Trade in the Old World

In "Before European Hegemony" Abu-Lughod makes the argument that global trade was more developed than most people think. She begins by explaining that merchants in the old world would travel among empires in places like the Middle East, China and Europe trading goods. This continued for many years up into the 13th century. After this the cities of the Champagne Fairs is described and discussed. These cities were on the forefront of global trade due to their textile production. Next the cities of Flanders and their textile trade is discussed. From these cities merchants purchased textiles and took them to larger markets in other cities around the world. Eventually this market grew too large and these cities could no longer support the demand. Once this happened other countries such as England took some of the strain off the market and began producing textiles. Also some of the reasons for the failure of these markets are explained, a few examples are disease, wars, and rulers who did not want outsiders in their lands.

This book so far has been very interesting. I was completely unaware that there was such a large amount of trade that went on in between countries at this time. It is hard to fathom how much more difficult this feat was considering there was no internet, no means of fast transportation or communication. It also amazes me that these merchants were willing to travel for months or sometimes years to distant lands in order to sell their products. They also took very large risks such as encountering bandits on land and pirates and storms on the seas.

A couple of things that stuck out to me as interesting questions are the following. How much do you think merchants actually helped to spread the plague when it could have been more easily contained? Another is how much better off were the merchants for traveling to these distant lands and putting themselves in danger? They must have made a fairly good living in order for the benefits to outweigh the costs but this is not discussed all that much. Finally how much of this trading caused the spread of new and interesting ideas and beliefs? With all of this trading how many different parts of the world were shaped and changed by new ideas that were brought along with the merchants?

Patrick Garner-Before European Hegemony-Part 1

In Before European Hegemony, Abu-Lughod discusses Immanuel Wallerstein's world-systems approach. She states that the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries witnessed the first modern world system. She also declares that the Mongol empire made the earlier economic system possible. The Mongol empire and successor states did this by providing trade links to exist across the Indian Ocean and the Eurasian Landmass. This is when the author claims that the economy became structured. The author also speaks of the issues that affected trade and helped trade. Essentially, she takes us through European trade when it was relatively new to international trade and speaks of how the trade developed into an essential part of the economy.

One of the things that I found interesting was that when she looks backward in time, she discusses how China would have been most likely to achieve hegemony. However, china experienced a huge economic collapse in the middle of the fifteenth century. China had to shutdown naval exploration and trade. If this had not happened China would most likely have been the primary center of the world economy for centuries. This seems extremely interesting to me because I would never had guessed that China would have ever been able to have this status. It is amazing how certain things can change history in such a big way. Especially something of this magnitude. Many things could have been extremely different for many centuries if China would have been the powerhouse of the economy.

I was also intrigued by the credit instruments that were developed in the Middle East and China. It is amazing that there were forms of credit that long ago. Do you think that this ever became a long term problem? Not neccessarily on a small scale with single merchants and traders but on a large scale with the countries themselves. Is this something that lead to disputes when huge debts became a problem? Also, The United States has significant debt to other countries still today. I wonder if any other areas of the world have this problem from that long ago? This is just something that caught my eye and I thought was interesting to possibly look into.

Roman - Before European Hegemony

Janet Abu-Lughod's book "Before European Hegemony" is about the global interactions in the period of 1250 to 1350 AD. By outlining the complex system of trade she shows the even before Europe, the civilization we typically associate with globalized events, a matrix of connections existed connecting the world.

Interestingly, the first connections between different countries always seem to deal with trade (nowadays it might be research, or sharing information in addition to trade). Early on, it seems like countries were not very diverse in the range of goods they offered. The spice trade was a big deal, but from a modern perspective it seems bizarre that there would be so much fuss and demand for new spices. I guess when something is totally new to you it is just so much more desirable and intriguing. There was an attitude in this time period, or rather a mindset, of exploration to find totally new and foreign things and then trade for them.

What interests me is the spread of disease by all of this trade, like the Black Death. I bet that just as historians can outline trade they could outline disease dispersion, and the two outlines would probably look very similar. When people that have been isolated from each other for so long finally make contact they exchange so many specialized viruses. In the past, when virology was not understood, the death tolls were staggering. Do you think if people understood virology at the time, yet still didn't have the technology to deal with it, that they would have still ventured out to new lands? Would they take the risk of terrible disease?

-Roman H

The European Subsystem

Abu-Lughod's Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350 examines the formulation, expansion, and fortification of the development of international connections during the thirteenth century. Through the application of empirical case studies, Abu-Lughod expounds upon commercial exchanges that were rife with symbiotic, cooperative, and divergent roles performed by various participants that enabled the continuation of this world system. While Abu-Lughod examines the mechanics of the thirteenth century system, she also seeks to uncover the reasons why this system disentangled. In the first portion of the book, "The European Subsystem," Abu-Lughod analyzes the three vital participants of the world system in the thirteenth century European subsystem: the towns of the Fairs of Champagne; the industrial and commercial towns of Flanders; and the seaports of Italy. These key participants formed a single circuit of exchange, enabling a gathering location for merchants from various directions and the circulation of non local trade. To Abu-Lughod, these key participants illustrated an opaque and complex relationship that induced a wider reach. During the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, the towns of the Fairs of Champagne conducted the interactions Europe had with one another and the East. Eventually, technological advances and new levels of need fazed out the Fairs of Champagne and thus the industrial/commercial Ghent and Burges took over these crucial world system interactions during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Unfortunately, natural events such as the Black Death dramatically reduced the population and the silting of the channel, which eliminated oceanic access. In addition, political and economic components, as well as the Italian multinationals' superior entrepreneurial abilities, induced the decline of Bruges and Ghent and the dependence of the seaports of Genoa and Venice that connected northwestern Europe to the entrepots of the Middle East. Yet disease, political factionalism and ultimately the inability of the Italian mariner states to shape events in regions beyond their control , eventually thwarted Italy's "bid" for hegemony over the world system. The second portion, "The Mideast Heartland", connects and examines the European subsystem with the Middle Eastern trade. Though Italian mariner states played a pivotal role in liking Egypt to European markets, the Egyptian rulers limited Italian access with the East; such changes are central to the mercurial rise and fall of the thirteenth century world system. The Mongols, without strategic locations, productive capacity and transport world economic fucntions, provided low risk and low protective rent land transist. Unfortunately a host of factors, especially the Black Death inhibited and then eliminated low risk and transit.

Abu-Lughod raising an interesting point about success. Core zones of world economies constantly and consistently displaced consecutively from one location to another without; the inevitability of this illustrates that the successions are often through no fault of the particular core. As Abu-Lughod states, "And if blame cannot be attributed, so success need not be "deserved." " (74) The development of the world system had arbitrary components that forces one to think beyond concepts like internal virtue or defect. Champagne and Flanders did not "deserve" to fail. And this extends towards other regions in the world that did not "deserve" to fail and those that did not "deserve" to succeed. To push beyond typical western historian attitudes about western development, (especially after reading McNeill) makes Abu-Lughod's work feel refreshing and quite thought provoking.

This reading raises the question about possible Chinese hegemony. Will Western hegemony continue or will the current economic events cause a new succession? (Of course the 21st century is "global village" and is set up differently than the world system in the thirteenth century. )

-Lolia

Before European Hegemony

Trade already existed between the Middle East and the Orient, prior to Europe's recovery from the Dark Ages and its entrance into the world trade system. The time period of 1250-1350 AD can be seen as a turning point in sociological influence, with Europe shifting from a periphery to primary power. During this period, an area in present day France became home to four cities known as the Champagne fair towns. These towns became popular trading hubs because they were located between the port cities of Italy and the textiles regions of Flanders. Many foreign traders and merchants were also attracted to these fair by protection and guards provided by the Counts of Champagne. These fairs where held on predefined schedules, which eventually evolved into a circuit. Italians played an enormous role in the development of European trade through their movement of goods between Europe and Orient and the introduction of banking to the Champagne fairs. Various circumstances lead to the end of the Champagne fairs, with the final blow being delivered by the Black Plague in the 1350s.

Like the Champagne fairs, these towns also had their own, albeit smaller, trade circuit. The 13th century brought about the commercialization and industrialization of the two Flanders' cities Bruges and Ghent. Worldwide demand for superior Flemish textiles allowed merchants from Bruges to abstain from seeking out trade in other cities, bringing the merchants to Bruges. However, the downfall of the Flemish textile industry was due to lack of high quality English wool and the Black Plague. As the English textile industry was further developed, less and less wool was sold to Flemish cities.

It seems to me that the county of Champagne brought about its own destruction of the the fairs. The author suggests on pages 70-73 that a major contributor to the decline of the fairs was the treatment of foreign merchants, due to wars between France and Flanders. In the latter 13th and early 14th centuries, Flemish merchants were frequently mistreated and harassed; even banned from the fairs altogether in 1325. When they were allowed to return, steep taxes were forced onto their imports. The French government also placed restrictions on Italian merchants wanting to trade for Flemish textiles. These actions caused the Italians to develop a naval trading route to the cities of Flanders, bypassing the middleman.

It seems like Champagne lost the hospitality that initially brought the popular trading to the fairs of Champagne. Do you think that the fairs of Champagne could have survived through the other causes of their downfall if more respect was paid to foreign merchants?

-Derek Leidemann

Before European Hegemony 3-184

In the beginning of "Before European Hegemony" challenges the common Eurocentric idea that European nations were essential in early trade. Abu-Lughod claims that Europe was relatively new on the scene in the 13th century, the time when she claims the world economy truly began to form. The author is attempting to show how will eventually dominate trade throughout the world by going back to a time when Europe was new to international trade and looking at what factors would cause it to move to the forefront of this trade. She then goes on to describe how trade developed in different European areas. She also describes what the factors were at the time that was affecting this trade, and growing it in Europe. Abu-Lughod also describes the European trade with the Mongols and how that developed.

One of the things that I found most interesting about Abu-Lughod's writing was in her description of the problems that historians face when writing these types of books. I often take it for granted that behind all these different books is someone who has to sift through a great deal of information to wring out what's relevant. Even first hand descriptions are flawed by bias and simply by what the person chose to record. Her example of Marco Polo is one that I found to be extremely interesting. He wasn't the first to do anything, but by chance he was the first to have his travels recorded. The problem is that his observations are extremely European. He notices only the things that are relevant to his culture and his way life. She also describes how hard it is to write comparatively when sometimes you don't have the records necessary to do adequate comparisons. I'm also pleased to see that Abu-Lughold has chosen to trace European Hegemony to its source. To understand what made Europe so powerful we need to compare it to other regions who were in similar positions at the time. It is only then that we will be able to see what Europe did differently to set them apart from the rest of the world.

Chris N

Before European Hegemony

Through the first half of her book, Abu-Lughod makes very clear the importance of trade, especially in the beginning of a somewhat globalized world. Post thirteenth century, the regions of the world came together through trading items that were unique to each culture. This way, there was an interaction and connection between these areas, even if they were not all particularly thorough. Essentially, relations came from this exchange of goods. Set-backs include crazy dictators, and disease such as the Black Plague among others.
What is most intriguing to me, although it may be a bit ignorant: the areas and "empires" that were so active during these periods have taken quite the back seat in current times. Regions that were so prosperous then are now hardly spoken of and are not very active in today's economy. How often to we read about Mongolia in the news? Perhaps this may be tied into China and Japan's "introspective" approaches to business throughout their countries. They are constantly progressing today, especially technologically and seem to be the areas now that may dominate the world market.
One idea that has always boggled me is the notion of a one world government. It seems that all this would entail is a single leader to dictate a universal sort of code of conduct. This would encompass everything: economy, politics, judicial systems. Does this idea have any validity at all? After reading this section of Before European Hegemony, it seems that every area makes its contribution even today. How could all of the countries of the world submit to such a thing?
A. Gorno

Lessons from the Historical Structures of Muslim Society:

This essay is about how there are multiple authorities in Muslim societies or “partial control,” “control had to be shared with other networks of religious authorities, tribal notables, merchant guilds, Sufi orders, and vast networks of extended families.” Generally control was established in and around the city centers but it did not go much beyond the borders of the cities. Some Middle Eastern governments, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iraq “the state expanded into society through a mixture of extreme repression and patronage” this system worked for some countries but not for others. Muslim society was built around a common religion rather than a state. Another offshoot from this style of governing was to give everyone in the Arab world free movement in all of its territories.

I find it particularly interesting how the Islamic societal control was at one time so fragmented. It’s hard for someone living in the west to comprehend a society that is not built around a particular piece of ground.

I think an interesting question is how should have they have split the Middle Eastern territories after colonialism? For instance, the country of Iraq has three major ethnic groups Sunni, Shia and Kurdish all battling one another for control of various areas. How could this have been avoided?

Sorry this one is late.

Lou Coban

Polyethnicity and National Unity.

This reading is about how trade and migration began in early history and how most areas of the world were made up of people from different ethnicities. Generally the more skilled people were the more likely they were to live in a foreign land particularly military people. This led to “a continual mix of alien populations in and around the civilized centers” which, in turn, created a polyethinic society. These population centers were susceptible to disease which led to the importation of labor. These various kingdoms then become the nations that we know today. Extreme nationalism then leads to wars.

It’s interesting how Japan was never successfully invaded and how their culture was preserved because of this. How the protestant religion reduced Latin as the primary language of the church thereby making religion readable and accessible to everyone. Lingua Franca was the universal language of business and today it has transformed into English.

This article was very exhaustive so I can think of any questions or points of discussions that could be made or at least I can’t see any.

Lou Coban

Polyethnicity blog

Donald Creighton states that the major contributors to polyethnicity in the Old World were conquest, enslavement, disease, and trade. Conquest causes intermingling through the garrison of soldiers in the conquered towns. Disease could afflict serious drains on city populations. Two primary method of maintaining a population include immigration from the country sides or enslavement. Both of which could provide a steady flow of people into the to sustain a population equilibrium. Trade also spreads culture through merchants and goods from far off lands. These merchants even though of a different culture would integrate themselves into ethnic subdivisions of cities, thus furthering the polyethnicity and diversity of the town. Imported goods from foreign cultures can influence the way a society operates through the ways that those goods are used.

I find it interesting that some cultures preferred to be left to their own devices, rather than openly trading wares and ideas with the rest of the world. Up until the 1800s, Japan mostly secluded itself from the rest of the world, and was very successful in doing so. The Japanese were able to maintain a society of monoethnicity, that shows very little diversity even today. If I were to put myself in Japan's shoes, I would have been more open in sharing knowledge, ideas, and commodities with Chinese and Korean neighbors.

-Derek Leidemann

Waking from its sleep:

This article is about the political stagnation in the Middle East. About how nothing much has changed in the last 20 to 30 years. During this time communism fell and more democracies emerged in the world all the while Middle East is still under authoritarian rule. Some of the Arab countries have democracies but they are basically a sham because they are still controlled by a few people. They’ve failed to diversify their economies and as long as the price for oil remains high they are not likely to do anything about this problem. Generally they use and blame Israel for the Palestinian problem. Many of the Arab countries have gone to war with each other.

The part that is interesting is that how there really are no true democracies in the Middle East, I thought there were some but apparently there are none. This notion that the Arabs are really a bunch of tribes and how borders and nationalism are not very important to them is very interesting.

The one thing that I find to be a problem is how the author states that the Bush policies of forcing democracies on the Middle East are a failure. I think it’s a little early to say something like that. I mean these people really aren’t used to having a democracy so it will take some getting used to. Another thing that I have a problem with is how the author states that when given choice the middle eastern people will elect a radical Islamic government and he gives the Palestinian elections as an example. What really happened with the Palestinian elections is there were three sets of candidates running for office, Hamas, Fatah and local officials. The vote was split among the Fatah and local officials in many cases allowing the more radical Hamas candidates into office without a majority.

Lou Coban

A Struggle Among Memes

Brin's, "Survival of the Fittest Ideas: The New Style of War--a Struggle Among Memes," expounds upon the concept of living bundles of ideas known as memes. Memes are packets of societal concepts that successfully proliferate due to the host's ability to ingratiate such concepts to others. Brin suggests that complex bodies and behaviors are the tools to ensure genetic replication; memes are simply societal practices, traditions, etc. to ensure individual and thus communities to thrive. Brin breaks down four worldwide memes that illustrates such: Paranoia; Machismo; The East; and The Dogma of Otherness.

The entire article is quite interesting to me, but perhaps the Dogma of Otherness is the most interesting aspect because this meme is one that facilitates change. This meme embraces tolerance and provides a uptopian view of the future.

Yet how does one remain tolerant of intolerance and successfully create a world "where children are trained from birth to hunger for diversity?"

-Lolia

Polyethnicity Today and the Arab World

The origins of polyethnicity and the issues it presented as discussed by McNeill in the assigned article was incredibly fascinating. That it was promoted and encouraged by three factors: conquest, disease, and trade, is also interesting. The dynamic between natives of a particular area and the foreigners who "conquered" or inhabited it seems to be also the origin of current day desires for ethnic homogeneity, deeply rooted in the ideas that foreigners may oppress and enforce cultural aspects onto another group. It seems strange that the US who promotes itself as a country of freedom and as a meltingpot in someway desires elements of homogeneity. In a country where we are all essentially immigrants, this is impossible. (Unless, of course, we were to host another holocaust similar to the genocide of the Native Americans and wipe out all cultural groups we decided we don't like.) However, it seems citizens often exercise preferences of one ethnic group or culture over another as far as who inhabits the country.
Polyethnicity today seems to occur from factors much different from those of pre-1750. What exists now may be the result of previous migrations and also of people transplanting as a means of improving quality of life. Although these reasons for moving into another culture are incredibly valid, that does not mean that residents will be all together sympathetic or accepting of their new fellow citizens, which is all too common in this country and evident, especially considering current circumstances with immigration laws regarding our neighbors to the south.
Additionally, I found the article extracted from the Econimist, A Special Report on the Arab World worth considering in regards to issues of polyethnicity. In the beginning, I found it entertaining that the author(s) had to explain that "the Arab World" was not entirely made up of just Arabs and that they in fact, somehow have different cultures within this one area in addition to varied religious beliefs and that they do not all speak the same language. The author essentially had to break apart the common stereotypes held in the US. Since the Economist is an English newspaper, perhaps it is not just Americans but rather all English-speakers that are ignorant to issues and common facts of the Middle East. Which is horribly sad.
Anyhow, the author goes into great detail concerning the violent issues the Middle East which, if oversimplified, breaks down into an inability to agree on important matters. I was reminded of what we learned of the Dogma of Otherness and the significance of tolerating disagreement and valuing differences, be them religious or political standpoints. It seems "the Arab World" needs to employ both the Dogma of Otherness and also a bit of open-mindedness to the prospect of sharing land with people who diverge from a single category in almost any aspect, or polyethnicity.
A. Gorno

Polyethnicity and National Unity

McNeill's "Empire and Nation to 1750" defines and expresses the concept of polyethnicity as an inevitable and natural development. Through nomadic conquests, urbanization, disease, slavery, and international commerce, a spread of people and cultures emerged. In "Triumph of Nationalism," McNeill explores the rise of ethnic solidarity and national independence due to population expansion, technological improvements that enhanced and implemented communication methods as well as necessity for an indistinguishable language.

McNeill's suggestion that the Chinese attained the greatest degree of cohesion in its civilization due to Confucianism is quite interesting because his reasoning behind that suggestion correlates with Brin's third worldview, The East.

Admittedly, some of McNeill's word choices felt quite problematic, specifically "civilized" and "barbaric." Those words, particularly the latter, created a jarring reading experience. However, "civilized" and "barbaric" illustrates a condescension that fits nicely with his contention that "civilized socieites have nearly always subordinated some human groups to others of a different ethnic background, thereby creating a laminated polyethnic structure." I guess I would eliminate the word civilized in that contention.

-Lolia

5/12/2010 Readings: McNeil, “Special Report on the Arab World – Summer 2009”, & “Global Order & the Historical Structures of Dar as-Islam”

1. Summaries:

The “Special Report on the Arab World – Summer 2009” article discussed many different items concerning the Middle East. It started out by discussing how not much has changed in the Arab world when looking at the past 20 years. The government type and freedom have not changed much nor has what they rely on for their main economic income. There is still a lot of violence and disagreement between the countries in the Middle East along with the people of the different ethnic groups in the Middle East. The article discusses how George Bush forced or should I say attempted to force many of the Arab countries into democracy, which if anything, has only caused resistance to this idea. Although the idea of supporting other countries to become democratic governments, it has become clear that the change is going to have to come from the inside – and not be forced from the outside. The article also discusses many economic problems that the Arab countries face. The main one is that they have no other markets set up besides the oil market. Even given the fact that they greatly control the world oil market – this has definitely caused them many problems (ie the war in Iraq) because many countries are extremely interested in obtaining control of these fields. However, this control that they have has caused them to greatly rely on this market, which significantly backfires whenever the interest in this market decreases.

The “Global Order and the Historical Structures of Dar as-Islam” piece discussed three main principles that if stuck with, then the Muslim world could function as a unit. The author argues that these three principles would aid any global system to function with minimal interruption. The first principle is the idea of partial control. This principle really means that no one person or state should be in charge of a whole system. Bamyeh gives the example of Yemen how the state did not have unique control and knew this – and it worked! It becomes too easy for states to appear as though they are in control but too often decide between parties and govern by these decisions. This only pulls away from unity since one group has been chosen over another. The second principle given is free movement. This phrase has been applied more to goods and services, but not people. However the idea is for it to be people to be able to more freely as well – after all the market (business) is becoming much more globally focused, so people should be able to follow the things sold to other countries. The third principle is heteroglossia, or the existence of two or more voices representing different positions on the same issue. This principle can often be confused with diversity but Bamyeh distinguishes it by saying that heteroglossia is “where a single narrative imposes order, but not unity, on the variety of voices within it.”

The piece by McNeil mainly focused on explaining how global trading first started. It was written by someone with a different point of view than most Americans because the author was raised in Canada and grew up with pro-Canadian history classes. After he came to America, particularly Chicago, and learned the way we taught history, it became easier for him to gain a more universal understanding because he had been taught two different versions. McNeil goes on to discuss how things were before 1750, explaining the effects of European nationalism, and the changing forces politics has on our generation and how it has affected the world since the early 1900s.

2. What was interesting/what did you learn:

The thing I found to be most interesting from the “Special Report on the Arab World – Summer 2009” article was how it really showed how the United States has caused interruption and distraction when the goal was to encourage and push for democracy in Arab countries. I also found it to be really interesting that along with the political issues, the economic ones especially concerning the oil market, the growing populations, and the present world economy state. I find it so odd yet typical that from a monetary standpoint that a government would not pull from the money it makes from the oil market to create new methods of economic progress – especially when they know that the oil market will not last forever. I guess I am not surprised by it because it reminds me of the company I work at on co-op rotation – their fall back business is in repairs, yet when the new products are selling, no attempts at progression are made to better the repair side – even though it is known that this is what keeps the business alive in poorer economic conditions. I just cannot imagine though living in a society where the government does not strive to fix this problem and I would have no say in it! At least here, if I didn’t like the company, I could always go find another job.

The thing that I learned the most about from the “Global Order & the Historical Structures of Dar as-Islam” piece was what the term Heterglossia was and how the author compared it to the idea of diversity. Call me sheltered, but I had never heard of heterglossia before this piece and I found this to be really interesting. I would think that heterglossia and diversity were close to the same idea, but after carefully re-reading the comparison, I realize that I would have been wrong. I think it’s ironic that many Americans take pride in the fact that America is known for its diversity, but (according to this author) that would be the same thing in taking pride that we are proclaim disunity.

The thing I found to be most interesting from McNeil’s piece was that when McNeil came to America, he saw how biased some of his history classes had been in the past. I remembering growing up when I was in Spanish class in high school and hearing the name of the French-Indian war but from another country’s perspective – so of course it was not called the same thing. It had never before that point occurred to me that the names and more importantly the way we wrote/remember/teach history is the same as other countries.

3. Discussion Point:

The discussion point or question I would like to ask about the “Special Report on the Arab World – Summer 2009” article is about oil. Some people and some countries would literally kill to be in control of the oil market. Is this truly something to be desired though? For example, let’s say that the USA gained control of the oil market, what would stop other countries from attacking and trying to take over that land? I guess the real question that I want to ask is does the economic control of the oil market seem worth the curses or problems that could come with it? If the Arab world was not in control of this land (like the natural resources were located in another part of the globe) could/would other countries build up their other economic markets or purely rely on the oil market as the Arab countries have done?

The question I would like to ask with the “Global Order & the Historical Structures of Dar as-Islam” as inspiration is: does the principle of partial control apply not only to nations and government but to companies and other social groups as well?

The question I would like to ask with McNeil’s piece as inspiration is: does a country exist that could be completely self-sufficient in the future? By self-sufficient I mean they would not need to .trade or care about what all other countries were doing? Does such a country exist now?

5/10/2010 Readings: Brin's "Dogma of Otherness"

1. Summary:
The “Dogma of Otherness” article first starts out by discussing the idea of memes, or ideas that live and continue to spread the more individuals think about them and discuss them with others. Brin goes on to discuss the four major worldviews that will have a great say in the future of the world.

The first major worldview is Paranoia. When a society (the given example is Russia) has experienced mass amounts of betrayal and invasion in many generations, the society will become so wary of intruders or traders, they will be inclined to go along with a crazy leader who promises to keep the enemy away. The enemy of paranoia, Brin argues, is peace. If the persistent threatening feelings go away, people will think in terms of comfort.

The second major worldview is Machismo. Brin argues that this worldview is the leading memo in many parts of the world. Wherever women and children are oppressed as well as the surrounding environment suffers because the highlight is of the male dominance. Brin states that “if this meme prevails, we and our planet will die.” Brin cites current (as in 1989 but still applicable to today’s society) examples of this meme in Latin America where a husband is allowed to cheat on his wife; if she were to repeat this act of betrayal with another man, the husband would be expected to kill her. Brin also goes on to say that if/when this meme takes over a country or the world that it would in result to the rise of women. He also argues that when this happens, the real cause (machismo) will be ignored and religion or nationalism will take the fall.

The third major worldview is the East. This meme is primarily made up with the idea of homogeneity or the idea that the individual should give their sense of self to the society or nation. The main idea of this worldview is that an individual (male or female) can move up as long as they do not offend those above them. Brin puts it pretty bluntly when he said “individualism is dangerous. Deviation and eccentricity are worse. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” Brin also argues that this meme has a proven track record with the Chinese society – yet we would surely not like it.

The fourth and final major worldview is the Dogma of Otherness. This worldview encourages newness, diversity, and change. Tolerance also plays a huge role in this worldview. Brin states that this meme could be called the West – however this meme does not completely own America or Europe. There are many examples, Brin calls out Californians, of people that still pride themselves on machismo, paranoia, or sameness – instead of diversity and tolerance. Brin does acknowledge that millions of people accept the idea that our institutions are improvable and the best way to accomplish this are through active criticism.

Brin goes on to discuss a war going on between the different worldviews and which would be best and which would not. Although the Otherness worldview would be best if people would like for a variety of religions, politics, etc. to exist, the other three are still extremely prevalent mainly due to people’s insecurities. Brin also discusses how even as he tried to appear unbiased – all readers get the sense that he is for the dogma of otherness and tolerance of diversity.

2. What was interesting/what did you learn:

Brin raises a good point towards the end of the speech by raising the point that he along with many in his audience are intolerant of intolerance – which is quite an amusing paradox. I think this was really an interesting point to make and one that I have never thought about before. I for one am very open to diversity and try to be tolerant of others. I also have extremely little patience for those who are ignorant of other groups and make judgments based on what they have heard/assume.

3. Discussion Point:

In going with what I thought was interesting, I will raise a question that was similar to the one raised in class on Monday. If we were to go with the dogma of otherness meme and live in a society that this was the central idea – would we have to be tolerant of the intolerant? That is, if people choose to be intolerant of some cultures or ideas, would that exclude them from this meme (and therefore this society if we continue with my situation) or would that include them in part of the diversity and as a result, we would have to tolerate their intolerance?

Before European Hegemony - Successful Trade Towns

Janet L. Abu-Lughod's Before Western Hegemony started with a very long intro into the world trade systems A.D. 1250-1350. Part 1 is dedicated to the European subsystem. It then goes into detail the factors needed to make a trade town successful. First it needs to connect several regions with a motive to exchange with each other together. Secondly, the site must be accessible to traders and incur low transport costs. This type of trading worked especially well for luxury items, which were usually smaller and easier to travel with rather than bulkier and less profitable items. Luxury items include, spices, silk, porcelain, brocades and damascene blades. I found the part detailing Champagne's treaty very interesting. Champagne guarantees safety to traders body and thier goods from the moment they set foot in the territory of the fair. I thought this was a very smart idea for the town. It encouraged traders to come to their fair instead of other towns because of the protection they receive at Champagne. Another factor contributing to Champagne's success was its ability to promote order and justice through a system of guards named "Guards of the Fair". These men "policed the large number of people gathered on the fairgrounds, heard complaints, enforced contract promises, and collected fines to punish cheating". There were also notables who "constituted a tribunal of justice, hearing cases, adjudicating conflicts, and imposing penalties"(59). I also liked the reference to Robin Hood as well. Traders carried valuables from town to town and in order to safeguard themselves and their goods, caravans were created. One other interesting part was how towns so favorable for trading were soon left behind. One aspect was due to the increasing popularity of water transporting. And secondly was the ability of ships to traverse the Atlantic Ocean, which allowed them to bypass routes that were becoming less favorable due to political and hostile reasons. I thought it was truly fascinating that such a complex sysytem of trade existed so long ago. I was curious as to how the "money changers" knew what each currency was worth compared to others? What other items were traded during this time? Also what was the atmosphere like during these fairs?

Kayla O

Brin's Dogma of Otherness

After reading the articles for this week I realized they could be viewed through the lens of Brin's Dogma of Otherness. The ideas presented in this article are important for the class and provide a perspective that can be applied to most everything we read. The idea behind the Dogma of otherness is that we as a human race are better when diversity and tolerance is an intricate part of society. William H. McNeill touches upon this idea in his lecture when he describes polyethnicity took place due to conquest, disease, and trade. In his first lecture he discusses the evolution of civilizations and the different structures that they formed. According to McNeill, it became a popular idea in middle age Europe to govern only those who were of similar ethnicity. Europeans study of the classics during the Enlightenment strengthened this notion. A pattern such as this lasted for centuries and could be seen in Europe and America to the present day. In Mohammed A. Bamyeh's article, he discusses three aspects of globalization that were present in Dar al-Islam, including partial control, free movement, and heteroglosia. These three aspects are useful in achieving the dogma of otherness. In the report from the economist, the author discusses the problems the Arab world has had with conflict and unity, and the west's inability to spread real democracy to the area. The prevalence of dictatorships, the sham democracy, and the unending conflict have made it nearly impossible for the middle east to experience the dogma of otherness, and also hinders the US in doing so.

Throughout American history we see a large amount of persecution of non-Caucasian ethnicities. Examples of this include slavery of Africans, establishing indian reservations, placing Japanese Americans in internment camps during the second world war, persecuting African Americans during the civil rights movement, creating isolated Spanish speaking communities, mistrusting individuals of Arab nationality. We claim to be the melting pot but do not truly embrace multiethnicity. Instead, we simply tolerate different ethnical backgrounds as long as they remain isolated. All over America there are Spanish speaking communities, Asian communities, African American communities, etc. Because of this isolation, we are not diversified, and the Dogma of Otherness cannot be fully recognized. We force members of these communities to learn English and adapt to American culture, however it would be far more beneficial if we all worked together to learn from each other and lived together as a true mixture of diverse cultures. In this way we gain a better understanding of the world and the humans we live with, and are able to build from each other in an advancing globalized world in order to build a better human race.

One problem with Brin's Dogma of otherness that I wish he would have expanded on is how the dogma can be fully realized. It seems that in our nation we proclaim to follow this dogma, but in reality we are less tolerant and more isolated than we believe ourselves to be. I think it would make for an interesting discussion to debate whether the dogma of otherness is the best worldview, and if it is, how to we put it into practice.

-Luke Pearson

Rachel Jourdan-Aufiery-Before European Hegemony

This chapter starts off discussing the 13th century of the Old World. There are two ideas highlighted regarding the thirteenth century, which are economic integration and cultural efflorescence. New technology facilitated the surplus of goods, which were then traded. Around A.D. 1250 and 1350, an international trade economy was booming that included areas from China to northwestern Europe. Different goods were valued in different areas of the globe. For instance, silver was prized in Europe while gold was treasured in the Middle East. The merchants active in the trading business did not all speak the same language, and their currencies differed as well. I find these facts very fascinating because a lack of technology and different modes of communication would make things difficult to begin with. It would be very challenging to be active in the trading business and communicating with people that speak different languages.I wonder what other complications arose because of the differences in languages and currency. Later in the chapter, the author points out distinction between the "commercial revolution" and the "industrial revolution." For example, distinguishing between the differences in industrialization can be a way to differentiate between the two. Another difference discussed in the difference between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. There was much less production of goods in the thirteenth century than in the sixteenth century. Moreover, later in the reading the twelfth and again the thirteenth century are discussed. The increased improvements in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing in northwestern Europe was a result of the increased opportunities of trade from the Crusades.

Rachel Jourdan-Aufiery-Survival of the Fittest Ideas

In this reading, the idea of memes is presented, which are basically bundles of ideas. The idea of memes was presented by the scientist-author Richard Dawkins. Just like the way bacteria and viruses spread throughout the body infecting cells, ideas can be spread through word of mouth influencing others thoughts and behaviors. These memes take action within the human brain. I really foiund this whole concept fascinating and I liked the comparing ideas with biological processes. Furthermore, Dr. Brin adds that he believes there are four world views in competition with one another. The first is called Paranoia, which has to do with threat and suffering. Peace is an enemy to Paranoia because peace enables one to feel comfortable and at ease. The second major worldview Brin points out is called Machismo. This worldview is the most powerful and describes times in which women suffer oppression and was very common in hunter-gatherer tribes. In certain areas around the world such as Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East this type of worldview is seen. An example Brin uses is in the Iranian language, Farsi. Many of the fairy tales from this culture focus on seeking revenge and can be seen in 1001 Arabian Nights. The third major worldview Brin presents is called The East. The main theme of this worldview is homogeneity and this worldview has been around for a long time. This worldview stresses a strong belief in professionalism and skill. Finally, the fourth worldview is referred to as the West. However, Brin also calls this worldview the Dogma of Otherness. Important aspects of this worldview include diversity, a desire for change, tolerance, and newness. How can the main themes of the Dogma of Otherness be applies to the Unites States?