Far from collapse?

So it's been a while...but I'm back and better than ever. Taking another cue from current events my current focus has been on the economic woes of the United States. In my US history class we've been discussing the populist movement, the political movement of the "people" in response to the excesses of wealth in the late 19th century. The farmers were right! ..but they didn't win. The country could not survive without them, and even so they still fell victim to exploitation. Fast forward to the 1920s. The farmers problems had been addressed by presidents such as TR, Taft, and Wilson. Then came the backlash - no more government handouts! On to the Roaring 20s and a laissez faire approach to economic policy. Once again, the farmers were forgotten and this ultimately led to the crash in 1929. There have been some more scares over the years, but the government has since gotten involved in the economy like never before. Today government has been easing off...and what has been the result? Recession? Speculation? Greed? Well, greed is always there...but once again, there seems to be no "base" to support the massive upside down pyramid that is the distribution of wealth.

If you don't know what I'm talking about or what you're reading - fear not, I think I've gone off on some large tangential rant! But I think this relates somehow to the spread of Islam. Merchants. Trade. The middle class. Without this group there seems to be turmoil. The growth of Islam led the rise of Golden Ages. Wealth and prosperity. Rome collapsed without a middle class. As did the Han. (The French Revolution seems to be the anomaly...with the middle class actually causing the collapse of the French monarchy). Did Islam help develop a middle class for the world???

YOUR THOUGHTS???!!!

Is there religion? Or just humanism?

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial. (Courtesy of Wikipedia - yes, Wikipedia).

Thats a mouthful, but is it very far from what really all religions are preaching? Look at what is said in Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity - many ideals are extremely similar: spiritual equality, help the poor, etc. Are these religious ideals or human ideals? I think of the spread of all. Syncretism was involved in all of these processes, with the religions adapting to local customs and traditional beliefs.

As per the "Is God in our Genes" article, there seems to be something innately human about spirituality, even if it is not manifeted in the form of relgion. Maybe all religions are just the manifestation of a universal human spirituality?!

The New Slavery?

This is something I've been thinking about for a while now, but since we've just started comparing slavery in Rome and China it reminded me that I WAS thinking about it. Slavery - Rome acquired slaves through conquest - massive amounts of slaves. They became the backbone of the Roman economy and also contributed partly to Rome's downfall.

I'm thinking of America yet again. We should all be familiar with our nation's past and the issue of slavery. Is slavery, at least a form of slavery, rising again? I think of one of the issues of our presidential campaigns: illegal immigration. Various candidates have different opinions on the issue, but I'm thinking of those already in the United States. Some candidates say they "do the jobs Americans won't." But what are these jobs? Physical labor in a farm field? Landscaping? Contracting? Yes. Think about what the workers give up by being "undocumented." They get paid well below the federal minimum wage (which has recently been raised). They are easily replaceable.

Who are these workers? Ethnically, they are mostly latino. Are they becoming the new slaves in our economy?

A Tale of Two Cities: Athens and Sparta/Philadelphia and Pittsburgh

So we're finishing our little unit of study on Ancient Greece with our look at Athens and Sparta, and the differences between the two. Ultimately Athens wins out despite the fact that both were Greek ethnically. Why? Geography? As much as I am even sick of hearing "geography is destin...blah blah blah" I think that this may be the perfect example of this theory. Sparta, located inland on the Peloponnese near a river, and Athens, on the Greek mainland along the sea, both had to deal with the terrible rocky topography of Greece as we know it. Both became powerhouses, with Sparta leading the Peloponnesian League and Athens the Delian League, but Sparta loses in terms of long term influence. Why? It's gotta be geography! Sparta, military powerhouse and elite, but geographically isolated, doesn't get the cultural benefits of contact with others. Even though this is by choice, Sparta still eventually loses the bulk of its population. Think about it - all men are in the military, returning from war defeated is unacceptable. Helloooo? Can't you see the impending doom from that scenario?

Athens on the other hand flourishes. Despite the fact that they don't devote every ounce of energy into the military, they still are able to defeat Sparta in terms of influence and later impact. Geography? I say yes. Naturally they had the superior naval technology, but at the same time their natural acceptance of intellectualism and curiosity gave more cultural unity, especially with surrounding peoples. Melting pots! Salad bowls...whatever you want to call them!

Now, this kind of makes my think of the city of my birth - Pittsburgh, PA (Go Steelers!). Being born in PA, I share a PA heritage with my brethren across the state in Philadelphia. Yet Philly has become the dominant city in the state. At one time both cities were "powerhouses" in their own right - Philadelphia a financial city and Pittsburgh an industrial city. Both have rivers that helped the initial development (heck, Pittsburgh has three!). But Pittsburgh seems to be losing the long term battle here... Industry has all but left, and so has much of the younger population. While I don't attribute an attitude of isolation to the demise of Pittsburgh (there have been numerous efforts to revitalize the the city), the city seems to be shrinking and shrinking. This isn't just the case with Pittsburgh, but many other industrial cities: Buffalo, Detriot, Cleveland.

Maybe what I'm getting at here is globalization! Athens chose to be connected with other regions. Sparta did not. The United States has chosen to interact and become dependant on other nations, and as a result some aspects of the American economy have suffered...

Ah geography, thou truly are thy destiny!

Religious legitimacy or legitimately religious?

Alright, so we've just seen how seen how rulers use the popular beliefs of the people to legitimize their rule. China and Japan clearly stand out (you may want to look into this on your own) during the era of the Tang (China) and Yamato (Japan). It's particularly striking to see how those advocating the belief system of Buddhism in China were able to influence the rulers and adapt to the local customs. I think the question that arises from this is who has more power - the rulers or the religious leaders? That Buddhist monk, Deng, sure was able to hold tremendous sway over the Chinese ruler. Think back to the beginning of the year where we saw the natural connection with religion and power. Has this changed at all? I think of our current, and however ridiculously early, presidential race. The struggle among the Republican candidates seems to center on who is more religious. This even goes way back in our nation's history, but has become increasingly more dominant in national politics. Think of the 2000 and 2004 elections - "values" voters (code for relgious) clearly favored one side over the other. Why this connection? Is this still relevant in the age of democracy?

Themes, themes, and MORE themes...

1)Impact of interaction among major societies
2)Cultural and intellectual developments and interactions among and within societies
3)Changes in functions and structure of states and in attitudes toward state and political indentities
4)Impact of technology and demography on people and environment
5)Systems of social structure and gender structure
6)The relationship between change and continuity across the world history periods

Remember these themes? These make the foundation of this course. They are what we return to time and time again (besides Guns, Germs, and Steel). Seeing as how its half way through November (yes, November!) I thought I'd start reflecting a little bit on the various developments we've been studying over the year. Looking back at the themes, I was really struck by how much we have covered without really thinking about it. What are your thoughts on this? Go back all the way to the beginning of the year and think about what we've learned to the present. What themes have we touched upon? In what ways? Are there any specific civilizations that present clear examples of some of the themes above?

I can think of a few...