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.