Blog #10

The Tribe has always been an important concept in Arabian and Islamic history, creating divisions among its dwellers and followers. How has this caused problems in the history of Islam?

The question, as posed, would suggest that the issue of tribal difference is somehow a Muslim, or Arabian problem. This is just false. While Arabia did have tribes, tribal conflict had been, and continues to be, a problem all over. From the Africans to the Asians tribal warfare and conflict were very prevalent. The fact that some say Mohamed never had a miracle and thus was not a prophet is a reasonable statement. However, what he could do, was resolve tribal conflicts, which was close to miraculous in ancient Arabia. Just as Ghengis Kahn rose to power uniting tribes of the Steppe, Mohamed united tribes of the Middle East. Unfortunately, that could not last. Tribes are formed for a reason. Protection, power, greed etc... So as soon as the great uniter died, Islam quickly split back into a divided group. With some believing the Islam was passed to Mohammed's family, and some believing it was passed to the elders closest to Mohamed. Not only did this lead to individual tribes siding with either the Sunnis or the Shi'ites but they united under these new groups to fight with the other. This led to tribal wars on a tribal level as well as tribal warfare on a larger, spiritual level.

The question might also suggest that this problem is in the past. Instead, the problem is still playing out in places like Iraq. Much unbeknownst to a certain Presidential candidate, the two sects of Islam are still duking it out in Iraq. Saddam Hussein took the Sunni minority and put them in powerful positions in his government. He did this to play off of the tribal mentality and rivalries of the two sects (the minority would not want to fall out of power since they were used to being oppressed by the majority). Now that the government has fallen and Democracy is (feebly attempting to) coming out the two sects are again fighting. We have seen this on large levels and small scale levels throughout the history of the middle east and it is one of the many reasons that peace in the middle east (and in Islam) is only a far-fetched dream.

Blog #9

How has the religious history of India influenced India’s tradition of non-violence?      Religion, for the most part, preaches tolerance and peace. While we have seen many political and militaristic leaders abuse religion for the justification of war, when truly followed, religion intends for peace. Religions such as Islam, which has been used recently by radical Jihad terrorists as justification for their acts of terror, do not endorse violence. Jihad, which is just a small subsection of a sect of Islam does not preach violence. Instead it talks of finding inner peace and balance and turning to the sword only in self, or direct religious, defense. It is not only Islam that has taken up religious wars, in fact nearly every religion is guilty of some religious crusade. Part of India's success in fully embracing Hinduism as a peaceful religion falls at the feet of Ghandi. While his teachings and actions were attached to Hinduism, they could just have easily as been not. Just as most religious violence is not actually religious at it's core. Ghandi cemented the relationship between peace and Hinduism. In doing so he turned India, a country with an overwhelming Hindu population into what could be considered a peaceful country. However, even in turning the religion into one of peace, the country still has a ways to go. India and Pakistan have been using military force to try and intimidate the other in the conflict over Kashmir a region that borders both India and Pakistan for a very long time. This pissing match goes against Ghandi's teachings of peaceful protest and objection and makes one wonder, whether, India is really that much more peaceful than anyone else.

Blog entry #8

Can migrations have a positive impact on the people and/or land receiving the immigrants?

While a simplistic question, I will attempt to give an unsimplistic answer. Of course the land receiving immigrants can benefit from their arrival. What does it mean to "benefit" the people/land? America has gotten a great influx of cheap labor from Mexico. This has allowed many Central Valley and other farmers and construction companies to get cheap labor and make a bigger profit. So it is definitely benefiting them, but what about the locals who used to pick the food, it does not benefit them. In the long run, most immigrants offer much needed diversity and a new perspective on issues facing any society. So yes, the people and land that receive migrating peoples can benefit from their arrival. That being said, most of the benefits they receive can be looked at as bad things as well. Cheaper labor accelerates industry... Good for the companies and maybe the economy as a whole, but what about those forced out of work? Immigrants provide new perspectives and may even rise to the top of a professional field. This breaks down xenophobia and offers new insight into certain topics. However, in the moment it often increases xenophobia and the new ideas can be shunned. There are many examples of this that I could go into, but I will leave by just answering the question: migrations can have a positive impact on the people/land receiving the immigrants. 

Blog #5

If you were a young teenage girl of the citizen class, in which city-state would you rather live? Why?

I would rather live in Sparta because compared to Athenian girls and women, Spartan women held a higher place in society. While their rights were still limited Spartan women were taught how to read and write, gymnastics, athletics and survival skills. They were also able to own their own property and during times of war they would be charged with protecting their husbands possessions.  This, in stark contrast to the women of Athens who were in essence their husbands property and had no rights. They could not even leave the house unless they were prostitutes or courtesans. The only education Athenian women received was basically household tasks such as sewing or cooking. 

If you were a slave, in which would you rather live? Why?

I would much rather live in Sparta. Sparta had Helots, as supposed to regular slaves. Helots were comparable to share-croppers in American history. While the slaves in Athens were the lowest of the low, the Helots had to give half of their crops to the Spartiates but still had some independence. While it was true that the Athenian slaves did play some roles that were more unique than the farming Helots of Sparta, such as policeman, their owner could kill their slave at their own discretion. I frankly don't think I'd be that interested in living a city where I could be killed at the drop of a hat. 

If you were a boy in the citizen class, which city would you rather live in? Why?

I would want to live in Athens because in Sparta I would be forced into military service at an early age until I was sixty and I would have to leave in a society centered around war. My "mentor" would be a pedophile rapist and I would be taken from my family at a young age. In Athens, I would grow up in a diverse society and receive a comprehensive education. I would also receive two years of military training but it would not dominate my entire life.

If you were a young soldier, in which city would you rather live?

It depends on my motivation. If I was looking to become a high-ranking military leader in one of Greece's premier armies I would probably want to live in Sparta. If I had other aspirations in life I would much prefer Athens. Knowing myself, I would prefer Athens because I wouldn't want my life dominated by the army. Also, since the Athenian navy was very big if I served in that I would have the opportunity to travel all over and see new places. The army in Athens was less intense and unlike Sparta you could see your family and spend time outside of the barracks. 

If you were a wealthy member of the citizen class, which city would you rather live in?

I would, of course, like to live in Athens. I would be able to buy what I want, live where I want etc... Sparta was very much more strict and also more communal than Athens. In terms of technical things if I lived in Athens I could do stuff like travel around different parts of the world because of it's role as an important port. Not to mention I'd have access to many more good from merchants trading in Athens.

Blog #4

"New ideas in politics and philosophy tend to emerge in times of social, political, and/or economic stress. How can this be explained?"

First of all, people are more open to new ideas when they are unhappy with their current situation. In times of happiness people are going to be less open to people coming in with radical new ideas on how to change things, because people don't want change. However, when people are unhappy, new ideas and change sounds wonderful. People will look to almost any idea with hope and this allows very smart people to capitalize on this by introducing their concepts. If a government is working well and people are happy with it, a philosopher with an idea for how to better run the government is going to be ignored. But if you take a government that is not working well and people that aren't happy that philosopher will be listened to. My point being, it is not only that these ideas are thought of during times of stress but that they are brought to the forefront by a population that will listen.

Population Growth in the Classical Period

Population growth was the biggest development of the classical period, true or false?

False. Population growth was simply a side effect of the other developments of the time. Once the other developments began to take form then population growth became a key factor in the progession of those developments. I am talking about devlepments such as the mass domestication of animals. Without such developments the population growth that we saw occur in that time period would not have been possible because there simply would not have been enough food. People did not start having a ton of kids and then find ways to feed all of them, it was the other way around. That being said, once there was enough food to have a large population then people could develop other things such as metal tools, new farming methods, new ways to build buildings or run governments. So while it while it was important in developing other things, population growth itself was not the biggest development of the period.

Changes of the classical period...

What were the main changes of the classical period?

The main changes of the classical period were that the world unified into nations and civilizations. This allowed for trade between nations in different parts of the world. Also, the critical mass of so many people living in one area allowed for civilizations to flourish because with advances in farming people could be architects or blacksmiths or scholars. Up until the classical period you would have small population bubbles or even small cities but none had the food supply to truly support a big enough population in which everyone would not have to farm or hunt. The breakthrough was really the domestication of animals and advances in farming which allowed significantly less people to produce significantly more food and thus support a very big population in a small area allowing civilization to form. Without these advances the civilizations could not be formed.