Part 5: The European Moment in World History, 1750-1914

Colonial Empires with a Difference -

It never fails, I learn something new today... that something for me is "scientific racism". I would never have thought you would put those words together and come out with something as to what Strayer did - "One was the prominence of race in distinguishing rulers and ruled, as the high tide of "scientific racism" in Europe coincided with the acquisition of Asian and African colonies. What does that mean? Does that mean the European "scientifically" determined who was better than the other? Who could the European's dominate over? That is not a science...to me that is just greedy, fear of being bullied themselves and power hungry. Strayer goes on to say, "In East Africa, white men expected to be addressed as bwana (master in Swahili) where Europeans addressed African men as boy." Basically, any person native to the land the Europeans came up with the bright idea that they all came from tribes and they are primitive. I think I read it correctly, but I could have sworn the text said that the "European identified and, "sometimes invented", distinct tribes, each with its own territory, language, customs and chief." Of course I shortened the text but did I read it right where it said "sometime invented"? You have got to be kidding. Seriously?!? If this is the case, how true is what we have read about the Africans? What part was "sometimes invented"? The language? I cannot comprehend that this actually went on.

There was no way the Europeans were going to look at Asian an African people as equals. They look different so that means they are different and don't understand what is proper. They are primitive... oh my would not survive during this time. This particular section went on to bring in gender as another piece. Interesting comparison - European colonizers = active masculinity :: conquered races = soft, passive and feminine. Passive because they didn't fight back? or didn't have the means to fight back? The Europeans basically came in and bullied there way to dominance. Today, we look down on bullying and make every effort to educate people not to tolerate it. Just reading on and on about this piece in the text - we could pick a part everything that just seems off. Between putting people in a classification or determining how things should be done even they contradict themselves - I am surprised that the world has made it this far. Made it where people have changed their mindset and are not so fearful of the unknown and willing to have an open mind. But lets go back to the term "scientific racism". Putting people in a classification - was this thought up before we came up with the classification of animal/insect kingdom -

Below are examples of "scientific racism" I found on the internet. I am definitely out of the loop. I would have just called it racism. Nothing scientific about it. One is clearly judging by their look and background - there is no science behind that. I am probably missing what context it is being used but it hard for me to grasp because I work in the science field...o whell

Had to share this cartoon...

Part 4: Peak of the Early Modern World, 1450 - 1750

The power of trade...
In chapter 14th of the text it goes into types of trade that had a big influence and may have shaped the early modern world. Spice, silver, furs and slavs... yes I said slavs. Apparently that it was where slave derived from. It was said in the text that "Slavic-speaking peoples from the Black Sea region furnished the bulk of the slaves for Mediterranean plantations = Slav" which later became slave. I to learned something new or may be I already knew but this old brain can't retain much anymore.

Obviously out of the trades that I read through, the slave trade caught my attention. I do remember that slaves did originate from Africa and I knew Africans sold each other out to other countries and within their own communities. But I didn't really know or recall how it was all started. Reading there were somethings that just caught me by surprise. For instance, the Atlantic Slave Trade. Of course it would be the one the trade that had a huge negative impact on a global aspect and consequence to people. The "WOW" factor - between 1500  and 1866 the Atlantic Slave Trade to about 12.5 million people from African societies shipped across the Atlantic in the Middle Passage (p. 687).




I pulled this map and found it amazing that Africans not only went to Americas but also to Europe and West Indies. Why? What was so unique about Africans that even their own people thought it would be good idea to sell people? Who thought of the idea of marketing people for money? The text had mention that even the children of parents who were slaves would either grow up being a slave depending on where they are or they were free. For the children who continue on to be slaves because of their parents were would follow the belief of the caste system if you were Hindu. Just a far reaching thought...

The question, Why? was answered in the text and I have to say that I had mix feelings about what I read. Strayer pulled some examples of what other historians believed of why Africans were the suited as slaves and how discrimination evolved over time due to slavery. Let me share a few that .... well let me just share...it was said that other societies were running low and slaves and well Africa apparently had abundant of them... "Slavic people were no longer available; Native Americans quickly perished from European diseases; marginal Europeans were Christian so hands off; but Africans were skilled farmers, had some immunity to both tropical and European diseases, they were not Christians, close at hand and readily available in large numbers." Talk about be rewarded if you are healthy and strong. But the obvious.. their skin color. One historian said that the racial stereotype came from Muslims and Christians (p. 690). But I have to share my favorite view from a Tunisian scholar (Ibn Khaldun), 14th century - "black people were "submissive to slavery, because Negros have little that is essentially human and have attributes that are quire similar to those of dumb animals."" I give that the triple WOW factor! Seriously, I don't know where people come up with this stuff. I don't know what to say to that...

so I Googled "images of dumb animals"...

     

I pulled a few... the power of Google!

Part 3: Who is Temujin?

I have to admit majority of the history I can recall is either from movies or documentaries that I have watched in the past. So reading about Temujin was quite interesting. Do you know who Temujin is? Believe it or not that is Chinggis Khan's real name. Like I said, my history is based on movies and documentarites. I have the worse memory. Reading about the Mongols and Chinggis Khan in chapter 11 (Pastoral People on the Global Stage) caught my attention. Before I go into Temujin, there was something to be said about Pastoral Societies...

Women of Pastoral Societies...
First let me discuss a little about women of pastoral societies and what they offer to these types of communities. Pastoral societies (nomadic societies) generally offered woman a higher status (p. 515). The text went on to say that women were viewed as equal with men and were responsible for the food and children along with the opportunity to serve as political advisers. Throughout other countries that was unheard of. I wonder if this a reason outside communities would view this society as barbaric. Any tribe who would allow women to have power and be part of decision making are uncivilized. But yet the pastoral people I would say are group of people that understood the need to survive and pull their weight. It goes back to having that whole egalitarian view point. There was a statement stated in the text by a European visitor, Franciscan fiar Giovanni DiPlano Carpini view point of the women of Mongol - "Girls and women ride and gallop as skillfully as men. We even saw them carrying quivers and bows, and the women can ride horses for as long as men..." and he goes on to say how they are able to make a variety of things like shoes, and clothes, drive and repair carts. Because this society is very mobile, seasonal movement from land to land, it is crucial that these societies worked together. It takes a lot to move from one area to another especially with scares resources. I can go on about the how amazing this society is and how the managed to survive off the land with little. The texted had mention that they were not skilled agriculturist. I think the reason being is because they moved so much and with that they were driven to survive and would reach out to outside communities to get other items they needed to survive.

Ok. Who is Temujin?
As I mentioned before he is Chinggis Kahn. His story is fasinating. His father died from a  feuding tribe and he barely survived off the land with his mother. He did his own thing by developing a friendships and relationships outside of his kinship which helped him move up the ranks. It really caught my eye on how the text described the rise of Chinggis Kahn:

"Temujin's rise to power...it took place among shifting alliances and betrayals, a mounting string of military victories, the indecisiveness of his enemies, a reputation as leader generous to friends and ruthless to enemies, and the incorporation of warriors from defeated tribes into his own forces." 

What does it mean that his enemies were indecisive? They weren't sure if they wanted to go into battle with him? I would definitely want Chinggis Kahn as my friend. Anyway, it is interesting to read that the Mongol Empire really didn't have a game plan. "Each victory brought new resources for making war and new threats or insecurities that seemed to require more expansion" (p. 524). His universal mission - uniting the whole world in one empire. Wow!

Part 3: An Age of Accelerating Connections, 500-1500 - The "Silk Road"

The “Silk Road”. The initial flourishing of the Silk Road commerce was 200 B.C.E – 2oo C.E. The example of placing an order and 40 hours later it was shipped from China. What is more amazing? The fact that the order was shipped out within 40 hours across the world or the fact that we can go onto the internet and place an order?   I look at the Silk Road as an old school way of networking across communities and cultures. Silk became the golden product for consumers and merchants but it was not the only thing traded on the “Silk Road”. Even though we can’t really say it is a road, instead, we have to look at it as a network of trade routes. In my opinion, that still requires a road or a path with a destination in mind. From what I read and heard, it was so popular that there were attempts to ban silk but obviously that didn’t happened.

I see how this linked civilization between the Western & Eastern Eurasia by land and water. From the reading it along with some additional reading outside the text the overview I got was that there were 3 major outcomes that came from the Silk Road: 1) wider economic impact – as the market grew people chose to pursue going into business using silk; 2) Trading ideas – this goes back to the Greeks where they were full of ideas but the Romans were great at implementing them. Being exposed to so many different types of people’s and cultures of course there would be an exchange of knowledge. We humans are a very curious species and must make every effort to keep up with the latest. Goes back to the competition piece; 3) Diseases – this vast of worldwide connection brought diseases. Being exposed to the new and the unknown for one community was deadly. There was no hand sanitizer then. This still holds true for our countries. Customs will determine if goods are allowed to enter their country. One of the most deadly diseases that came about from the Silk Road was the plague that killed about half of the European population over a span of 4 years. Along with spreading other disease such as measles and small pox.

Going back to the network trading at the time. There was a table in the book that listed the sort of items that were traded during this period. The Forest lands of Siberia and grasslands of Central Asia were the only regions that seemed to be slightly aggressive. That region traded dead animals, livestock and slaves. No other region  traded people or animals. This could raise the question that these could have been a major contribution to the diseases. Especially if the other regions were not big meat eaters. It seems like the other regions were our gathers while Siberia and Central Asia were our hunters. It is a reach but again history is based on interpretation and assumptions. Below is the table from the text that outlined a snapshot of what was traded along the Silk Roads:

I do have to admit that trading and getting items today is definitely a lot quicker and easier now than it was 20 years ago. I remember that sending a letter overseas would take weeks. Now it can take a matter of days. Amazing!