Daniel Turek

Mongol Aggression Debate

Andrews 21 Nov 2012

 

According to Ways of the World author Robert Strayer, Mongols left an “indelible” mark on “the agricultural civilizations with which they so often interacted.” (Strayer p334) That is certainly true- one could say that the indelible mark was more of a deep wound of terror, violence, slavery, and suffering for those who were “interacted” with by the Mongols. Strayer begins the chapter with a little background on the Mongols, and no one can deny that they had a keen sense of the usefulness of technology in combat. Also, mobility – captured technology led to new innovations, these “innovations included complex horse harnesses, saddles with iron stirrups, a small compound bow that could be fired from horseback, various forms of armor, and new kinds of swords.” (p337-338) By the time Mongols started mounted warfare from the backs of horses and camels, they had figured something out that would reverberate through history – speed and distance win in military combat. By being faster, taller, and more in control than their opponents, the Mongols had all the key advantages. In this way, they exploited their power for gain in the lands surrounding their starting point. This exploitation of power alone dooms the Mongols to a place in history right there with the Nazis and Stalin’s Communist Russia. Any powerful empire that chooses to beat down their neighbors must be considered savage by history.

   However these savages changed the course of history, one must admit that they made history, and so should be recognized as such. But in a debate about whether or not the Mongols got a “bad rap” by historians, I cannot imagine how even the early scribes of those times would have made so much about the Mongols if it was not true. Why would anyone want to make up a story about how their homeland was conquered, their women and children enslaved, and their way of life destroyed? No, the Mongols were most likely exactly as described. Mongols left what Strayer describes as a “surprisingly modest cultural imprint on the world it had briefly governed.” (p342) This is not surprising really when one considers the fact that the Mongols had a very simple and, actually, meaningless culture in their empire. In fact, the main goal of the Mongols was to ride over the next dune and conquer and/or kill whoever might be living there. That is not a culture – it is simply a self-serving, cold-blooded way for a people to live. It is actually the antithesis of the adage, “live and let live.” Strayer points out the summarizing point of the whole driving ideal of the Mongols: “Each fresh victory brought new resources for making war and new threats or insecurities that seems to require further expansion.” (p345) That is all they had – like so many termites or locusts, which have only the need to exploit every natural resource so that they may spread everywhere to consume absolutely everything, the Mongols were the same. No, it is not an understatement to say that their bad rap was deserved.

Nov. 13, 2012

   How fascinating to finally read about Islam and what it means to be Muslim. Although some of the concepts and facts Strayer discussed were known to me previously, I did learn so much more about aspects of the faith that had been mysterious to me. The connection to Christianity was especially surprising - I wonder how many people of those claiming to be Christian or Muslim know just how connected the two belief systems are. Something else that caught my attention was the notion that Islam from the start was a belief system intent on crushing rivals and proving other belief systems to be wrong. Well, wrong as far as whether or not they could in some way coincide with Islam. It is fairly tragic that in the modern day, when I read the word jihad I can't help but connect so many negative connotations. Then again, jihad exists right there alongside Inquisition and witch trials, etc. So many belief systems of humankind involve an outlet for intolerance and persecution of non-believers. Of course, an individual can have just as fervent a belief in which football team is best, or the classic Coke vs. Pepsi debate...
    Personally, I'm down with either Coke or Pepsi. I suppose that says a lot about my nature - I can accept variety. To some degree, it seems like Islam can accept some variety as well. In Strayer's account of Islamic history, he is sure to point out the fact that on several occasions, when Islam was introduced to a new area with a pre-existing belief system, the conversion was gradual and maybe even formed a symbiotic relationship with the local beliefs. That is very progressive for an organized religion. But what it not so progressive is the fact that under the Quran, women are yet again subjugated and deemed fit for corporal punishment if found guilty of any "crime," even if it is a crime for which a man would receive no punishment whatsoever. It says so much about the nature of women that there hasn't been a revolt of all females against men who seek to treat women as property or second-class citizens.Unfortunetly, it is male humans who always seek to solve their problems with violence and bloodshed. Maybe someday everyone will realize that this is not the answer.
    I have often scoffed at organized religion, but my mother has always said that it is the people who corrupt the religion - if a religion gets a bad name, it is not the spirituality that did the damage, but the human beings who did the damage in the name of the religion. When looking at the five pillars of Islam, one can see how this is the case. Any individual who is kind, generous, and humble is alright by me. If one subscribes to the five pillars, the resulting person will be a good person. I do not think I need to go into detail about historical events that gave Islam and the Arab world a bad name, so I won't. Suffice it to say, that for all people who subscribe to an organized religion, let me say this - if your faith leads you to a place where you are respectful and courteous and generous to your fellow humans, you have the right idea. If whatever you are reading inspires you to have hatred in your heart and wish suffering and pain on others, then all I can say is put that foul book down and never pick it up again. In fact, how about chucking that book into a recycling machine so it can get made into something far more useful: greeting cards...

Nov. 6, 2012

    Yeah! Obama was re-elected - the USA dodged a bullet with this close election...

   But anyway, in regards to the likelihood of sea-faring migration along the coast of North and South America, and the South Pacific, I believe it makes complete sense. As it is mentioned several times in the reading packet, it is just too bad that there is not more evidence to fully flesh out the theory. Of course no one should just blindly believe everything they read, but the way all these cultures are, including traditions, technology, appearance, etc., it just makes sense that there would be a common origin and migratory path. To think that people braved the open ocean without the modern technology we take for granted is amazing. Of course, even today, people travel across open ocean in very basic watercraft with minimal amounts of equipment. But think about it - no coast guard or navy to come to the rescue in an emergency!
   Perhaps it is because I grew up on the coast and really would never want to live away from the ocean, I see a certain nobility in the fact that the sea-faring travelers did not leave behind much in the way of physical evidence. They lived in relative harmony with their environment; they felt no need to erect enormous temples or destroy the landscape with mining or huge scale farming. It goes back to my preferred way of looking at the correct way for humans to interact with the natural environment: "Take only pictures, Leave only footprints." But unfortunetly, the early sea-farers could not take pictures, and did not provide future generations with written records. There were cave inscriptions and decorations, and pottery, but nothing can substitute a written account of how everything happened. It would be amazing to know exactly how the migrations happened and what was going on with the people who were a part of it.
   Maybe as time goes on, more marine archaelogy work will be done along the coastlines and some evidence will be found that will tie it all together. I can see why people would devote so much time and energy into the pursuit of this knowledge. I mean, do you realize that in this modern time, we know more about the surface of Mars than we do about how people migrated from Eurasia to the Americas? But, as we know, for so long there has been a lack of resources and energy devoted to anything not centered around Western Europe. But times are changing, and the human species will be richer as more connections with our past become clear.

Nov. 4, 2012

   It was incredibly fascinating to read about the origins of global trade. Today, we take such things completely for granted. From goods and products to breaking news, we here in the US can know exactly whats going on anywhere in the world. Reading about the Silk Road and sea-going trade in the Indian Ocean shows that although we do take these things for granted, the origins are far more complex than what is immediately apparent. Also, as previously discussed, it is foolish to consider China to be an "emerging" economic power. Anyone who possesses that view obviously does not know much about global history!
   Studying history is not as useful without relating it to the present. As a US citizen, I have fallen into the funk of looking at the news and seeing the country falling into economic hard times, while concurrently, China rises in economic, and therefore political, power. Well, at it turns out, all this stuff happened a thousand years ago! Everything moves in cycles, and everything "comes full circle." As soon as the "merchant trade" came into being, the truth became such things as "to the victor go the spoils" and "survival of the fittest" in the "cut-throat" business world. The moment power rested with those who controlled "trade," the door was opened for the shrewd and the resourceful to determine the fate of people and nations. Instead of power being measured by square miles of land, or the number of standing armies, real power came down to who controlled the money. And, in the case of the era of history we're looking at, the "money" could be silk, or spices, or knowledge. This is the world we live in today - wars are fought and peoples' lives are at stake, but so much of it comes down to corporate profit margins and the wealthy doing everything is their power to remain wealthy.
   But back to the world of the Silk Roads and the Byzantines, and Marco Polo, it would have been an exciting, and trecherous, time to be alive. The world was changing rapidly, and this was the first time in history where people saw substantial change within their own lifetimes. Instead of global change occuring on the scale of millenia, power and change could sway within a matter of years. Here was the beginning of a trend - fortunes could be made overnight, and lost just as swiftly. The picture of this time painted by Strayer evokes all the adventure and romance associated with this brave new era of long-distance trade, but reading about the suffering and chaos that went along with it does not spur envy. Reading about the effects of disease on malequipped native populations is especially disheartening. But somehow, humankind survived, and although there have been ups and downs, we as a global population know what it takes to live in peace and unity. The question is, will everyone someday be willing to set aside personal ambitions for wealth and power so that all may live in comfort and with opportunity?