of what came of it - established divisions, separate countries that have agreed to run their people their own way. In many ways, it is a much better idea to divide the "work" rather than trying to control an entire continent of unhappy, suppressed people. In my religion class, I remembered a saying that all religions - Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism - have the same message/goal that are expressed to different groups of people in different ways. I like that. Perhaps if the early Europeans saw it from that perspective in the first place, they wouldn't have had to go through those hard, murder-inducing times.
And to think that all it took was one man to stand up and say something against the Catholic church, which I'm fairly sure were problematic for thousands of people as well.
I can't imagine what it would be like if there were only one religion in the world. It would pretty much suck to be forced into believing something, just because there were no other options. I don't think faith can be forced upon an individual because then it loses the joy that should come along with such beliefs.
25 January 2010
RE #3: WW Chapter 15 - Global Commerce / 21st Century Chickens
original article [x]
Global Commerce. Asia to the Europeans were like the Fountain of Youth to Ponce de Leon. The journey across the Indian Ocean towards the East would result in valuable benefits that could revive and strengthen their economies and personal well-being and wealth, often referred to as "riches". Among these benefits were various goods such as spices/textiles and the development of trade systems and relationships between countries. The main contestants in this race to obtain the Eastern riches were the Portuguese and the Spanish. When I think of dominant European countries, France/Spain/Italy come to mind - not Portugal. Being that Portugal is one of the smaller countries of Europe today, it is strange to think that they were such a force to be reckoned with back then. There isn't much attention paid to them, so it was weird for me to think of them as sailors and a leading pioneer in Europe's journey to the East and an integral part in the creation of a global trading system.
The section on the Spanish invasion of the Philippines revealed a lot of information I was unaware of. I did not know that the Spanish settled there to "get ahead of" Portuguese in the "race to gain access to the riches of the East". The Philippines proved especially important to Spain during the Silver trade, as it was the destination for Spain's hoard of silver which were collected from all around the world (Bolivia>Mexico>Pacific>PI.. WOW. Now that's what I call a trip. And I thought my 5-hour flight from Hawaii to California was ridiculously long.) Random note: I thought it was interesting how the Philippines was considered an Asian country in this book. There is a lot of debate going on about whether or not Filipinos are considered Asians or Pacific Islanders. Being Filipino myself, I always considered myself Asian, but other sources seem to suggest not.
Silver is described as the fuel that got the vehicle of trade traveling across international borders - even more than the spice trade, the silver trade "gave birth to a genuinely global network of exchange". The Chinese especially benefited from their role in this industry, which resulted in a stabilizing and increasing economy, and enough funds to continue manufacturing other goods such as textiles. Because Chinese goods were "cheap and well-made", their European counterparts found it difficult to compete. I found it amusing how laws were made in 1717 that prohibited the French from wearing fabric created in India and China, so they may protect the French industry.
While their economic success is reason for celebration, the Chinese poem by Wang Dayue snaps us back to reality as he describes a result of commercialization. One result if deforestation - "hills resembled heads now shaven clean of hair". I really like this line: "they felt an anxious mood / that all their daily logging might not furnish them with fuel". It's a vicious cycle: they need to exploit natural resources to produce goods, but if they use up too much too often, they won't have enough to use as the fuel for their factories and cars, or even enough to use as warmth or food, things for their for basic survival. The saddest effect of global trade is the kidnapping and use of people for slaves. Too make a long story short since my post is getting really long, its such an unethical issue, but at the same time, they've helped build industries and countries, so there is much to be thankful for if you look at it from that view. Not to say that slavery is at any point a good thing, but its true that there are benefits from that system.
-------
21st Century Chickens. I really don't know how to approach this issue, since they both seem right and wrong from either side. If I were forced to pluck and kill the chicken myself, I would most definitely be forced to become a vegetarian since I cannot stand the idea that I am murdering a living being for my own enjoyment. I would say that animal cruelty altogether is an extremely horrible thing, but modern packaging does put the image of a live animal in the farthest part of my mind. I think that packaging is necessary, however, to enforce safety and good health standards in the modern society. I can't imagine the kinds of dangers and diseases that people would suffer from if food like chicken and beef were left up to the consumers to clean and prepare themselves.
20 January 2010
RE #2: WW4-14, DGP15
Regarding Columbus' voyages during 1942, which marked the beginning of globalization, it is interesting to see how the explanation of history changes. While history itself does not change, people can interpret and see it from different perspectives. I remember in elementary school, Columbus was described as a great traveler and explorer who discovered America. When told in that manner, we focused only on what a great person he was and whom without, we wouldn't be here in this land today. I always wondered what happened to the Native Americans who lived here before Columbus, but was under the impression that they willingly gave in and Columbus' people accepted and treated them well. Gratefulness and awe is how we were taught to look at this man.
I appreciated that this history book told us the other half of Columbus' story - one that fills in the cracks of what my elementary school days taught me. While the Europeans may have had good intentions in taking over the Americas, with the missionaries desire to spread Christianity and save the "savage" state of the people and land, I think its horrible that they brought along with them diseases. Also, it was stated that many of the Natives were forced into slavery and/or looked down upon by the Europeans. I understand though that it must have been a difficult process to try to communicate with the natives, and that possibly to Columbus, this was all purely business - for economic and territorial reasons. I am still not completely sure of the details of how the Europeans tried to communicate with them and how many rights/freedom they had in the Americas at that time.
As an American today, little attention is given to our land's history. And while I am not 100% proud of what Columbus did to the natives and how the European domination of the Americas killed off most of their people and culture, it's amazing how far America has evolved since then.
I appreciated that this history book told us the other half of Columbus' story - one that fills in the cracks of what my elementary school days taught me. While the Europeans may have had good intentions in taking over the Americas, with the missionaries desire to spread Christianity and save the "savage" state of the people and land, I think its horrible that they brought along with them diseases. Also, it was stated that many of the Natives were forced into slavery and/or looked down upon by the Europeans. I understand though that it must have been a difficult process to try to communicate with the natives, and that possibly to Columbus, this was all purely business - for economic and territorial reasons. I am still not completely sure of the details of how the Europeans tried to communicate with them and how many rights/freedom they had in the Americas at that time.
As an American today, little attention is given to our land's history. And while I am not 100% proud of what Columbus did to the natives and how the European domination of the Americas killed off most of their people and culture, it's amazing how far America has evolved since then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
