Sept. 23, 2012

   Can a large scale civilization exist and thrive without the "guidance" of a centralized government that administers law and order? According to chapter 3 of "Ways of the Word," civilization and central rule go hand-in-hand. I tend to agree with that view. In considering the nature of the situation - that is, thousands of people trying to live together and share resources - basic human nature more often than not will lead to every kind of scenario from simple misunderstanding to all-out declaration of war. Like it or not, when thousands of people are existing in close proximity to each other, concepts like "kindness" and "sharing" can easily go out the window. As a real-world example, think about how many times drivers on freeways intentionally speed up to block someone from merging, or go through intersections when it was clearly someone ele's turn.
   Without law and order, people revert back to primal instincts. In turn, all the lessons learned from thousands of years of being "civilized" go out the window. At best, an individual or couple will fight for the survival of their family; at worst, the "every man for himself" motto is called upon and in those cases, man becomes a simple animal, fighting for his own survival. The modern concept of civilization seeks to eliminate the need for animalistic survival situations. Many times, the concept is proven true. In my personal experience lately, I have noticed how the biggest concern for many people around me is how they are going to get their anitbacterially-washed hands on an iphone 5 when it's released! If that isn't a glowing positive review for the benefits of civilization, I don't know what is.
   Without going too crazy, I can't help but imagine what the world as I know it would be like without a centralized government. On one hand, I would like to think that everything would be just fine and we would all share and get along no problem. But the reality is that it would be a world of chaos. Additionally, we would not be here at all really. After all, modern society is only here because a central power base decided to organize labor to produce food and other goods which would then be dispersed among the population and/or traded to foreign buyers. So, without that precendent being set eons ago, there would not be 7 billion people on Earth - the "old ways" would never produce such a "bumper crop" of humankind!

The Beginning of "Empires"

Sept. 16, 2012

   After writing the essay comparing Xinchen and Claudius, and how they differed as rulers, I started to ponder something that began to arise in this period of history: the emergence of "rulers" and "emperors." In a small-scale society, a leader arises because of hunting prowess or some other skill, but when larger scale civilizations began to form, simple tribal style leadership became obsolete. It makes sense because in a population of thousands of people, there is going to be several who have the requisite skills and intelligence to lead. So how does a ruler/emperor come into power?
   That very question will be at the forefront of my mind as we continue studying early large- scale civilizations. At this point, I can take a guess and imagine rulers becoming powerful by showing prowess at making war, or bringing prosperity to the people, but I do not know the whole story. Think about our system today: people from the "general population" are voted into power by popular elections, or are appointed by people who were previously voted into their positions in government. How often did that happen in ancient times? There must have been records, and I am interested to learn more. Without more details, I imagine at this point that many of these early civilizations did not practice general elections as we know them today.
   In addition to wondering how early leaders were granted their power, I also started to wonder what the rest of the story was with the Han dynasty of Xinchen- from the descriptions in "Ways of the World," the overall situation for many people in that era was not very great. From "Ways" pp. 159: "During the Han dynasty, growing numbers of impoverished and desperate peasants had to sell out to large landlords and work as tenants or sharecroppers on their estates, where rents could run as high as one-half to two-thirds of the crop." This reminded me of the sharecropper situation in the early American South, which was also the cause of hardship and misery for people in the "peasant class." "Ways of the World" goes on to discuss political movements of the population seeking for a more fair and equal distribution of wealth- Sound familiar?? Human civilization runs in cycles- sometimes we can work together and make progress, and other times the greedy scoundrels lording over all the resources subject the rest of the population to hardship and poverty. Either way, everything will cycle around to its opposite condition. History teaches us so much, but so many times the lessons go unheeded.

History of Water

Sept. 6, 2012

   It is truly eye-opening to consider the origins of “civilization,” and hence, the birth of the “city” with which we are familiar. Even looking at a map of the modern world and all its major cities, it is plainly obvious to see the importance of a city’s proximity to either a major river or the sea. New York City is by the sea, as is London, while Paris straddles the Seine just as an ancient city would. As for the early cities of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and ancient Rome, locations were chosen based on the suitability of the land and water resources to provide for the people. The people who congregated into civil groupings are the reason for the city, and gave rise to all human culture. As said in “Discovering the Global Past,” the city itself is not the important thing; the culture of the people is the real interesting part of the city.

   Of course, it is debatable whether or not humans have a natural instinct to band together, but when one considers the living world scientifically, the more fragile members of the animal kingdom do in fact band together. Schools of fish, flocks of birds, and dens of meerkats all find that there is in fact, “safety in numbers.” For those that might think that humans are not fragile, think of the following: Humans are, usually, no match for bears, lions, tigers, and other land-based predators. However, in a group, with weapons of various levels of sophistication, any animal on earth can be either trapped and/or killed. You have to imagine that one of the very first lessons learned by early hominids was that they had a much better chance at survival in a harsh, unforgiving world when everyone worked together for the good of the society.

   Most everyone knows that drinking water is vital for survival, but how often does one think about how important irrigation of crops is to the survival of the population? Especially today, when a consumer can go to the local grocery store and select any kind of fresh produce imaginable – even items that normally would not be locally available – how many people would give a second thought to how and where the food was produced? Only recently have more people made the conscious decision to know how and where their food is produced, but even so, if you really, really want a peach and the only peaches available are shipped in from thousands of miles away, how many people would say no?  The first time a large group of people was able to live comfortably and securely in a city, and have access to produce grown by way of irrigation, the precedent was set, and the state of human existence changed forever. The debate is whether the change was for the good or the bad. I know what I believe, but who’s to say?

   Then again, I never have attempted to “live off the land” for any long period of time, so maybe I would enjoy it. Doubtful though – I have become used to modern conveniences and technology the way an arctic penguin is used to snow!