The Age of Empire (Ch. 5-8): Patrick Garner 6/2/10

Chapter 5 discussed the working class. The working class really evolved into it's own political group,The Proletariat. The reason it evolved into its own massive group like this is because many people went to work in industry since the world was quickly becoming industrialized. So many people joined this work force that it evolved into its own political group. Because this group was so large, labor unions began to develop and this is where all the working regulations were developed sucha s minimum wage.
Chapter6 discusses how nationalism became popular after all the spread of democracy. Nationalism was a way for the country to unite as one, however, this is not always a good thing. Nationalism caused a lot of violence and wars between countries. Hence started to prepare for wars and put more time into evolving there militarys. This began world war I.
Chapter 7 discusses the bourgeoisie group. These people were pretty much middle class/upper middle class. They were the first people to start spending money on cars and things of that sort without having to worry about money. They spent a lot of money on leisure things and they valued education. The bourgeosisie were the class who began participating in sports and more leisure things. The bourgeoisie class was the class that began to give women a voice. This was the start of the feminist movement and women's rights began evolving.
Chapter 8 dealt more with the feminist movement. A lot of things began to change with women. They also started working along with their husbands. This made birth rate drops because of women focusing on careers and marrying later. Many changes like this took place and women began to move up even further in the world and they began to have a voice in society.

I found it interesting that the bourgeoisie were the first to really establish recreation sports. I assume that centuries before created and developed sports especially the greeks and the romans. The author sort of made it seem like this was the first time that recreation sports were organized. I would have to disagree and say that this started much earlier, centuries before hand. On the other hand, I guess the author is just trying to make the put that the bourgeoisie had more than enough time and money on their hands to organize leisure things that the working class couldn't. The interesting thing now is that sports have developed into being controlled by the wealthy but I feel that a lot of sports are dominated by atheletes who are not neccessarily from the middle class or higher. It is amazing how things change and now everybody has a chance to do anything they set their mind too.

As my discussion point, I want to discuss how women got the chance to finally get into society and have a voice. They got to take on professional jobs because of the middle class that was established. Although, men were already on the scene and had this chance, do you think that this also opened up opportunities for a larger amount of men? So basically, I am thinking that not only did this time period open up new limits for women but it also paved the way for men who might have not neccessarily had a chance to reach new limits without the bourgeoisie class.
Does anyone agree?

June 2nd: The Age of Empire (Ch. 5 – 8)

1. Summary:

Chapter 5, titled Workers of the World, discussed how the democratic political structure caused the creation and evolution of the working class political group (the Proletariat eventually becoming Social Democrats), increase organization and power over decisions for their state. Even though multiple levels/groups existed among this large working class – they were still able to unite. This newly found unity caused many new working-class movements and the creation of many new working- class political parties.

Chapter 6, titled Waving Flags: Nations and Nationalism, discusses how the nationalism ideology rose significantly after the start of the democratic society. Author Hobsbawm pointed out four events that caused this ideology to become extremely popular. The first was that the political right took over and spread the patriotism and nationalism ideologies. The second event was the spread of the notion of national self-determination taken from President Wilson after World War I ended. The third event was the assumption that national self-determination could not be anything other than the whole independent state. The last event that Hobsbawm states caused the rise in nationalism was the repeated definition of a nation focusing on the terms language and ethnicity.

Chapter 7, titled Who’s Who or the Uncertainties of the Bourgeoisie, discussed the fall of the upper class (the Bourgeoisie) after the spread of the democratic society. In some countries, the bourgeoisie were forced to leave the whole political scene all together because the majority of voters would just completely ignore them. Another reason why the bourgeoisie group fell was due to the money that had been passed down in these families was lavishly spent by the heirs. The other factor in this fall was due to the emancipation of women and increase in taste and style of people between the adolescence and marriage groups.

Chapter 8, titled The New Woman, focused on the emancipation movement of women. Although during this time period not as many women were involved (as there would in the future), the movement still had a huge affect on society. Birth rates dropped due to women marrying later (toward the end of their 20s) or having less children (because infant mortality). The cost along with the desire of having a higher standard of living also encouraged some families to reproduce less often with the increased use of birth control. The need for both the mother and father to work became more common. Because the pressure of being the bread-winner was put on the father, the mother could work for less pay –which could take jobs from other men; this created a high level of competiveness and for women to take worse jobs (where they could not earn as much) which caused them to rely on the male. After emancipation of women, some changes became extremely noticeable. One of the changes was the increase in freedom of movement for women in relations with men and in society in general. Another change was to the increase in public attention to women through individual aspirations and through the group’s special interests.

2. What was interesting/what did you learn:

I thought it was extremely interesting in how the higher standard of living “forced” families to have fewer children and have the women work. I know that in today’s world, it is quite common (at least in America) to have both parents work and for the adolescences to work too. Of course this depends on the family situation but I never really thought about why this was. I guess I always knew it was due to the high standard of living but I just never really thought about when this change occurred.

3. Discussion Point:

I want to raise the question that if the standard of living had not been raised, would women ever be given a chance to work and receive equal rights? Is it possible that this is what is holding other societies from granting women such freedoms?

Age of Empire 5-8

In chapters five through eight, Hobsbawm looks into several progressive aspects of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Firstly, with the furthering of industrialization, technology begins to diminish the amount of people needed to complete jobs. For example, farming - fewer people are working on farms due to the use of machines. Many people were laboring during this time, especially in the states. People begin taking office jobs, working in shows and performing other services instead of just manual labor. Secondly, nationalism grows throughout the world and movements ensue. The middle class or the bourgeoise emerges as a political and cultural force. Lastly in this section, Hobsbawm explores the notion of the "New Woman" where around the world, specifically in Europe and in the states, women begin working outside of the home and earning wages, claiming more independence, and using their voices as a means to acquire personal autonomy.
What captured my attention in this reading was the fact that the movements regarding women's rights perpetuated similiar activity in neighboring countries and also in countries of equivalent status in the world. The first to take the streets in protest were the women of Britain. After this, it seems everyone followed suit, coming to the realization the worldwide women were constantly in inferior positions to men and sought change in this regard.
What's more interesting is that in the United States it has taken a century for women to be in a position where they have almost all the rights that men do. What change needs to happen in the Middle East for women to have equality? Perhaps a change in power or a government that is not a theocracy would make a definitive change. It's interesting to consider what has already taken place and what needs to before there can be significant change where women are able to have even close to the rights that men do.
I hope you all find this as fascinating as I do. Have a swell weekend, folks!
A. Gorno

Age of Empire 5-8

In chapter 5 Hobsbawm begins to discuss how industrialization caused social changes in the industrialized countries. It was now easier than ever for people to find jobs since no skills were necessary for labor. People were simply put into factors and taught how to do a simple task to produce a finished good. These people were oppressed though because of how easily they could be replaced due to the lack of skill now involved. Because of this oppression labor unions and organizations began to form and demand more rights such as a minimum wage, 8 hour work day, and safer working conditions. These ideas took hold in some countries, like Russia, much more strongly than others and their government was eventually created around these ideas.

In chapter six Hobsbawm discusses the emergence of nationalism throughout Europe and the rest of the world. This lead to these countries becomig more militarized and would eventually errupt into the first world war. What I found interesting about this part is that in my Russian history class we learned that any time the majority of the population was unhappy, the Tsar would lead the country into a war to make people unite and stop being so angry. This brings the argument that these countries began to become more nationailistic in order to help calm the growing anger of the working class people who were being treated very poorly. This is also a good question is nationalism an effective way of causing peopel to forget their major troubles and unite? or is it just delaying the inevitable?

The next chapter talks about the bourgeousie and their new role in society. They began developing the leisure lifestyle and this allowed for things such as sports, fashion, and eventually consumer technology. These people were the first to be able to afford cars, enjoy movies, and live sort of how we live today. This also allowed for women to begin fighting for rights and becoming more independent in these societies. The last section talks about how women became more free and began to express themselves. This chapter is great for showing how women rose up and eventually gained the right to vote and become more independent and free.

This part of the book was interesting because it showed a lot of the background for major events in the early 20th century. Events such as the first world war, womens suffrage, and the social movements of the working class are much easier to invision after seeing the reasons for their cause. I also think the push for nationalism while trying to keep the working class in line is very interesting, after learning about it in Russia I did not realize that most of Europe and even the United States also took part in these methods of keeping people from starting an uprising. Do you think that wars such as Iraq were used in this way at all? Also how big of an impact do you think the bourgeosie of the early 20th century had in shaping the way we live today?

Roman - Age of Empire 5-8

Chapters 5 to 8 of Hobsbawm's book focus on the new social groups that were born out of the progression of society from 1875 to 1914. Chapter 5 discusses the importance of the working class. With the world rapidly industrializing more and more people flocked to cities to work in factories. These souls soon made up the massive, and initially unorganized, labor force. By their sheer numbers they became a political asset, and as Chapter 6 shows they became strong nationalists. With their old way of life obsolete, they turned to nationalism to fill the void. As seen in the Great War of the early 1900's, nationalism can have very violent consequences. Chapter 7 goes on to talk about another emerging social group of the time, the bourgeoisie. These were people in the comfortable middle class who valued education and leisure. Again, their growing numbers made them a political asset and unified the middle class. Finally, Hobsbawn speaks of the importance of women in this time period and how they were beginning to change. The very roots of the feminist movement started between 1875 and 1914 as women across the world to varying but noticeable degrees started to appreciate themselves more as equals. Half of the population of the earth was becoming much more self aware, and the results of this awareness were far reaching especially in the years following the Great War (American women getting the right to vote).

Interesting to me are the stories of nationalism and patriotism. The men of the time were actually eager to go to war because they put their nation before themselves, basically believing that their nation was what gave them worth as a human being. Nowadays, you don't see people this eager to fight for their country. Maybe its because war is starting to be hated more, or maybe its that we take for granted what our countries afford us. I think this is most notable in the United States but existent elsewhere, too. It's strange that our country offers us more opportunities and freedoms today than ever, and yet we are less eager to defend our country than we were at the turn of the 20th century. It's really a testament to how forceful patriotism was in the early 1900's.

As a discussion point, I'd like to mention the role of women. Why do you guys think women finally exploded onto the social and professional seen in this time period? What about the time period made it so ripe for feminist action? Let me know what you think was the most important factor allowing for the rise of feminist ideals.

-Roman

Age of Empire chapters 5-8

Eric Hobsbawm continues his narrative in chapter five by elaborating on the workers of the world. The amount of jobs available for peasants in the country was limited so many flooded into the cities. Industrial labor was available to anyone because it required no specific skills, so the number of workers at construction and coal-mining grew exponentially. By the end of the nineteenth century, countries recognized the laboring masses as a soon to be majority. Socialist parties were on the rise since 1880. Organization was key to the transference of socialist and anarchist ideas to the masses. They appealed to those previously neglected and discontented. One thing I was curious about was how were the working classes unifying? And why did Hobsbawm list organization as the powerful key?

Chapter six deals with the issue of rising nationalism in politics. The adverse effects of nationalism were seen in the twentieth century, for example extreme nationalism. People started viewing their nation as a political body. But there are always two sides, those who belong to the state and those who do not belong and therefore are outsiders. Among the colonies of dominate countries, certain natives were schooled however they never achieved the same level of equality. How were Germany, France and England able to mobilize their population? What tactics were used?

The bourgeoisie were able to dress, eat and live very confidently and without financial problems. However their type of lifestyle did not become popular until early twentieth century, in a period referred to as the belle epoque. Chapter seven, refers to the bourgeoisie house as a suburban house, villa, country home, or cottage with a garden or greenery. The middle class wished to establish criteria for their class, to figure who was who. First, middle class and working class had to be clearly distinguishable. Second, the middle class participated in leisure activities like sports. Thirdly, members had to have formal education. What sports were played? Why did they become fashionable?

The new woman arises from the middle and upper class during the late 19th century. At that time, the west was seeing a drop in birth rates. The result of either a form of birth control, or later marriage in women. Middle class families could not afford having huge families if they wanted to uphold their standard of living. I thought the quote, "In the nineteenth century nobody, other than the indigent old, was poorer than a couple with a low income and a household of small children" was quite interesting. How has the attitudes of family changed? Is it more desirous to have a high standard of living or a family?

Kayla O

The Age of Empire (5-8)

In chapter five, "Workers of the World," Hobsbawm examines how the formation of a democratic political structure induced the inevitable dissent of a growing class possessed with a class consciousness that would readily dismantle the status quo of modern society. Known as the proletariats, this disconnected and non homogenous working class managed to unify and form movements and parties that articulated their powerful political (and societal) significance. In chapter six, "Waving Flags: Nations and Nationalism," Hobsbawm discusses another by product of the politics of democratization, which was the ascent of nationalism in politics. From the late 19th century to the early 20th century, the ideological and political concept of nationalism dramatically evolved and ultimately erupted via World War I. Chapter seven, "Who's Who or the Uncertainties of the Bourgeoisie," focuses on the bourgeoisie, the belle epoque lifestyle, its vulnerability during the expansion of democracy and the emergence of the emancipated woman. Finally, in chapter eight, "The New Woman," Hobsbawm examines in more depth the modifications in the circumstances of middle to upper class women during the late 19th and early 20th century; from later-in-life marriages and fewer children, to more freedom of movement and greater job opportunities and thus greater economic autonomy, women in the upper strata of 'developed' countries finally experienced unchartered levels of independence that illustrated the progression of the modern democratic system.

What I found most interesting was Hobsbawm's assertion that fashion during the early 20th century articulated the composition of the 'New Woman' by asserting her sexuality and subverting her societal gender characteristics. The coupling reiterated the newfound freedom of movement and Hobsbawm wonders what else this movement indicates. I think the fashion boldly indicated that the 'New Woman' insists on sculpting her role in the patriarchal system. She is not a doll but a thinking and sexual person.

I wish that Hobsbawm examined what the 'New Woman' thought about the working class woman. The modifications and dynamics emerge due to the advancement of the bourgeoisie. But of course traditional concepts of gender roles/ societal values still existed. It seems like certain socioeconomic classes can eschew certain ideas but still uphold them when it involves people outside of their class.

-Lolia

Extra Credit- Future of Democracy

In class we began discussing what we think the future of democracy would be. I believe that as technology gets more and more advanced it will become easier to vote. Once elections can be completely safe to have online I think voting will surge. If more people are able to and plan on voting then the polices of politicians will hopefully take center stage and cause people to make informed decisions. Also, with the internet, it is now easier than ever to look up the facts and policies of politicians making it easier for people to figure out who they relate most to. Also we talked about direct democracy, where people directly vote on policies and laws. I think that this form of democracy could possibly make a comeback with the new technologies available today. I also think that having a weighted system would be the most efficient way of doing this. It would allow the public to entirely make a decision if everyone voted, thereby making this form of government a true democracy. Also it would allow for an elected official to vote on matters that people don't have much interest in or know much about.

If this system were ever to be put into place I think it would be a more pure form of democracy and people would be happier with it. The only few problems I could see with this system is that minorities could have a hard time getting a law to pass. If a certain law only affected one group of people and not too many other people cared, the elected official would be able to completely overturn the decisions and those people would be out of luck. On the plus side though this would be the best way to ensure that everyone has an equal vote and that their voice is heard.

The Age of Empire (chapter 1 -4)

Hobsbawm describes the beginnings of the great empires. We see how industrial production and population increase rather suddenly during this time period. The increase in technology widens the gap between the western culture and the rest of the world. Legal slavery was abolished in most all of the world. The lives of some of the common people did improve. The capitalist economies start to take off although they are hampered by downturns in the business cycle. The prices for agricultural goods really declined causing some unrest in the rural areas. England was the centrally located shipping point for most of the goods shipped around the world. Most of the countries were very protectionist and instituted some rather high trade tariffs with the exception of Britian which believed in free trade. Mass production gets underway leading to greater efficiencies in industry. All of the countries economies become very broad based. The demand for novel goods increases. A number of rulers were officially calling themselves emperors. The United Sates introduces the Monroe Doctrine which states that no European power could interfere politically or colonize any western territories. The Marxist way of thinking begins as an answer to the imperialist agenda. White western people see the darker skinned people of the world as inferior. Salesman see a lot of the worlds people as new customers. We then see how some of the various political parties come to be.

Some interesting points: The fact that Russia was considered a back water of Europe. I had believed that Stalin’s purges killed off the Russian intellectuals but it sounds as though it was mostly made up of the peasant class. Gandhi was educated in England and he wrote a very well written book to advise Indian students how to get along in English society.

From chapter 1: “In France no sensible politician campaigning for vote and no significant party describe themselves as being conservative; in the United States ‘progress’ was a national ideology; even in imperial Germany – the third great country with universal male suffrage in the 1870s – parties calling themselves ‘conservative’ won less than a quarter of the votes in general elections in that decade.” Just wondering if the progressive and conservative labels had the same meanings then as they do today?

The Age of Empire - Chp. 1-4

This first third of The Age of Empire discusses the differences of the late 19th century in comparison to the previous century and covers the industrial progression of each the regions and countries. It seems that within the century, many of the societies grew in their technological capabilities, thus seperating the first, second and third world nations. Whoever developed the best technology took the lead in the world society. This consistently seemed to be Europe who led with the "serious" development of cars, cinematography, and wireless. Also discussed in this reading was the economy of the late 19th century.

What struck me was the the notion of second world countries not being united by the many issues they had in common with their fellow second world countries. Also, that they only held this title because of their dependency on the first world. Additionally, Americans are often openly criticised for our reliance on a capitalist economy when Europe was the "original core of capitalist development." Although this is rather intuitive, it is still ironic that we take the brunt of shit for chosing the way we run our economics.

Hobsbawm states in the first chapter that never has there been more of a European century and there never will be again. In the wake of the steady decline of the US' current financial situation, who will take its place of dominance in the global society? There is much talk of China resuming this position, but would it be out of question to consider Europe a running candidate?
A. Gorno

Age of Empire 1-4

The first four chapters of the book served as a gateway to the rest of the book, which is focused on the years from 1875 to 1914. The first two chapters focus on the effect of the two great revolutions, french and American, and the developments taking place in the more advanced nations. In the second chapter, the author discusses the economic changes and the importance of these changes for the world, including the depression in 1870s and the decline of the British monopolistic trade. The third chapter focuses on the imperialistic control of the world by the core countries, the biggest economies. In the fourth chapter, Hobsbawm goes into the beginnings of the global democratization and the complications with it as a newly introduced system.
It is interesting to see through these four chapters how the new shape of imperialism, technological advancements, economical changes, and democratization seemed to be bringing the world together, closer than ever before, yet, as we can see from further history, it has clearly divided the world into core and the periphery for years to come. The question for me, then, is whether there will ever be a world, united under the same values, beliefs, and perhaps more importantly, economic opportunities.

Age of Empire 1-4

In his book "The Age of Empire" Hobsbawn discusses the development of a world economy during the late 1800's and early 1900's. The book begins by discussing the difference between the "poor" and "rich" countries in during this era. The rich countries were becoming industrialized, developing a proletariat and bourgeoisie, and trading with other rich countries around the world. While the poor countries were still stuck in medieval ways, having a king or tsar and having most of the population farming as serfs. He also explains how the technological developments of the west spread throughout different parts of the world and how the western countries became models for other developing countries. Next Hobsbawn explains how a capitalistic economy undergoes cycles of boom and bust and how countries dealt with these cycles in a global economy. He also explains some of the investments made in other countries by these core powers. The difference technology made in these global transactions is also described here. The telephone, telegraph, etc. made it much easier for countries to trade and become more connected. The next section explains how these core countries interacted with the poorer nations unable to keep up. Most of these core countries took to imperialism and developed interests in other countries. This lead to countries like England, France, and America to expand and form empires all over the world. The last chapter of the reading explains how democracy developed throughout some of these imperialized countries. It also begins to describe some of the ways in which workers dealt with this industrializing economy by attempting to form unions and gain more rights.

This reading was fairly interesting to see how these countries began to develop and dominate the world economy. It also shows how some of these countries became industrialized and some of the technological changes which allowed for the world economy to develop and grow. Last semester I took a class in Russian History and it is very neat to see how Russia went from being a "poor" country to a world power in a matter of 50-60 years. It is also neat to see how ideas like communism could spread so rapidly and cause a nation to become a global power. Some interesting questions that occur to me are How would some of these poor countries, who were imperialized, have been shaped differently? How did democracy gain the upper hand and allow for vast economic expansion? and How greatly did the inventions of the telegraph and telephone affect the ability to trade globally?

Rachel Jourdan-Aufiery-The Age of Empire 1-4

The beginning of the reading starts off describing the differences of the world between the 1780s and the 1880s. The first major point made was that the world was much more global in the 1880s and much of the world had already been mapped. Some other advances were in transportation of goods. With advances in railways and steamships, transcontinental and intercontinental trade was much faster and more efficient. Parts of the world that were not as advanced in transportation of goods were places like areas of Africa, Asia, and South America. Furthermore, although communication was expanding and forms of technology were increasing, there were a few negatives. The 1780s experienced more struggles with economies and politics than ever recorded. The per capita gross national product of areas in the 1780s and 1880s is comparable to places labeled as "third world" today. Also, in 1880, there were about two global systems: the dominant and the dependent, or the rich and the poor. The first world or dominant nations were known for their capitalistic development. On the other hand, the larger, dependent, second world nations were united by their dependence on dominant nations. Although it was obvious there were major differences between the two world, the boundaries separating them were not clear. So, in the 1880s, Europe was dominant in capitalist development and were well known for their bourgeois society.
Furthermore, industrialization taking place in the United States was clearly lighting the fire for America to become a global super-power. Not only were the differences between the two worlds separated by econmics, but also politics.In 1875, there were about seventeen nations considered sovereign, including the six "powers." . They were Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Also, the time period 1875-1914 is called the Age of Empire for several reasons. For instance, there was a new inperialism on the front and the number of rulers of that called themselves emperors was at its peak. For example, rulers of Austria, Germany, Russia, Turkey, and Britain were all called emperors. There was also a new type of empire, called the colonial empire. Around 1880-1914 much of the world was divided into territories under the rule of the politically dominant nations: France, Great Britain, the U.S., Germany, Italy, and a few others.
What I found interesting was that the book highlights the point that about one tourists ventured to Switzerland and around 200,000 of those tourists were from America. Another interesting fact I came across while reading dealt with population. For example, the population of the world in 1880 was almost double the population in the 1780s. What I found rather amusing was that at one point many northern Italians viewed the southern Italians as barbarians partly becuase of their cultural differences. How much did cultural differences play a role between different countries?

THe Age of Empire Chapters 1-4_Patrick Garner

The age of Empire discusses the world during the years 1875-1914. Chapter 1 goes through the"Centerian Revolution. The author seperates the world into industrialized regions vs. thir world regions. The industrialized countries were the countries that took off with the advances in technology and economony, leaving the third world countries behind.Chapter 2 takes an in depth look at the economic changes that took place in the advanced parts of the world. The author describes how the economy shaped things at that time. The global scale of things was primarily based on wealth. Also, the rise and fall of ecomnomic cycles dramatically affected things as well.
Hobsbawm also discusses the rise of Britain but most importantly the fall of Britain when the exported goods to roughly 10 countries dominating the market. Chapter 3's main perspective deals with the newly developed World Economy. Basically, USA, Belgium, Netherlands,Italy,Germany,Great Britain, France, and Japan controlled all parts of the world outside of the Americas and Europe. The control of outher countries was mainly obtained from using an imperilistic approach. Chapter four then discusses global democracy and how it started. Many countries were new to the idea of democracy and were not quite convinced that this was the best way of handling global matters.

What interests me the most is the huge gap that technology made between the developed countries and the third world countries. It doesnt surprise me ho big the gap was from technology but it surprises me how fast the gap increased with technology. It was almost unfair how the developed countries jsut easily took over the undevloped countries. There was little the could do to stop the developed countries form taking over do to the technology. Most surprising though is that most of these third world countries are still third world countries today. What is taking them so long to catch up? You would think that they would have gotten the help to catch up. Should we be doing more to help this countries?

Global democracy is a good thing. It was tough getting countries on board with the idea back in 1875-1914. We still have that problem today,for example in the middle east. Will we ever have everyone on board with global democracy? If so, how can we convince them to join the rest of the world. It seems to me that the world is to vast to get everyone to agree and that it will never happen. This has been a topic the class explored before but I still find it a good topic especially since we have a little more knowledge with the idea now.

May 24th - The Age of Empire (Ch 1 - 4)

1. Summary:

The Age of Empire specifically focuses on the world between the years of 1875 and 1914. Chapter 1 discusses how the world economy was shaken (or due to change) after many advances in technology. Author Eric Hobsbawm also discussed how large the gap between the ‘advanced’ countries and people (wealthy) compared to the ‘backwards’ countries and people (poor). Chapter 2 discusses how the economy changed over this period of time. The depression in the 1870s caused many people to migrate by way of boat in the 1880s. Farmers suffered tremendously during the down cycle of the economy. During this period, the economic cycles we briefly touched upon in class can be easily seen by the price fall from 1873 to 1886 and then from the increase in prices from 1886 to the 1914 and beyond that. The other big change in trade that dramatically changed the world economy was the fall of the British monopoly over exporting goods to around 10 countries controlling around 80% of the market. Chapter 3 focuses on the main countries of the newly formed or altered world economy, including USA, Japan, England, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Hobsbawm discusses how during this period, around 6 or so countries controlled a quarter of the total land available in world – especially in the Pacific region and Africa mainly through imperialistic and aggressive manners. This clear division of the land across the globe definitely contributed to the economy becoming more global. Chapter 4 focused more on the introduction of the concept of global democracy and how many countries were cautious about the possible outcomes of it – even though Hobsbawm points out that it was quite inevitable.

2. What was interesting/what did you learn:

One of the things that I found most interesting was how during this time period, to be denoted as the ‘conservative’ political party in specific regions in the world would almost be the equivalent of committing campaign suicide. This was due to the wide reception of the many advances in technology. It seemed like everyone was all about change and really wanted to participate in it. I understand why they wanted to – but this is not why I found it most interesting. I think it is funny how people were so taken with it then compared to some of the people I have worked with – who are so against newer technology (such as computers or computer programs). In some respects with the crazy advancements we have made in technology in the past 40 years, people seem to want to keep with their same tools (which by my generation could be seen as moving backwards). For instance, my work has introduced a new computer system that is supposed to increase productivity and make it easier for individuals to do their jobs in the same system to allow everyone to access the information and reducing the time spent searching for it in different locations. However, people are constantly reverting back to their old methods (pen and paper for example and then scanning in pages to be stored on the computer) – which has not reduced the amount of time spent searching for information. I understand that part of it may be that the system was not set up or explained completely but part of it is resistance – at least in my experience.

3. Discussion Point:

Because of what caught my attention in the first chapter and how I find it a little backwards from what I have experienced at work, I must wonder if when new technologies came out from 1875 to 1914, why was there a more welcoming appeal to technology. Or maybe I should rephrase that, maybe what I am really wondering is that on a group level technology was greatly welcomed, but was it welcomed to that same degree on an individual level? Also, were there changes in responses to it depending on an age level – did people from say my dad’s generation find the newly introduced technology at that time as easy and useful as it was intended – or like some of the people I have worked with, did they just revert back to their old methods?

Age of Empires Ch1-4

In Eric Hobsbawm's book, "The Age of Empire", chapter 1 describes the changes taking place in 'developed' areas of the world between the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These changes include a large increase in urban population, decrease in agriculture. Advancements in both economy and technology brought improvements to transportation and production. Mass education seriously cut down on illiteracy in these nations and their new outlook on society was confirmed by the sweeping changes in politics toward liberty and democracy. The second chapter detailed specific transformations through the economies of the developed world. Worldwide deflation brought about reforms to capitalism, ushering in attempts to widen profit margins through protectionism, trusts, and scientific management. Protectionism in turn encouraged a new age of state rivalry with the increase of government role in trade and the enforcement of tariffs. A technological revolution occurred at the end of the 19th century, allowing increased quality and quantities of consumer goods to be created through mass production. Next, Hobsbawm covers empire building and imperialism by the developed countries through conquest and colonization in the third chapter. The division of the globe and colonization of third world countries by the advanced nations was rooted in economic s and was viewed as a status symbol. These global powers then become dependent on their territories for raw materials. Chapter 4 shifts its attention do democracy and politics. Many barriers were put up to slow process of democratization by rulers, but they eventually proved futile one way or another. The turn toward democracy gave birth to mass movements, working class political parties, and unions.

It is interesting that production continued to rise throughout the end of the 19th century, while prices continued to fall. Production capacity at the time vastly outgrew consumer demand. This great increase in supply and relatively miniscule increase in demand was one primary cause for the deflation. But what do you think motivated industry at the time to keep increasing production when there were not enough consumers for their products?

-Derek Leidemann

Age of Empires Part 1

Hobsbawm starts out by giving us a quick overview that encompass what he calls the "Age of Empires" from 1875 to 1914. It's of course no coincidence that the end year coincides with the beginning of WWI as both are linked forever in history. He first goes over the "Centerian Revolution". Hobsbawn describes the world as being separated into two different regions, those that industrialized and those that didn't, the "third" world. In the next chapter he describes how and why the economy make such a radical change. He also explains why Britain originally had such a stronghold on trade and was able to rise to such great powers in the beginning of this period. Hobsbawm then goes on to describe how the "third" world changed during the period. He explains that many of these places were brought into different empires of the time and that many would specialize in particular thing, usually in the export of natural goods. He also describes what empiricism did to the imperialized countries. In chapter 4 the book discussed democracy and how it comes about. He states that almost inevitably the masses will rise up and demand some sort of representation and some sort of vote in matters. Hobsbawm also describes the problems that arise when trying to maintain a political system in a government. He cites the difficulty in incorporating labor movements into politics as one of these problems.

What I found most interesting about this reading is how he describes the general sentiments in Europe and America at this time. There is a general sentiment that these industrial and empirical powers were more advanced than those they were conquering. It was almost seen as doing these "third" world countries a favor. I also found it interesting that many believed that in order for these areas to industrialize and join modern society, that they would need an infusion of white blood. It amazes me that a little over a century ago that these beliefs existed. I also was interested in how the relationships work between the countries that are involved in this empiricism. The fact that the European and American powers would just go into a country and designate what that country would be good for. They would simply do whatever would make them the most country. I think this shows how sometimes, capitalism can go to far when left totally unchecked.

Chris N

Roman Extra Credit - Pittsburgh Rebounds

In class we were talking about the possibilities of industries thriving in certain countries in the period of 1250 to 1350 AD, and then abruptly leaving. We brought up Pittsburgh and its steel industry as an example of such a shift. We posed the questions... To what degree did Pittsburgh rebound? and Does Pittsburgh have some important qualities that helped it to rebound?

For me, I think the region rebounded amazingly. The urban population has declined since the exodus of steel, but the suburban sprawl has continued to increase. I think the main reason Pittsburgh survived without steel is because of the 12 universities in the area. With steel leaving, the air became cleaner and Pittsburgh became a better place to go to school. The 12 schools in the area have all grown tremendously since steel left. Education and technology essentially filled the gap. Pittsburgh, compared to other cities, is also extremely affordable. Real estate is not nearly as expensive as it can be in other large cities around the country.

In addition to this, Pittsburghers care about Pittsburgh. This may sound cheesy, and although it's not quantifiable, I think it's important. Pittsburghers took pride in steel and hard work and when it left those that still remained did not want to see it sink into ruin. Organizations like the Pittsburgh Park Conservacy arose to foster a better living environment. For two years running Pittsburgh has been voted the most livable city in America by US News and World Report. The people of the region, through their dedication to simple lifestyle improvement, have made Pittsburgh what it is.

Roman - Age of Empire 1-4

The first 4 chapters of Hobsbawm's book "The Age of Empire" set the stage for the years between 1875 and 1914. The first chapter on "The Centarian Revolution" highlights how far the world came following the American and French Revolutions of the 1700's. Chapter 2 discusses how the importance of the economy shaped the era. Both industrial and agrarian production skyrocketed creating a world based on wealth and the rise and fall of economic cycles. Chapter 3 focuses on the core countries of the time trying to gain footholds on the global stage. They did this through aggressive imperialism. The motivations behind imperialism are identified and discussed and include religious, economical, and political reasons, all of which carry serious weight. Chapter 4 goes on to talk about democracy and its difficulties. Remember, global democracy was very young at this point and many countries were skeptical of its effectiveness. Capitalism, also young at the time, is also described and in doing so Hobsbawn sets the stage to later talk about the rise of socialism and communism.

What interests me most actually comes very early in the reading on page 26. Here is the quote I am referring to. "It seemed hardly credible... that a bare two centuries ago there could be a serious debate about whether the moderns could ever surpass the achievements of the ancients, and that at the end of the 18th century experts could have doubted whether the population of Britain was increasing." It seems that people at the time were oblivious of the technology that was to come. They based everything on old rates of technological change, and the abrupt escalation of technology and population really hit them unexpectedly.

This ignorance of impending technological advances seems to be seen at all times in history, even today. How many people could have foreseen the effect of the internet of the world just 15 years ago? I think we'll be more and more stunned at what technology affords us. It's not ridiculous to say that by 2020 the world will not resemble today in the slightest. Technology moves so swiftly, I don't think we ever account for its speed properly.

Age of Empire Ch 1-4

The Age of Empire by Eric Hobsbawn


Chapter one details the splitting of the world into in two, first world and second world. The first world is characterized by: industrialized countries, commercialized farming, rapidly urbanizing, males "increasingly conformed to a minimum criterion of bourgeois society; that of legally free and equal individuals", legal serfdom nonexistent, legal slavery very near abolition (still in Brazil and Cuba died out by 1880's), and legal freedom and equality (different from real inequality). The second world is characterized by: agricultural countries, vastly un-businesslike farming, no mass education and low literacy in population.
Economics and business are the focal points of chapter two. When the price of agricultural products decreased, the two "non- governmental responses from the population were mass emigration and co-operation". Those were owned no land and were poor choose to emigrate and those who owned land choose to cooperate. The capitalistic world economy found it's building blocks in the national economies of the US, Germany and Britain. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations illustrates that restrictions are futile for they interfere with freedom. Another idea is the wealth of a nations citizen's determines the strength of a nation.
Chapter three deals with the age of empire. Also the age of emperors, by 1918 five had disappeared and by 1987 only one remained, Japan. It is now the era of the colonial. All the world outside of Europe and Americas were under the formal or informal control of mainly "Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, USA, Belgium and Japan". Only Ethiopia fought off the colonization of Italy. How did Ethiopia fend off the Italian invaders? Why is exoticism a byproduct of European expansion?
Chapter four elaborates on the rise of democracy. The people are clamoring to be heard whether their "emperors" like it or not. Politicians had to appeal to the mass since yellow press became popular. I found it very interesting when Hobsbawn states, "when the men who governed really wanted to say what they meant, they had henceforth to do so in the obscurity of the corridors of power". To what extent did this lead the rise of duplicity and honesty?



Kayla O

The Age of Empire

Hobsbawn's, "The Age of Empire," assesses the components that illustrated the civilization and society molded by the bourgeoisie was, in the grand scheme, a rudimentary phase in the initial advancements of the modern industrial world. In the first chapter, Hobsbawn illustrates the extent of the world's advancement in the 1880s when compared to the 1780s. The second chapter examines the vast and rapid economic expansion of the 1870s through the early 1900s. In the third chapter, Hobsbawn examines the manner in which 'core' capitalistic countries participated in the 'world of empire' via colonialism. The fourth chapter delves into the proliferation of democracy and the inevitable rise of dissent by the masses.

After reading Before European Hegemony, I find the justifications the Western civilizations had for imperialism to be quite interesting (yet expected). The same countries that set the tone in the economical world system are now viewed as primitive. Another aspect that somewhat correlates is Hobsbawn's word choice in describing the "developing" countries throughout the book thus far: "backward." I think that there is a more respectful and apt word to describe countries that are not as technologically and economically advanced as other countries. It just seems as if historians subtly reaffirm the antiquated and dangerous notions of 18th and 19th century western societies by describing nations as "backward."
-Lolia

Before European Hegemony Part II:

The best way to trade was through Bagdad unless there were troubles of some sort. The Christians still traded with the Moslems even though they were not supposed to. When Bagdad fell to the Mongols trade then shifted to Egypt. Cairo then became the leading trader due to a peculiar system of trade in slaves because only non-Muslims could serve in the military so they needed slave for this reason. This kept Venice in business while Genoa suffered. Egypt becomes one of the first examples of a “military industrial complex” because of collaboration between merchants and government. Italian merchants are increasing buying up the raw materials from Egypt which then causes a decline in Egypt’s industrial output. There are 3 trade zones in use in Asia because of the monsoon zones. It was believed that the Indian textile industries were inferior to Middle Eastern and European technologies but it turns out that this wasn’t true. India generally absorbed trade surpluses so she was a relatively passive player in trade. The Chinese were very sophisticated in the production paper, iron and steel, they were the first to develop nationally controlled paper money.

It was interesting how gold was kept in sealed purses so it did not have to be reassayed. Also, the fact that for a time China had very formidable navy.

Why did Islam spread so quickly through the Middle East but not so much in other areas? True there were some conversions in China and India but was there sort of a religious vacuum that Islam had filled. The peculiar exit of the Chinese Navy leaving the area ripe for the Portuguese to take over?

Whoops I thought I had until midnight, I should read the syllabus more closely!

Lou Coban

EXTRA CREDIT

Did Venice rise? Or did Genoa fell?
While Venice and Genoa experienced success during the thirteenth and early fourteenth century, Venice did indeed rise as Genoa fell in the late fourteenth century. Or rather Venice appeared to rise when in actuality it simply managed to continue to thrive while Genoa simply got the short end of the stick and could not continue to thrive. Genoa's inability to recover from the Black Death and the late fourteenth and then early fifteenth century naval defeats at the hand of Venice contributed to Genoa's fall. Genoa also lost commercial dominance and relevance due to other European competitors infringement upon Genoa's hegemony on the North Sea and unstoppable Central Asian fragmentation and fission disrupted transit trade. On the other hand Venice, which experienced the Black Death and the Great Depression, possessed a southern sea route that fortunately enabled Venice to monopolize the eastern trade- in narrower terms. Overall it was the sea routes that seemed to shape the fates of Venice and Genoa.

What does Hobsbawm mean by exoticism?
According to Hobsbawm, exoticism is a by-product of European expansion since the sixteenth century. Non-Europeans were treated as the moral barometer of European civilizations; they were considered beneath Europeans. Due to increased accessibility and global communication, the exotic became a component of western education on a daily basis in the form of novels geared towards young males (ie, Rohmer and May). Exoticism became an ideology, a reinforcement and justification for imperialism, since it reinforced European superiority. (Exoticism did provide intellectuals the ability to contemplate the differences between the western and the exotic, creating scholarships and theoretical reflections that contributed to the transformations of western social sciences.) Exoticism also permeated the art world and took an equal position in this sphere.

Is American pop culture similar to political propaganda?
American pop culture is similar to political propaganda, especially if one applies the critical approach to pop culture. Propaganda is a type of communication that has the intention to influence the attitudes of a community. Political propaganda certainly uses particular wording and imagery to strongly suggests a point of view to communities in order to solidify power. In terms of pop culture, one can definitely argue (and agree with Ardono and Horkeimer) that this phenomena can be compared to political propaganda: the addictive and influential films and music shaped by culture-producing firms solidify their power and social dominance. Culture is a form of social dominance and capitalism fuels the tools to manipulate culture. Pop culture can be used to highlight certain viewpoints/agendas that communities focus on rather than the reality, which parallels to political propaganda and its ability to influence communities to focus on certain issues that might be irrelevant, nonsensical, and detrimental to the community as a whole.

Why was religion suffering a crisis in the Western culture? How about today?
Religion suffered a crisis in Western culture because of the advancements of science and technology. Prior to the leap of scientific advancements, Western society applied 'intuition', 'common sense', 'essences', 'purpose of nature' etc. to explain the nuances of life. These supernatural or miraculous applications are buttressed in religion. The burgeoning of science divorced such applications and mathematics in particular helped articulate a new way to define the universe. Science simply created a intellectual autonomy that diminished the reliance upon religion which correlates to the rise of materialism during the late 19th and early 20th century. Today, religion is certainly suffering a crisis in Western culture. Today's Western culture (Granted, Western culture is diverse and there are still communities that rely heavily upon religion)- because of the defined secular and religious boundaries set due to the late 19th century- uses morality as the barometer for religious significance in one's life. An example is the Catholic Church and their distasteful cover ups of pedophilia. This causes people who associate themselves as Catholic question being apart of a religion that could participate such evil.

-Lolia

Before European Hegemony Part II

Where the first half of the book detailed the rise of economy pre-1300, the second half almost exclusively discusses the decline of each of the pivotal areas. The author repeatedly reminds her reader that if "strategic location" was the only factor, all the regions would have unlimited success but that, as is evident from the decline of the various areas, there are a number of other factors at work.
Baghdad utilizes the gulf as a strategic location as it allows access to the different civilizations of the time. However, it loses its value as an economic hub by breaking up ties with Persia, making trade more difficult. Also, the costs of protecting the area and controlling it proved more arduous than was do-able at times. Egypt had a great location as well, and with Venice, was a powerful player in the trade system. They both, Egypt and Venice, lose their high position by the discovery of the "circumnavigation" of Africa. India takes the lead after Egypt is depopulated and devastated by the Black Plague. India then loses its place by constantly absorbing trade surpluses. It produced many valuable items but often did not profit from it for this reason. Also, India's neighbors, the Muslims on the west and Chinese on the East, kind of take over India's control of the routes. Later, Portugal takes over China's half. China essentially completes the "world system," making all areas of the world accessible through its routes.
I found the last part about the future of world systems intriguing. The prediction, as Abu-Lughod tells us, is the hegemony of Europe. However, she seems to give a notion that things can change and this is not an all together easy prediction to make given the weight of many different factors. Although the US has dominated recently, this (currently) seems as though it will not always be the trend. Her last statement is that there is much to be learned from the world systems of previous days, namely the thirteenth century. In the arrogance of dominating areas or countries, it seems that rather than considering what can be learned, the approach for success will simply to be to pursue what is most lucrative.
What will the future of world systems be? I also wonder if during this time there was an appreciation for the trades that were being made in light of there being new access to things that were previously not given a thought (like produce, spices, silk - items we hardly consider luxuries now) and also in awareness of the difficulty in accessing these goods. We hardly give this any consideration now when our produce comes from great distances and the majority of the products we use are not made on our continent, let alone our country. So I guess my question is somewhat tangential from the readings. Did people realize or greatly appreciate the products that were imported from afar? And also: Will Europe dominate in the end?
A.Gorno

Before European Hegemony Pt. 2

In the second half of the book, Abu-Lughod discusses in detail the role of the Persian Gulf, Egypt, India, Malacca, and China. The three factors in determining how appealing the Persian Gulf's 'middle way' was as a trading route include the safety of the route, the local production of nearby cities and markets, and the economic states of China and the Middle East (and later Europe). However, Europeans turned toward the southern route through the Red Sea once the Christian presence in the Gulf declined. Over the years, Egypt had been militarized by the threat of the Crusades and Mongols. This and the Black Plague destroyed most of the economy except for Egypt's trade with India through the Red Sea. The Egypt/Venice trading monopoly through the Red Sea was circumvented by the Portuguese in the 15th century by sailing completely around Africa. After which, the Portuguese unleashed a trade embargo against Muslims in the Red Sea, depriving the Egyptians of their vital trade route. The Turks were then easily able to defeat the weakened Egypt in the early 1500s. India mostly exported goods to other countries, with little imports in comparison. Sea expansion by Muslims from the west and Chinese from the east left India with little control or influence over trade in the region. China acted as a medium to link the northern land route and southern route through the Indian Ocean, finishing the loop of the world system. When a disruption occurred in this link, it could be felt across the entire system. The eventual decline of this world system was the result of a sum of factors discussed throughout the entire book, but the harsh impact of the Black Death was the final straw that broke the camel's back.

It is interesting that throughout the existence of this pre-modern world system, there has not been a single culture, religion, economy, or society identifiable as completely superior to the others. The divergence to European Hegemony was simply by chance and the fall of the East; any of the societies could have succeeded.

If Genghis Khan did not die from illness and survived to invade Europe, do you think the Mongolian Empire would not have fallen so quickly? And what effects might this have had?

-Derek Leidemann

Before European Hegemony (p. 185-373)

In the second half of the book, Janet discusses the trade significance of Baghdad, Cairo, India, and China. She first talks about the importance of Baghdad and the middle route of eastern trade, and explains the reasons for its success and downfall. Baghdad was initially successful because it was located in the easiest, cheapest, and most enduring of the three routes. When things were normal, the middle route took precedence over the others, and Baghdad was able to succeed because of this. However, the Mongol's came to control Baghdad through their conquest, transforming it into the center for military rule and fiscal exploitation. The Mongols transfered their center of trade to Tabriz, which in turn led to Baghdad's downfall as an economic center. Janet continues by describing the success and downfall of Cairo. Cairo, as Egypt's economic center, experienced success due to the large area that Egypt obtained through their expulsion of the Crusaders, giving them control of Egypt and Syria. Also with the decline of the Persian Gulf, Egypt was able to establish a monopoly on sea trade to India and China. Furthermore, Egypt had a strong military and government that could protect its merchants. Cairo's economic success took a turn for the worse, however, due to the effects of the black death, which undermined Egypt's power. This in turn led to a decline in industry, a weakening of merchant freedom, and Mamluk oppression from the ruling elite. Janet moves next into the third part of her book, which explains the contributing Asia had to world trade. In this section, she describes the three regions of the Indian ocean system, and explores the reasons for China's failure to establish hegemony. The three regions of the Indian ocean system comprise of the west, which was controlled by Muslims, the middle, which had mostly hindu influence, and the east, controlled by China. Janet discusses the importance of India and its success being attributed with its abundance of resources and its connection to both the west and east. Janet last area of concern is China, which was the most extensive, populous, and technologically advanced area in the medieval period. Contrary to Chinese records, they were heavily involved in international trade. China's role decreased however, when they withdrew from the world trade system under the Ming dynasty. Janet concludes her book by addressing the issue of why world systems fail. Ultimately, world systems rise and fall in correlation with increased integration and decaying connections.

The most interesting aspect of the second part of the book was the way in which the black death altered the course of history. From what I've read, it appears that without the black death, the Mamluks of Egypt would likely become the first hegemony. They had perfect geographic location in the center, where they could control trade in both the west and east. They had marine dominance and a strong military to protect their merchants. They ruled over a large area, but not to the extent of the Mongols, who's territory was so expansive it became ungovernable. The black death however, caused internal conflicts that ultimately impeded them from establishing hegemony, allowing Europe to be better positioned at a later time.

It is interesting that China, being the most technologically advanced during this time period, failed to establish hegemony. An area for further discussion would be why China withdrew from the world trade system, and why their economy collapsed. There are many different theories as to why this happened, as Janet presents, and it would be interesting to discuss further the evidence for the different theories.

-Luke Pearson

Rachel Jourdan-Aufiery-5/19-Before European Hegemony Part 2

The second part of the book begins discussing the merchants of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The Christian merchants of the Crusader lands and the Muslim merchants had a positive trading relationship. A result of that trading enabled the growth of the main port, Acre, for the Crusaders. Later in this section, Baghdad is described as one of the most flourishing countries of Islam during the tenth century. According to the text, Baghdad was rich in businesses, scholars, palaces, and inhabitants. Also, Baghdad had extensive boundaries and districts. However, Baghdad later experienced much disaster and misfortune throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries. For instance, there was a famine in 1507;there were devastating floods between the years 1069 and 1075, and some religious conflicts starting in the year 1075. There were also many damaging fires occurring in cycles during all of those other conflicts.
Furthermore, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Venetians and the Mamluk state of Egypt attempted to create trade monopolies. The Venetians managed to exclude rival merchants in other Italian cities. Also, the Mamluk state in Egypt jeopardized the Karimi merchants by imposing restrictions on their trade with foreigners. They were quite successful in maximizing their profits in this way. A section of the book I found particularly fascinating was the impact of the Black Death on Egypt and Syria. According to a book written by Michael Dols, the Plague started in Alexandria in 1347, and it is suspectd to have traveled on the Black Sea. It became especially harmful in Cairo around 1348 and 1349. The prominent symptom of the Black Death were similar to that of pneumonia. It is estimated that about 10,000 people died each day in Cairo. Furthermore, Dols concluded based on records that about a total of 200,000 people dies in Cairo as a rersult of the Black Death. What would happen to society today in the United States if such a disaster were to occur?
Also, Egypt and Syria experienced several similar difficulties during the end of the fourteenth century. For instance, there was a decrease in industrial production because the materials from the Mamluk state such as cotton, sugar cane, and flax were not being processed in textiles and the sugar was purchased by Italian traders to process in Italy. Also, the Karimi merchants could not depend on imports from India because the goods were reshipped to European nations. Thirdly, the Mamluk state suffered oppression during the era of Circassian. Also, economic difficulties such as forced loans that affected thy merchants and occasional changes in the exchange rate.

Roman - Before European Hegemony Part 2

The second half of Abu-Lughod's book starts by taking a look at commerce in Baghdad and the Persian Gulf. Once the epicenter of trade, this region was taken over by the Mongols causing trade to be severely disrupted. Next, Abu-Lughod writes of the rise and fall of Cairo, Egypt. Initially, Cairo is set up to dominate the world market. The Persian Gulf region had just declined, there was minimal threat from Crusaders, and Egypt had a very strong, militaristic government. Cairo began to trade textiles and refined sugar heavily but was most likely undone by the Black Plague. Next, the 3 regions of the Indian Ocean were analyzed. India was a great exporter during this time, not a great importer. India was so rich in resources that it did not wish to trade much so its role on the global stage was small relative to its size. The Straits regions were then involved in the discussion, primarily to mention their dependence on the world system and reliance on external demand. Finally, China is noticed for its unbelievable technology which led to silk, paper, iron, and steel production. When China largely withdrew from the world trade system for a combination of reasons including Confucian ideology, plague, and hate for the Mongols, Portugal stepped in and the era of European Hegemony began.

What interests me about this unbelievably dense web of connections is the financial systems that were in place. The currencies varied from country to country, but gold and silver always held their value. Credit was extended to people at this time indicating an unbelievable amount of trust. I wonder how efficient the system was or if disputes over money erupted amongst the merchants all the time in the trade hubs.

Something that deserves more discussion is the way in which weather made the travels of maritime merchants much more difficult. Ibn Majid outlines the importance of seasonal travel quite well in the text. I think we often think of trade as hopping on a boat and sailing from port to port. We don't think of the complications of navigation, the monsoons on the open ocean, the risk of vitamin deficiencies such as scurvy, hunger, or even mutiny. Travel must have been so miserable at those times. I'd like to know what the probabilities were for successful trips from point A to point B. I'd also like to know what percentage of sailors were likely to die along the way due to the hardships of the ocean.

-Roman H

Before European Hegemony Part 2- Patrick Garner

In the second part of the book, Janet L. Abu-Lughod started out with describing Sindbad's "Middle Way". It was the easiest, cheapest, however the most ancient and enduring of the 3 routes between Europe and the Far East. This then leads to the talk of Muslim/christian trade and how Baghdad was situated near to the centre of the world. This gave Baghdad the tile of "the most prosperous town in the world" being in the centre at the most heavily traveled land and sea routes to the Far East. The author then speaks of how Baghdad prospered but then fell. She goes on to explain how Egypt became the clear winner between the rival routs of the Gulf vs the Red Sea. The author then goes through the forces that weakened Egypt through the centuries and eventually the fall of Egypt. After this the weakened economy was altered by the effects of the Black Death which make India trade the prime surviving source of wealth. Next we roll into how the Indian Ocean system was divided into three parts: the Arabian Sea, The Indian Ocean, and the South China see. Next, the Indian Subcontinent was described as a natural link and a divider in the sea route that connected the Mediterranean region and the middle East with China. This was explained as a great highway for migrations of peoples and cultural diffusion. However, India never became the top power because of the two greater powers on both sides of it; Musilims to the wast and Chinese to the East. China is then discussed. Apparently, the Chinese were not very interseted in trade from what the book says. Even though their position was crucial because it linked the northern overland route with the Indian Ocean route. China then withdrew from the trade market because of the huge economic collapse they had in the middle of the 15th century. This lead them to shutdown there naval exploration and trade. China would have most likely would have achieved hegemony if this would not have happened. The book finishes by going through the why's and what-ifs of the Thirteenth Century World System.

I found it interesting how China was " not interested in trade" and that it was tolerated only as a form of tribute. In the book it says that they were passive reciepients rather than active seekers of commercial gain. This is interesting because I feel as if China had a stronger desire for trade then the would have reached Hegemony. However, instead the withdrew from the trade market because of an economy meltdown. To me it does not make sense of why China was not an active seeker in the trade market.

One of the points I think that would be good to discuss is: Why China was "not interested in trade". I could not grasp a great reason for why they were against it so much. From reading the book it seems like the Chinese had a views that geared them away from the active trading perspective. What were these views and why did they push them away from active trade? All this became unclear to me.

Before European Hegemony Part 2

In the second half of her book, Janet L. Abu-Lughod starts out by describing the trade that was going on between the Muslims and Christians. She says that even despite papal injunctions, the trade continued and even prospered. She also describes, and gives many reasons for the rise and fall of Baghdad, a major metropolis in this Muslim/Christian trade. Next, she describes how Egypt rose to prominence in the slave trade. Something I found interesting was how the plague affected the area. Although the plague did not immediately destroy the area, it slowly killed it by undermining its systems and taking away a great deal of skilled labor that was necessary for life at the time. Next, Abu-Lughod describes India's geographical importance to this early trade. Because of its location ships from Africa, China, Mesopotamia, Thailand, and many other places would stop there. She says that India never gained true hegemony because it was replaced on both sides by greater powers. We then move on to China and the role that it played in the international market. She says that although official chinese documents claim that China participated in trade almost unwillingly, there was, in fact a great deal of trade going on. The black plague again comes up as she describes the role it may have played in this society. She also goes on to explain that there are many reasons given for China's withdrawal from the trade market during the Ming dynasty, but that no one is really sure why this happened.

I found it interesting how large a role security played in facilitating trade. I guess one of the greatest costs had to be that of lost or commandeered ships. It only makes sense that if a region could guarantee a safe trade route then their market would probably explode with trade, thus creating a major city. This is what happened with Baghdad when the unification of Persia and Iraq occurred, and the break of this unification was one of the main factors for Baghdad's downfall.

Chris N

Part 2 Before Modern Hegemony: Asia

The second part of the book deals with Asia and the division of the Indian Ocean into three major parts. The three circuits consisted of the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean, and the Arabian Sea. The west circuit was mainly used and inhabited by Muslims. The middle circuit was primarily Hindus mixed with some Buddhists. The east circuit was used by the Chinese. I found the pages on Ibn Majid's writings very interesting. They were written at the end of the 15th century and are basically a "navigator's manual". Giving an summarized account of older sea manuals, Majid tells the reader nothing new or innovative. Nevertheless he explains when a ship should or shouldn't set sail for other ports. A set of monsoon sailing dates collaborate with his tales of warning. What was Ibn Majid's profession? Why did he feel it was necessary to publish his work?

The book then continues on to explain how the fall of Rome impacted Arab merchants. Before the fall, Rome imported a plethora of items, while exporting very little. As a result, Rome had to pay a significant amount of gold. When the Arab's steady flow of trade suddenly stopped, Arabs felt the reprecussions. Their "trade underwent a sharp decline in the fifth and sixth centuries. South Arabia entered a period of economic stagnation". Next, China slowly started opening her ports to "Perisan, Arab, Malaysian, and Indian ships". Instead of meeting traders in the Strait. The Chinese maintained a huge army that started to decline in the 15th century. What caused the decline of the Chinese navy? What impact did its disappearance have on the ocean's powers?


Kayla O

Before European Hegemony (part 2)

In the second half of her book Abu-Lughod begins by discussing Baghdad and the Middle East. She explains how Baghdad was, at first, one of the most impressive trading cities in the old world, but after things like natural disasters, wars, and famine they slowly began to decline. At this point the Mongols finally invaded and were able to take over Baghdad but they still left the trade routes in Iraq and Persia open, and even made them more safe. Next Egypt and its slave trade is discussed. Egypt became a very strong city because it fended off the crusade, took advantage of the decline of the Persian Gulf, and had a strong government. This forced them into the slave trade with Europe because they needed slaves for their army, and Europe was running out of trading partners. They also were able to restrict certain merchants and products, and monopolize profitable products.

Next the important role of Islamic nations and trade is introduced. In this section the partnerships between Islamic and outside nations is discussed. It also talks a bit about how the currency system was set up with the gold and silver standard and credit. Then the destruction in which the black death caused to the global market is talked about. This single disease wiped out a very large portion on the population of the Earth. It also dealt a great blow to the world market because people were feared contracting and spreading the black death in foreign lands, but it did not stop trade completely and Europe relied more heavily on Egypt after the plague.

In the final part of the book Abu-Lughod talks about the trade routes through Asia. China and India both traded heavily during this time period in the Straight. However the Chinese began only concentrating on themselves and pulled their navy from the Indian Ocean allowing Portugal to begin dominating trade in the East. Finally the success of Chinese trading is discussed. The Chinese had a very high technological understanding and made silk and porcelain. This allowed the Chinese to export and trade for all kinds of products from around the world. As mentioned above the Chinese soon withdrew from the world market and focused more on inward matters, some speculate that the black death was the main reason for this withdrawal. This eventually lead to the collapse of the Chinese economy and set them back for years to come.

Some interesting things I've learned from this reading were how much more developed the Middle East and China were than Europe. It is very interesting to think of where China would be today had they kept trading and advancing at the rate they were before their withdrawal. It was also interesting to see how Egypt affected the trade in Europe so heavily, and how certain natural disasters and such, turned the tides of the old world. It also seems that the argument in class of luck takes a little more hold, especially after looking at all of the disastrous events that plagued Baghdad for years. It is also interesting to consider how much more the world economy may have expanded if the Black Plague had not been so catastrophic and caused so much fear. Overall this reading was very interesting and gave great insight into how the old world was somewhat "Globalized".

May 19th: Before European Hegemony (p. 185 – 373)

1. Summary:

In the second part of the book author Janet Abu-Lughod on the importance of India, the rise to power of Egypt (especially Cairo and Alexandria), the retreat of the Chinese, and the Portuguese sweep of control of the Indian Ocean (starting the European dominance). Janet explains that the Persian Gulf route of trade lost its importance once the collapse of both neighboring parts of the world economy collapsed or suffered (mostly due to the Black Death). Instead of remaining as a major route, it became a competitor of the Red Sea – which allowed for Egypt to capture and maintain control over the access between Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. Egypt established a monopoly over trading by blocking the Italians (and other Europeans) access to the Red Sea. This forced the Italians to have to dock their ships in the harbor of Egypt (within a specific period) and then were strictly watched as the unloaded their boats for trading. The Karimi merchants played a huge role in bringing eastern goods to Egypt. The Black Death hit Egypt hard because the citizens were not able to migrate out of the cities to the forests to avoid the plague, unlike Europeans citizens. The Black Death forced Egypt to become solely reliant on the India trade as their main source of wealth.

Janet then goes on to discuss the three circuits that made up Asia. These three circuits were: the western part (from the Red Sea/Persian Gulf to the southwest part of India), the middle part (from the southeastern part of India to the Strait of Malacca and Java), and the eastern part (from the Straits of Malacca and Java to the ports of southeast China). It is believed that the monsoons patterns encouraged these three circuits. Although India had the upper hand in the geographic location to dominate or play a large part in the world economy, it did not as much as it could have. This was largely due to how naturally self-sufficient India was; other countries were much more interested in buying from India, then India was with any other locations. I do not think that the Black Death had as severe an effect as the plague did on India compared to other countries and I think this was largely due to how naturally rich they were in natural resources. However, the Black Death (in part) did cause the Chinese to pull out of the Indian Ocean which led to an easy takeover by the Portuguese later on.

She then discusses how large a part China had in the world trade system. The Chinese were far more advanced in medicine, physics, mathematics, and practical technological applications than the Europeans or Middle Easterners. Some of these advances in technology include paper, steel, the discovery of gunpowder (and more advanced weaponry), silk, and porcelain. These last two became the primary manufactured good that was exported to other locations. After a change in political/country leadership combined with the Black Death, China wanted to expand the power. The solution became to start naval expansion with new ships since the Mongols had regained control over the land. The navy expansion idea failed though after they were defeated in an Annam province. This defeat combined with economic problems forced the Chinese to retreat home – thus leaving the Indian Ocean for around 70 years before the Portuguese took over.

The last chapter of the book is a review of the lessons learned by looking at the past events and how they can be related to the present and potential future conditions. She makes an interesting point that Europe did not create the world market nor did they rise to power; instead the world market already existed and they became active participants in. Also, their supposed “rise to power” can better be explained by the fall and retreat of the East. It seems if any country or society was able to move into the Indian Ocean and “sweep control” once the Chinese left – and the Europeans (really the Portuguese) were the first to act in such a manner.

2. What was interesting/what did you learn:

I think it is interesting how if the Chinese had chosen to rebuild their naval expansion or had retreated and left the Indian Ocean, they could have become the hegemonic leader, instead of Europe. I also cannot help but wonder if the Portuguese had not taken a hold of the world market, what would have happened. Before this had happened, there was no sole dominant country over the system; instead, a distribution of power and wealth was spread across a balance of countries.

3. Discussion Point:

Would the system have returned to how it was (the balance of the few core leading countries) after China left or was the system bound to change by a country (Portugal) seizing control of the market?

Part 2: Before European Hegemony

"The Mideast Heartland" examines the processes that enabled the coalescing and provoked the demise of the interdependent thirteenth century world system. Abu-Lughod focuses on the intergration and then disbanding of the Mongol world and the repercussions it had for the northern route; dissects the decimation of the once vital Baghdad-Persian Gulf subsystem; and follows the mounting centrality of the Italian-Egyptian-Red Sea linkage. In the third installment, "Asia," Abu-Lughod suggests that by the time the Portugeuse men-of-war surfaced in the Indian ocean, the stronghold the East had significantly dimnished. "Asia" focuses on the three intertwined susbsystems that were the key participants in the Asian circuit: the westernmost circuit that linked the Arab world to western Indian; the central circuit that connected southeast India to the region bordering the Strait of Malacca; and the easternmost route sandwiched between the straits and China. China's crucial geographic position, when wholly operating as a "frictionless operating system", unified the world trade circuit and illustrated a premodern world system. Yet the economized and disintegrating external system eventually induced "delinking" that led to the decline of China and thus the collapse of the promising premodern world system.

An interesting section resides in "Conclusions." In my previous blog post I wondered if there might be a possibility that the Western hegemony or rather the "Eurocentered 'modern' world system" will persist or be usurped by a possible Asian hegemony/'modern world system'. In "Future World Systems," Abu-Luhod examines idea of an enduring Eurocentered modern world system and suggests that the idea of a a new radical system seems unlikely. She also notes how the development of our world system moved certain countries into core status while others seem to have fallen out entirely. After reading this section, I do think that, though there is the potential for a significantly altered modern world system, the likelihood of this occuring seems unlikely. Abu-Lughod points out that an altered system requires an altered set of rules; I think the reliance and confidence in the rules the Europeans devised in the sixteenth century makes it quite difficult for a new system to emerge.

Though I appreciated Abu-Lughod's dissection of the rise and fall of the thirteenth century world system, I am left perplexed by her notion that there is a possibility that there will be a return to the "relative balance of multiple centers exhibited in the thirteenth-century world system." I feel like there should be an elaboration on this possibility.
-Lolia

Before European Hegemony, Part1:

In the beginning of the book we see how the Muslim world dominates world trade. The early international trade in Europe begins with trade fairs in the Champagne areas because there is little involvement by rulers and taxes. These fairs were slowly abandoned when certain traders were no longer guaranteed safe passage and even barred from being a participant in the fair. Due to the improvement in oversea shipping the Flanders region becomes more dominant in trade until the port silt up and they are no longer able to accept deep draft ships. Particularly the city of Ghent was heavily involved in the textile industry. During this time we see the early signs of capitalism, the rise of banking systems and credit. The Black Death exacts a terrible tool on trading. The 2 port cities of Genoa and Venice battle for trade with the east. The Mongols eventually start to create problems with trade to the far east and nearly sack Europe.

I find it interesting how the Islamic world of commerce was so vibrant while the Europeans where stuck in the dark ages. Also, the word that we have for bank comes from the Italian word banco which meant board that they would have set out the money on to be counted. The fact that the Italians still were trading during the dark ages.

Some points of discussion would be the authors assertion that the crusades were more than likely conducted because of financial gain than religious reasons. Although there were some atrocities committed by everyone, the one battle where the crusaders actually resorted to cannibalism, that’s such a taboo thing that it seems hard to believe.

Lou Coban

Before European Hegemony (p. 3-184)

In the introduction to the book, Janet L. Abu-Lughod points out the fact that there was an extensive network of global trade taking place before Europe attained its hegemony. She stresses that no nation at the time experienced a trade hegemony, and that there was nothing special about Europe that allowed them to obtain it. It was merely by a stream of different factors that Europe achieved hegemony instead of the middle east or the far east. To explain these factors, Janet focuses on the time period of A.D 1250-1350, and covers the European subsystem and the mideast heartland in the first 184 pages. In the first section, Janet discusses the success and downfall of the Champagne fairs. The fairs were initially incredibly successful and brought trading and banking to France. However, trade at the fairs declined and eventually ended due to factors such as the plague and advanced sailing technology that let Italians have greater access to Bruges. Janet goes on to discuss the rise and downfall Bruges and Ghent, along with Venice and Genoa. These area had very successful trade networks, however the plague, spread by the trade, decimated the Italian population and practically ended trade in these regions. In the second part of the book, Janet discusses the three east trade routes, which consisted of the north, central, and southern routes, and the ways in which conflict and peace brought nations into contact with one another.

One thing I learned from the reading was that there was no clear nation or region that claimed hegemony. Before Europe's takeover I figured that the title belonged to the middle east or far east, but as Janet points out, this was never possible due to plague and conflict. I've also only associated the plague with Europe and did not realize the effect that it had on Asia.

For further discussion, I would like to know more about the plague and people's reaction to it. It is nearly impossible for us to comprehend deaths on this scale, and it I would like to discuss the effects it had on the world population both economically and socially.

-Luke Pearson

May 17th - Before European Hegemony (p. 3 – 184)

1. Summary:

The beginning chapters of the text Before European Hegemony discussed in great depth how Europe became the dominant influence in world trade. She started by stating how many people over look that world trade existed well before the European countries became involved in it. She also stated a good point that she will explain in the parts that we have to read for Wednesday that one of the main things that caused Europe to take over the world trade market was the East and Middle East regions fall apart.

She started by discussing the trade fairs that first involved European countries in the Champagne Fairs. Market days or periods were established in specific, strategically chosen cities (mainly in France) where different merchants would travel to along with customers. These merchants would set up their location for a single or a few days and then would move to the next location. Cloth, spices, pottery, and other items became very popular at these markets or fairs. The Italians played a hugely important role in these fairs. They would bring a variety of spices and silk, both which were extremely popular. The Italians also brought banking and business practices. These fairs eventually stopped for a few different reasons ranging from political interference with the paths of merchants to the increase in technology and navigation knowledge of the Italians to the Black Death to the Italians beginning use of “factors” replacing their need for travel.

Next the author went on to discuss the commercial and industrial side of the Flander’s cities, Bruges and Ghent. These two cities became very popular locations for the receiving of raw wool from England, the weaving of the wool into fine cloth, and the distribution of this cloth. The Italians also set up many “factors” (or sellers/distributors) for their products to keep them from having to traveling. The combination with the Black Death and the decrease of the available high quality wool from England caused these cities to suffer later on. The Black Death greatly and negatively affected the Italian population and since the Italians played such a crucial connector between the already established eastern and southern world trade system with the rest of Europe, this significantly affected the European ability to trade with the Mediterranean and Eastern merchants. There were two Italian cities, Venice and Genoa, in particular that greatly increased the Euro-world trades. However, the Black Death wiped out a significant amount of populations causing the market to shrink. This caused the two cities to become much more competitive which eventually ended with Venice establishing a virtual monopoly over trade routes in the Mediterranean.

The sections of the assigned reading discussed the three routes from Europe to the East and the Mongols’ control over the Northern route. The three routes available for trade purposes from Europe to the East were: the Northern route, Constantinople across land to Central Asia, the central route, Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean via Baghdad and the Persian Gulf, and the southern route, Egypt and the Red Sea connected to the Indian Ocean via the Arabian Sea. The “Mongols and the Northeast Passage” section explained an important lesson that the ability to control trade over a great distance is unstable due to changes in political and human populations. The land trade routes did offer protection from human predators that caused many problems on the sea, but greatly relied on the need for long-distance trade. Since the Black Death claimed so many lives causing the market to shrink, the need for long-distance trade also shrank significantly.

2. What was interesting/what did you learn:

The things I found the most interesting in reading these sections were the demographic effects on the whole trading system. I think it makes sense but it is definitely something that seems hard to predict or deal with. I think this was so surprising to me because a plague as powerful and detrimental to the human race has never taken place in my lifetime. I remember reading that it claimed over 25 million out of the existing 80 million Italian lives – which is just astonishing! It does make sense though that if so many people suddenly died, it would cause the demand to greatly suffer, which would definitely affect the world and local markets.

3. Discussion Point:

Since I found the effects of the Black Death plague to be the most interesting, my question would deal with a similar situation now. Let’s say a plague or some sort of mass destruction happened that claimed an entire country or monumental amount of lives, what would the effects be today that we would exist? Would a similar situation happen to the events experienced by European, Central and Eastern Asian trade market, or is this not possible? Why or why not? Or, what would happen if an entire country decided to cease foreign trading (due to a political decision or mass destruction) and how would this affect the world markets today? Which countries or populations would have the great impact?