Tuesday, May 18, 2010

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".

3 comments:

  1. I think you raise a good point here when you wonder how much more the world economny would have advanced had the Black Death not happened in the catastrophic way in which it did. I had not considered this before, but it would have been interesting to see how big of a difference that would have made. However, if this curse of bad luck had not happened, would something else as catastophic as this caused the same effect maybe a few centuries down the road?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I definitely agree that the Black Death was such a significant component to shaping the world economy. Perhaps the economy would have advanced more. Maybe instead of a different catastrophy, perhaps the fall of the economy would simply be an accumulation of significant natural, political and economic events.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In regards to the surprise of the Middle East dominating Europe, I think this may be the result of considering where the Middle East currently stands in contrast to Europe. Otherwise, it seems to make a lot of sense that they would be better off. Their location connected important areas - they had great routes under their control. Thus, people were buying from them and they were also able to control the flow of "traffic." Europe, on the other hand, is kind of off to the west out of the way. (The map we looked on in class and also in the book on page 34 shows this.)Also, it seems what the Middle East had to trade was much more exciting and more desirous than what the Europeans had. At least in my opinion. :)

    ReplyDelete