I found the discussion of China during the late Classical/early Modern era to be quite tragic for the role of women. In the European Renaissance, the female form was highly regarded. Women were allowed more rights than ever before. Women were very nearly equals in many ways. However, in China, such was not the case. Women had been much more free in the Tang dynasty, yet during the Song dynasty, there was a complete reversal. Women were to be subordinate to their male counterparts. Women were considered weak and fragile, unfit for many activities that men took part in.
In order to make women more fragile and weak, the Song dynasty took up foot binding, and act of breaking the bones in the feet of women in order to make the feet appear smaller, then binding the feet to prevent any proper healing. This made it so women could barely walk, leaving them to be unfit for many physical activities of any kind. "The most compelling expression of a tightening patriarchy lay in foot binding" (Strayer, 2013, pg 371). Female beauty standards were altered in such a way that women could not conform without doing permanent damage to their bodies that left them literally crippled.
I do not see the Chinese as having a true Renaissance that is even slightly comparable to that of Europe due to the poor role of women in the Chinese "Renaissance". The entire point of the Renaissance is a rebirth of humanism, and humanism does not define one's worth by their gender.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Blog 11: Maps
I'm fascinated by old maps if only as a representation of misunderstanding of the world in its plainest sense. In the case of the map on page 571 of the text, I love the depiction of the Americas as a thin strip of land rather than the large, expansive continents we know them to be now. I also love how Africa seems to fall of the map at its southern-most tip.
Apart from its artistic representation of the world, this map captures a snapshot of sorts of Europe's view of the world during the fifteenth century. To Europe, they were the center of the world, and marked themselves as such on this map. I'd be interested to see a map from China during this time to compare where the place the center of the world view from, as well as how much of the Americas they draw in, if any, during this time.
It's interesting to know that even maps today place Europe relatively central to the map's proportions. Even though we have a better understanding of the world at large, having explored most of its wonders, we still mark Europe as the center. Odd, considering the text compared the United States to the Roman empire not too long ago. If such were the case, would there be propaganda-esque maps with America at the center? I'm curious.
Apart from its artistic representation of the world, this map captures a snapshot of sorts of Europe's view of the world during the fifteenth century. To Europe, they were the center of the world, and marked themselves as such on this map. I'd be interested to see a map from China during this time to compare where the place the center of the world view from, as well as how much of the Americas they draw in, if any, during this time.
It's interesting to know that even maps today place Europe relatively central to the map's proportions. Even though we have a better understanding of the world at large, having explored most of its wonders, we still mark Europe as the center. Odd, considering the text compared the United States to the Roman empire not too long ago. If such were the case, would there be propaganda-esque maps with America at the center? I'm curious.
Blog 10: Challenging the Modern View of Islam by Understanding its Origins
In Chapter 9, we learn about Islam. Arguably, this lesson is important to modern day citizens of the world, if not more-so American voters facing Islamophobia. As Donald Trump rages on about a Muslim database in America to keep track of what he assumes to be a hoard of terrorists waiting to act, understanding the origins of this religious group is pretty important.
Islam, a religion based on the teachers of Muhammad, preaches the abandonment of wealth hoarding that was popular by the Jewish faith at the time. Islam also seeks to avoid the exploitation of the poor, the abuse of women, and neglect of the less fortunate, such as widows and orphans. Social justice was a big component of Islam in its conception.
So, with this in mind, how are we to understand modern Islam? With roots in creating positive change for communities previously oppressed by the rich and exploitative, it's challenging to see how radical terrorist groups could arise. But perhaps the most important thing to notice is that the Islamic people seek positive change, and that those who seek to do others harm are not abiding by their own religious framework. This is to say that not all Muslims are terrorists, and in conjunction, not all terrorists are even Muslim. How would a Muslim database keep America safe then, Mr Trump? A question we should all consider before the next election, I suspect.
Islam, a religion based on the teachers of Muhammad, preaches the abandonment of wealth hoarding that was popular by the Jewish faith at the time. Islam also seeks to avoid the exploitation of the poor, the abuse of women, and neglect of the less fortunate, such as widows and orphans. Social justice was a big component of Islam in its conception.
So, with this in mind, how are we to understand modern Islam? With roots in creating positive change for communities previously oppressed by the rich and exploitative, it's challenging to see how radical terrorist groups could arise. But perhaps the most important thing to notice is that the Islamic people seek positive change, and that those who seek to do others harm are not abiding by their own religious framework. This is to say that not all Muslims are terrorists, and in conjunction, not all terrorists are even Muslim. How would a Muslim database keep America safe then, Mr Trump? A question we should all consider before the next election, I suspect.
Blog 9: Christendom
Having been raised in a Catholic household and attended a Catholic high school as an atheist, I'm pretty familiar with Christian indoctrination. I've always been interested by the ways in which Christianity plagued the world. I don't mean that all Christians are bad, but rather the incidents of when Christianity failed to uphold the mission of peace and love is has so long claimed to carry.
To me, the most interesting part of the text was that which discussed the "crusading tradition" of Christianity. Despite proclaiming peace, Christianity was often time spread through territorial conquest. As a Christian culture over-threw a non-Christian society, the new culture indoctrinated the old. Ultimately, the old culture was forced out in the name of the new, and more powerful culture which had won control.
As the Crusades demonstrate, religious wars don't often appeal to the ideals of the religion the hail to. By way of destroying other cultures, Christians were not exactly "loving thy neighbor" as Jesus may have intended. If you "love thy neighbor" should you not accept them for their differences or rather, battle them to submission and force your values upon them? The Crusades obviously did the latter.
I find this next image to be particularly relevant in the discussion of religion and its influence or effectiveness in the world. Just some food for thought, I suppose.
To me, the most interesting part of the text was that which discussed the "crusading tradition" of Christianity. Despite proclaiming peace, Christianity was often time spread through territorial conquest. As a Christian culture over-threw a non-Christian society, the new culture indoctrinated the old. Ultimately, the old culture was forced out in the name of the new, and more powerful culture which had won control.
As the Crusades demonstrate, religious wars don't often appeal to the ideals of the religion the hail to. By way of destroying other cultures, Christians were not exactly "loving thy neighbor" as Jesus may have intended. If you "love thy neighbor" should you not accept them for their differences or rather, battle them to submission and force your values upon them? The Crusades obviously did the latter.
I find this next image to be particularly relevant in the discussion of religion and its influence or effectiveness in the world. Just some food for thought, I suppose.
Blog 8: Disease
Perhaps most interesting to me in Chapter 7 was the discussion of trade, and how it brought an unexpected traveler: disease. Living in modern day societies, it's standard to accept that traveling to a new area may cause you to fall ill from something as simple as drinking native water, or even less anticipated, drinking an iced beverage. We are constantly warned to be careful in our travels, and are prepared for the worst with a variety of shots before we even step foot in foreign lands. Whenever we visit the doctor now, we are asked if we have been somewhere international within the last thirty or so days that could be causing our symptoms, or worse, carrying germs that could infect other patients and practitioners.
Yet this practice or thought process wasn't commonplace prior to modern medicine. As Classical era travelers made their way along trade roots, no one considered that along with gold, slaves, or other goods, they carried with them dangerous diseases that could put their trading companions at great risk. As these diseases spread through the communities involved in trade, there was little way to control its contagious nature other than to simply wait until immunity could be developed, even if that meant thousands died in the mean time.
Perhaps the view is grim or morbid, but the idea that a simple interaction between strangers could lead to the deaths of thousands has always been interesting to me. Particularly as HIV/AIDS is becoming less and less of a death sentence, I wonder what the next "plague" will be to mankind, how it will spread, and how quickly we will combat it.
Yet this practice or thought process wasn't commonplace prior to modern medicine. As Classical era travelers made their way along trade roots, no one considered that along with gold, slaves, or other goods, they carried with them dangerous diseases that could put their trading companions at great risk. As these diseases spread through the communities involved in trade, there was little way to control its contagious nature other than to simply wait until immunity could be developed, even if that meant thousands died in the mean time.
Perhaps the view is grim or morbid, but the idea that a simple interaction between strangers could lead to the deaths of thousands has always been interesting to me. Particularly as HIV/AIDS is becoming less and less of a death sentence, I wonder what the next "plague" will be to mankind, how it will spread, and how quickly we will combat it.
Blog 7: Africa
According the text, life in early Africa was challenging, at best. With less fertile soils caused by higher temperatures and decomposition of vegetables, crop growth was a nightmare. Scarier still were the insects and parasites living in this climate, as they carried diseases which threatened humans. Life was not easy in Africa. Yet, somehow, a culture thrived in the Nile Valley. In this area, people were able to herd and farm with some success. Industry also thrived thanks to iron smelting as well as the manufacturing of iron tolls and weapons. This area was also heavily involved in trading on both the sand road and the sea road. The iron tools and weapons were an important export for this area. While the Nile Valley was not the only area of Africa to find stability, it was very successful in sustaining more ancient traditions of Africa rather than conforming or adopting newer ideals.
Blog 6: Not Really the Apology You Were Looking For
Q: Why did he [Socrates] accept the death penalty and refuse to consider a lesser sentence?
A: As I'm currently a student in the Ancient Philosophy course at NDNU, I know that this statement is skewed. Socrates did argue for a lesser sentence prior to the sentencing portion of his trial. Socrates argued to be fined a small sum for his "crimes" which would be paid by his followers rather than by him. This was not an acceptable punishment to the court, and in fact, the court felt Socrates' apology for his actions was insincere, just as his proposal for punishment was.
Ultimately, however, Socrates does accept his fate at sentencing when he is ordered to be put to death, and commits suicide. Socrates feels he could not be exiled as he would continue to spread his ideas to other communities outside Greece, or arguably worse, he would be unable to share his wisdom, and would die without his ability to debate with others. Socrates chooses to die by his own hand, spending his last day teaching his followers as he had for much of his life.
A: As I'm currently a student in the Ancient Philosophy course at NDNU, I know that this statement is skewed. Socrates did argue for a lesser sentence prior to the sentencing portion of his trial. Socrates argued to be fined a small sum for his "crimes" which would be paid by his followers rather than by him. This was not an acceptable punishment to the court, and in fact, the court felt Socrates' apology for his actions was insincere, just as his proposal for punishment was.
Ultimately, however, Socrates does accept his fate at sentencing when he is ordered to be put to death, and commits suicide. Socrates feels he could not be exiled as he would continue to spread his ideas to other communities outside Greece, or arguably worse, he would be unable to share his wisdom, and would die without his ability to debate with others. Socrates chooses to die by his own hand, spending his last day teaching his followers as he had for much of his life.
Blog 5: Are We Rome?
"Are We Rome?" asks the opening to chapter three of our text. Perhaps the most interesting element of this question is the "We". The text goes on to explain the "We" is the United States, yet my thought is why does the United States have to be the "We"? Certainly, we are a dominant force in the world, but we are not the only dominating force. Europe still carries much weight in the ways of our world, Russia holds many cards in the way of military power. China has a population and economy growing so dramatically that Mandarin Chinese is considered the up-and-coming language of business. However, Strayer seems to ignore all these world powers to address only the United States.
While I understand the question, I find it naive. Immigration, legal and otherwise, has fallen dramatically over the last fifty or so years, as other cultures of the world recognize the flaws in our systems. America is drawing it's hands out of the many pots we were once eager to explore when it comes to military influence in foreign lands. We no longer make much of anything compared to one hundred years ago.
If we are Rome, assuming Strayer is on to something, in my mind, the empire has already collapsed. While there may not be a new empire to take its place, we no longer live in the glory of the old days, where America would always come for you in crisis, where we created our own goods rather than import from countries with cheaper labor, where the American dream still ran through the minds of immigrants throughout the world. If we are Rome, there is dramatic room for improvement.
While I understand the question, I find it naive. Immigration, legal and otherwise, has fallen dramatically over the last fifty or so years, as other cultures of the world recognize the flaws in our systems. America is drawing it's hands out of the many pots we were once eager to explore when it comes to military influence in foreign lands. We no longer make much of anything compared to one hundred years ago.
If we are Rome, assuming Strayer is on to something, in my mind, the empire has already collapsed. While there may not be a new empire to take its place, we no longer live in the glory of the old days, where America would always come for you in crisis, where we created our own goods rather than import from countries with cheaper labor, where the American dream still ran through the minds of immigrants throughout the world. If we are Rome, there is dramatic room for improvement.
Blog 4: The Gods and Gilgamesh
Q: How does the Epic of Gilgamesh portray the gods and their relationship to humankind?
A: The gods and humankind are portrayed as quite similar in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where gods rule humankind, yet they share limited two-way interactions. The first example of this is seen in the creation of Gilgamesh. Instead of crediting Gilgamesh's parents for their great parenting or genetic backgrounds (which would be arguably strange considering genetics weren't truly understood at this time) the author credits various gods for Gilgamesh's many noble qualities. "Shamash, the glorious sun, endowed him with beauty, Adad, the god of the storm, endowed him with courage..."(Strayer, 2013, pg 93). As the text lists Gilgamesh's various attributes, creating a depiction of a powerful man, the text also illustrates the hands-on nature of the gods.
By "endowing" Gilgamesh with these qualities, the gods are also illustrated as having influence over humans. Not only do the gods create each human with a variety of intentions, but the gods rule mankind. In many cultures, gods are often philosophically considered to be creations of man, anthropomorphized beings set up by man to establish the morals of the community which shares the religion. Yet, in the Gilgamesh text, the gods are the writers of mankind. In participating in the creation of Gilgamesh, the gods are viewed as having ultimate domain over the mortals. Mortals are ultimately pawns for the gods to play with.
Even as things do not go as planned by the gods, the gods are the ultimate authority in Gilgamesh. "So the gods agreed to exterminate mankind" ( Strayer, 2013, pg 95). The gods hold all the power in this text. Not only can the gods influence the creation of each man, they can simply decide to wipe clean the slate of humanity. In many religions, god can be seen as ambivalent to the plight of man, yet here, the gods remain aware of the happenings of man and continue to demonstrate their will.
Ultimately, the gods and mankind are written in the Epic of Gilgamesh as having an intertwined existence, where the gods may rule, but humanity still expresses some sense of free will. With that in mind, the ultimate fate of man rests in the hands of the gods, according to this text.
A: The gods and humankind are portrayed as quite similar in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where gods rule humankind, yet they share limited two-way interactions. The first example of this is seen in the creation of Gilgamesh. Instead of crediting Gilgamesh's parents for their great parenting or genetic backgrounds (which would be arguably strange considering genetics weren't truly understood at this time) the author credits various gods for Gilgamesh's many noble qualities. "Shamash, the glorious sun, endowed him with beauty, Adad, the god of the storm, endowed him with courage..."(Strayer, 2013, pg 93). As the text lists Gilgamesh's various attributes, creating a depiction of a powerful man, the text also illustrates the hands-on nature of the gods.
By "endowing" Gilgamesh with these qualities, the gods are also illustrated as having influence over humans. Not only do the gods create each human with a variety of intentions, but the gods rule mankind. In many cultures, gods are often philosophically considered to be creations of man, anthropomorphized beings set up by man to establish the morals of the community which shares the religion. Yet, in the Gilgamesh text, the gods are the writers of mankind. In participating in the creation of Gilgamesh, the gods are viewed as having ultimate domain over the mortals. Mortals are ultimately pawns for the gods to play with.
Even as things do not go as planned by the gods, the gods are the ultimate authority in Gilgamesh. "So the gods agreed to exterminate mankind" ( Strayer, 2013, pg 95). The gods hold all the power in this text. Not only can the gods influence the creation of each man, they can simply decide to wipe clean the slate of humanity. In many religions, god can be seen as ambivalent to the plight of man, yet here, the gods remain aware of the happenings of man and continue to demonstrate their will.
Ultimately, the gods and mankind are written in the Epic of Gilgamesh as having an intertwined existence, where the gods may rule, but humanity still expresses some sense of free will. With that in mind, the ultimate fate of man rests in the hands of the gods, according to this text.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)