According to The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the percentage of the globe's population that practices Islam is about 25%, which is to say 1 in 4 people on Earth are Muslim. Of course, like any group that size Islam is far from monolithic and there are many variations therein. The two largest and most well known sects are Sunni and Shia Islam. Sunni is considered the "Orthodox" and is the larger of the two. It's basis is that the jurisprudence of all Islamic law is based upon the primary Hadiths and the Qu'ran using juristic reasoning and consensus. The main split occurred after the death of Muhammad and the Sunni believed the succeeding Caliph should be elected, where as the Shia believed that the son of Muhammad, Ali, should be the Caliph. The Shia believe that only God has the right to choose who should safeguard Islam and as such those related to the divinely ordained prophet had a special spiritual authority over the community.
Hezbollah (literally Party of God) was founded in 1982 by Abbas al-Musawi and Subhi al-Tufayli in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War. It has both a political arm and a paramilitary arm and has been in conflict with Israel since it's founding. It's goals as listed by it's 1985 manifesto are
"Israel's final departure from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration," ending "any imperialist power in Lebanon," submission of the Phalangists (a right ring party supported by Maronite Christians) to "just rule" and bringing them to trial for their crimes, and giving the people the chance to choose "with full freedom the system of government they want." The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 as a fascist part by Hassan al-Banna, an Islamic school teacher. It started as an Islamic social group opposed to British rule and which viewed the Qu'ran as the basis of law for ordering any free society. It officially opposes violence and operates today as political party that supports democracy guided by Islamic principles.
Although the age of religious wars has more or less passed and many nations have freedom of religion to some degree, religion is still the source of conflict in many areas. The Middle East and Africa are perhaps the hotbeds of these activities, as religion is still very important in these regions and there are cases of violence against non-Muslim religious minorities, particularly Christians, For instance, the Nigerian Muslim militia Boko Haram targets churches and has the stated aim of creating an Islamic state, This is also seen in largely secular states such as China and France, where religion is often marginalized legally and many people hold a bias against the religious.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
Periodization
The problem of dividing history into periods arises from the fact history isn't so clear cut and it's difficult to cut it up into nice little sections and trends slowly give way to one another, rather than changing over night. After all, the fall of Rome occurred over many years and can't really be pinpointed to one event, nor can the start of the dark ages or the beginning of the Renaissance. After all, no one living in the era we call the "Dark Ages," referred to it as such. While these labels are indeed useful and necessary to the study of history, it has certain limitations due to the fact that different parts of the world were very different for much of the world. For instance, the era we classify as the Dark Ages may have been such for the Occident, but for the Islamic middle east or Asia they were quiet progressive. Still, there are most certainly elements of truth in the dividing up of history into periods, and while it may be difficult to pinpoint the exact moment one period leads to the other, one can clearly see the difference between the renaissance and the dark ages and the classical periods.
Trying to use the same principles to periodize modern history is difficult, as it is still being made, but it is certainly a useful thought exercise. It is somewhat difficult to do this to modern history considering the breakneck speed of change in the last 2 centuries. Modernization has spread across humanity and although colonialism still exists in some forms, it has in the most direct sense ended and even the nature of the nation state and how they interact with one another has changed much since the 19th and early 20th century. The easiest "pivot points" to mark in most recent history would be the collapse of the Soviet Union and the attacks of 9/11. The fall of the Soviet Union marks the end of the Cold War, which arguably defined the structure of the post WWII world and international politics. This gave way to American unilateralism and the eroding of the old power blocs. This segways nicely into the attacks of 9/11, which arguably mark the slow demise of the "American Century" and the beginning of "No One's Century," in which the world has no penultimate power. It also marks the increased resistance of third world forces against first world domination. I would like to point out that it does not mark an increase of terrorism, as that is a tactic that has been a broad issue since the 19th century.
Trying to use the same principles to periodize modern history is difficult, as it is still being made, but it is certainly a useful thought exercise. It is somewhat difficult to do this to modern history considering the breakneck speed of change in the last 2 centuries. Modernization has spread across humanity and although colonialism still exists in some forms, it has in the most direct sense ended and even the nature of the nation state and how they interact with one another has changed much since the 19th and early 20th century. The easiest "pivot points" to mark in most recent history would be the collapse of the Soviet Union and the attacks of 9/11. The fall of the Soviet Union marks the end of the Cold War, which arguably defined the structure of the post WWII world and international politics. This gave way to American unilateralism and the eroding of the old power blocs. This segways nicely into the attacks of 9/11, which arguably mark the slow demise of the "American Century" and the beginning of "No One's Century," in which the world has no penultimate power. It also marks the increased resistance of third world forces against first world domination. I would like to point out that it does not mark an increase of terrorism, as that is a tactic that has been a broad issue since the 19th century.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Blog 9
Despite race, culture, creed, and location, the motivations of people are all very similar and often rather simple when one gets down to it. All people look to ensure their own survival and access to the resources necessary for it and to make their lives a little more comfortable. This often manifests in the search of raw materials, but also of land that can be inhabited and cultivated and for people to trade with to attain goods otherwise unavailable.
However, a people's culture and the pressures of their environment certainly do affect how they approach these goals and the fervor that they do it with. For instance, the early Polynesians conducted many colonization efforts during their voyages, and it can be concluded that they were looking less to trade but to find new lands they could live on and that could support them. This can be attributed to a need to find new places to live as space on various islands became a premium and population pressures necessitated this migration. This can be contrasted by the Chinese and Indo-sphere's expeditions, which had trade in mind, as well as evangelizing in the case of the Muslim states. Indian expeditions showed great success as trade networks were established all around the Indian Ocean and a great deal of cultural diffusion could be witnessed. The Chinese also pursued oceanic trade with great vigor with admiral Zheng He's expedition, which was composed of many great treasure ships and soldiers. However, due to China's ability to produce many of its necessities and in no small part to a certain sense of xenophobia, the Chinese kept much of their trading partners at arm's length wary of an unfavorable trade balance and although they could have, they did not pursue any colonization projects.
The Europeans had a great capability for naval exploration comparable to the Chinese, a greater capacity for ship production than the Polynesians, and perhaps the strongest pressures to explore and expand. Europe was an unstable place, but it was also sophisticated, urbanized, and while it was not resource poor there was an ever growing need for more compacted by the difficulty of overland trade through hostile Muslim lands and the inhospitable Eurasian wastes. The beginnings of large scale naval exploration was spearheaded by the Italian merchant states who had long proven themselves as seamen, and the Iberians, who's experience in the Reconquista had given them a southern look to Africa. The Christian kingdoms of Iberia looked to spread Christianity across Africa, but more importantly looked to gain access to the lucrative gold trade and later to gain direct access to India. This led them to circumvent Africa and find many resource rich and easily exploited areas that they would later go on to develop often to the detriment of the natives. Because of the long and almost constant history of warfare in Europe as well as the technological superiority over both the African and American natives, the Europeans were more predisposed to take various undeveloped areas and exploit them to their own benefit while engaging in trade with the local polities.
The balance of trade and the benefit derived from them often depended on the level of development of those involved and the distance from Europe. The Chinese did better than the Indo-Sphere which in turn did better than the Swahili trade cities, which in turn did better than everyone else. Where the Europeans could, they worked to exploit the local area for maximum profit the best they could. This is best illustrated by Portugal's interaction with the kingdom of Kongo, the most advanced polity in Western-central Africa, but a comparatively weak and undeveloped power to the Portuguese. Despite its conversion to Catholicism, its friendliness to the Portuguese, and several laws to limit trade, the Portuguese that settled there to trade brought in many goods that the people wanted and greatly increased the slave trade because of it. As a side effect, this worked greatly to undermine Dom Alfonso, the sovereign of the Kongo, and his government's ability to control its vassals not to mention increase the misery of those sold into slavery by their neighbors. While many of the individual Kongolese gained access to goods they would otherwise never had and a great deal of scientific knowledge hitherto unavailable became available, the Kingdom of Kongo and other, less developed people benefited little as a whole and were arguably worse off for it in the end.
While all the blanks on the map have been filled for a long time and we enter the so called "post-colonial world" motivations have changed little, although the scale and the nature in which they are pursued have. Although industry allowed the West to dominate the world it also gave everyone the machine gun and as a result attaining the resources wanted now take more cooperation and/or guile. Despite this, exploration still exists although it now takes place in the most inhospitable and inaccessible recesses of the earth and to a much lesser degree space. It now takes the form of exploring the ocean depths and exploratory oil drilling. While the surface has been mapped man now plumbs the depths of the earths looking for the resources necessary to maintain the industrialized global economies that ensure the survival of more people than this planet has ever seen.
However, a people's culture and the pressures of their environment certainly do affect how they approach these goals and the fervor that they do it with. For instance, the early Polynesians conducted many colonization efforts during their voyages, and it can be concluded that they were looking less to trade but to find new lands they could live on and that could support them. This can be attributed to a need to find new places to live as space on various islands became a premium and population pressures necessitated this migration. This can be contrasted by the Chinese and Indo-sphere's expeditions, which had trade in mind, as well as evangelizing in the case of the Muslim states. Indian expeditions showed great success as trade networks were established all around the Indian Ocean and a great deal of cultural diffusion could be witnessed. The Chinese also pursued oceanic trade with great vigor with admiral Zheng He's expedition, which was composed of many great treasure ships and soldiers. However, due to China's ability to produce many of its necessities and in no small part to a certain sense of xenophobia, the Chinese kept much of their trading partners at arm's length wary of an unfavorable trade balance and although they could have, they did not pursue any colonization projects.
The Europeans had a great capability for naval exploration comparable to the Chinese, a greater capacity for ship production than the Polynesians, and perhaps the strongest pressures to explore and expand. Europe was an unstable place, but it was also sophisticated, urbanized, and while it was not resource poor there was an ever growing need for more compacted by the difficulty of overland trade through hostile Muslim lands and the inhospitable Eurasian wastes. The beginnings of large scale naval exploration was spearheaded by the Italian merchant states who had long proven themselves as seamen, and the Iberians, who's experience in the Reconquista had given them a southern look to Africa. The Christian kingdoms of Iberia looked to spread Christianity across Africa, but more importantly looked to gain access to the lucrative gold trade and later to gain direct access to India. This led them to circumvent Africa and find many resource rich and easily exploited areas that they would later go on to develop often to the detriment of the natives. Because of the long and almost constant history of warfare in Europe as well as the technological superiority over both the African and American natives, the Europeans were more predisposed to take various undeveloped areas and exploit them to their own benefit while engaging in trade with the local polities.
The balance of trade and the benefit derived from them often depended on the level of development of those involved and the distance from Europe. The Chinese did better than the Indo-Sphere which in turn did better than the Swahili trade cities, which in turn did better than everyone else. Where the Europeans could, they worked to exploit the local area for maximum profit the best they could. This is best illustrated by Portugal's interaction with the kingdom of Kongo, the most advanced polity in Western-central Africa, but a comparatively weak and undeveloped power to the Portuguese. Despite its conversion to Catholicism, its friendliness to the Portuguese, and several laws to limit trade, the Portuguese that settled there to trade brought in many goods that the people wanted and greatly increased the slave trade because of it. As a side effect, this worked greatly to undermine Dom Alfonso, the sovereign of the Kongo, and his government's ability to control its vassals not to mention increase the misery of those sold into slavery by their neighbors. While many of the individual Kongolese gained access to goods they would otherwise never had and a great deal of scientific knowledge hitherto unavailable became available, the Kingdom of Kongo and other, less developed people benefited little as a whole and were arguably worse off for it in the end.
While all the blanks on the map have been filled for a long time and we enter the so called "post-colonial world" motivations have changed little, although the scale and the nature in which they are pursued have. Although industry allowed the West to dominate the world it also gave everyone the machine gun and as a result attaining the resources wanted now take more cooperation and/or guile. Despite this, exploration still exists although it now takes place in the most inhospitable and inaccessible recesses of the earth and to a much lesser degree space. It now takes the form of exploring the ocean depths and exploratory oil drilling. While the surface has been mapped man now plumbs the depths of the earths looking for the resources necessary to maintain the industrialized global economies that ensure the survival of more people than this planet has ever seen.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Education and Poverty
It's almost a hallmark of modern liberal democracies to cry out that the answer to poverty is a functioning and all inclusive education system. Why I agree with this idea on the whole, I think it's often treated like a silver bullet when it could more accurately be described as something that generally gives people more opportunities. However, we can see that nations with better education systems have higher earning workers and have better standards of living, although some might argue its just a consequence of industrialization. However, Carolina's accounts in "Child of the Dark," do very little to reinforce this often cited "fact." She talks of how a boy who, when brought to the favela was educated and polite and smart, quickly degenerated into a layabout, a drunk, and a womanizer as he aged in such such poverty. One could argue that an education without opportunity can do little but make one aware of how horrible their situation is. However, Carolina, also in the same hopeless situation, was only able to write the very book we're reading because of her education and it would ultimately lift out of the hell of the favela. In my opinion, education itself is just a tool, and how it is used and to what end is in the hands of the owner.
C.S. Lewis once said that “education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” Seeing as education in and of itself is but a tool, this is hard to disagree with. A callous and clever individual may used their education to further themselves by any means while another may use it to try and help his peers. In a sense, this is what education out to be, something that empowers an individual to make their own decisions and judgement and to operate in the world as they see fit. Many education systems try and reproduce the value system of a particular society in the youth. This in and of itself could be considered a kind of oppression, as hat is considered to be right and wrong according to the curriculum is decided by those in control of the education system. In this sense, knowledge is literally power, if I may quote Foucault, as it allows people to shape the views of those much younger than themselves. However, this does not completely remove one's agency in their own thoughts, although it does restrict it. None the less, an education ought to empower someone to choose or create their own values, rather than have values forced upon them.
C.S. Lewis once said that “education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” Seeing as education in and of itself is but a tool, this is hard to disagree with. A callous and clever individual may used their education to further themselves by any means while another may use it to try and help his peers. In a sense, this is what education out to be, something that empowers an individual to make their own decisions and judgement and to operate in the world as they see fit. Many education systems try and reproduce the value system of a particular society in the youth. This in and of itself could be considered a kind of oppression, as hat is considered to be right and wrong according to the curriculum is decided by those in control of the education system. In this sense, knowledge is literally power, if I may quote Foucault, as it allows people to shape the views of those much younger than themselves. However, this does not completely remove one's agency in their own thoughts, although it does restrict it. None the less, an education ought to empower someone to choose or create their own values, rather than have values forced upon them.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Poverty and Child of the Dark
Poverty is the state of being unable to consistently provide the most basic necessities for oneself. If you're going to bed hungry and its not by choice then you'd qualify as impoverished. When your housing is barely standing and unelectrified or when you have no housing, you're impoverished. However, the generally accepted definition of poverty in the first world has steadily changed as both wealth and the general standard of living in such nations has dramatically increased over time This is mainly due to industrialization, the major technological advances that it afforded, and development of consumer based economies. As it is, even the poorest first worlders are far wealthier than your average third worlder and are living lives far more comfortable than those of 50 years ago. Poverty in the first world has been greatly alleviated both by their industrialized and consumerist economies, but also by the fact most poverty has been exported to the third world, so to speak. This has also been affected by both public school systems and by more effective economies. Welfare systems have done little to actually eradicate poverty in the first world so much as it has done well to alleviate the stresses of poverty. As to whether its a place for government is hard to say, considering its a case of taking other people's money to give to other people.
Carolian in Child of Darkness is a very good example of someone struggling in poverty with some dignity. She's living hand to mouth in a glorified urban shanty town and she clearly works hard finding whatever work she can (such as collecting all that discarded paper) to try and feed herself and her children the best she can. She is a person completely at the mercy of the prices of essential commodities like food and petrol, as a simple price change can mean the difference between eating tonight or not eating. She is a person living in true poverty, unlike those living in American poverty. The various Ghettos of America today do not compare to the soul crushing poverty of the favelas. The closest any part of America gets to the level of poverty seen in favelas would be rural parts of Mississippi and the city of Detroit. The very fact that almost every American can directly benefit from the fruits of industrialization and consumerism in the form of extremely cheap food and energy is proof of this.
Carolian in Child of Darkness is a very good example of someone struggling in poverty with some dignity. She's living hand to mouth in a glorified urban shanty town and she clearly works hard finding whatever work she can (such as collecting all that discarded paper) to try and feed herself and her children the best she can. She is a person completely at the mercy of the prices of essential commodities like food and petrol, as a simple price change can mean the difference between eating tonight or not eating. She is a person living in true poverty, unlike those living in American poverty. The various Ghettos of America today do not compare to the soul crushing poverty of the favelas. The closest any part of America gets to the level of poverty seen in favelas would be rural parts of Mississippi and the city of Detroit. The very fact that almost every American can directly benefit from the fruits of industrialization and consumerism in the form of extremely cheap food and energy is proof of this.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
News Agencies of the World on Syria
For my news assignment I chose to follow the burgeoning Syrian civil war and the three news sources I used were CNN (I tend to have it on the television for background noise), Al Jazeera (probably the source of news I trust the most) and Russia Today (because it's like Fox if it had a Russian bias).
As the week went on, the violence in Syria only escalated, as pretty much all news sources covered. The most interesting thing was the increase of activity by the Free Syrian Army, especially on January 27th when the Free Syrian Army seized some suburbs in Damascus. CNN actually had reporters there and interviewed some of the soldiers and protesters. This was considered a pretty big deal and while RT played it down a little, a lot of the western news agencies, ala CNN, talked about the "beginning of the end of Al-Assad." However, by the 30th the Syrian army cracked down and retook the suburbs. All the while, large portions of the population continued to protest in the streets when they could. Soon after the UN security council brought up resolutions to place sanctions on Syria and to call for Bashar Al-Assad to step down. On February 5th, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China vetoed both resolutions, causing an uproar in the international community. So as it currently stands there is still a great uncertainty in Syria, and it's unclear how much longer the violence will last and who will ultimately succeed.
I find the situation itself absolutely fascinating myself. It doesn't directly affect me, but it most certainly does indirectly and I have a feeling that the result of this situation and the international reaction will have very, very large ripples. Syria is absolutely key in Iran's Levant strategy, and their lose would leave them in a much weaker position that could only further agitate them. At the same time, Syria is a part of a trend of further global, and regional, destabilization that will have interesting consequences for Turkey and Israel. Also, this is only furthering divisions in the UN Security Council between China and Russia and the Western powers. It's unclear how this will play out, but it will have far reaching consequences for both the region and the larger international community.
As for coverage, Al-Jazeera probably had the most and the most in depth coverage of the event, having both a life blog and an entire part of their website devoted to it, while CNN's coverage was average with a few segments everyday and even some live coverage while Russia Today played it down somewhat. the reasons for this are multiple. Al-Jazeera, being based in Qatar, probably had the best coverage as they could more readily access sources of information as well as interview many experts. Also, Qatar as emirate has increased its involvement in the affairs of the region, and has being seeing itself more as a power broker (as can be seen with the decision to place the Taliban embassy in Qatar.) CNN is typical of American news, and has covered the situation decently but without a great deal of depth and has fallen into the Western wishful thinking that it's only a matter of time that Al-Assad will fall. The reasons for this is because they, as most westerners, would like to see the regime go, especially because of its ties to Iran. Russia Today is, well, the Putin News Network. They have downplayed the violence to a degree, but they are perhaps one of the few news agencies other than Al-Jazeera talking about the deep divisions inside the opposition. the reasons for this is because Russia Today is a reflection of Russian policy. Russia, much like China, has chosen a path of both non-intervention, but also upholding national sovereignty. The reasons are for trying to further stability, as they don't want to further destabilize the region with intervention while Iran is already agitated, but also for reasons of Real Politik. Russia doesn't want more American influence in the region,. but they also don't want to set the precedent of international involvement in nations to install liberal democratic institutions, mostly because Russia doesn't have a great track record with liberal democratic institutions.
As the week went on, the violence in Syria only escalated, as pretty much all news sources covered. The most interesting thing was the increase of activity by the Free Syrian Army, especially on January 27th when the Free Syrian Army seized some suburbs in Damascus. CNN actually had reporters there and interviewed some of the soldiers and protesters. This was considered a pretty big deal and while RT played it down a little, a lot of the western news agencies, ala CNN, talked about the "beginning of the end of Al-Assad." However, by the 30th the Syrian army cracked down and retook the suburbs. All the while, large portions of the population continued to protest in the streets when they could. Soon after the UN security council brought up resolutions to place sanctions on Syria and to call for Bashar Al-Assad to step down. On February 5th, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China vetoed both resolutions, causing an uproar in the international community. So as it currently stands there is still a great uncertainty in Syria, and it's unclear how much longer the violence will last and who will ultimately succeed.
I find the situation itself absolutely fascinating myself. It doesn't directly affect me, but it most certainly does indirectly and I have a feeling that the result of this situation and the international reaction will have very, very large ripples. Syria is absolutely key in Iran's Levant strategy, and their lose would leave them in a much weaker position that could only further agitate them. At the same time, Syria is a part of a trend of further global, and regional, destabilization that will have interesting consequences for Turkey and Israel. Also, this is only furthering divisions in the UN Security Council between China and Russia and the Western powers. It's unclear how this will play out, but it will have far reaching consequences for both the region and the larger international community.
As for coverage, Al-Jazeera probably had the most and the most in depth coverage of the event, having both a life blog and an entire part of their website devoted to it, while CNN's coverage was average with a few segments everyday and even some live coverage while Russia Today played it down somewhat. the reasons for this are multiple. Al-Jazeera, being based in Qatar, probably had the best coverage as they could more readily access sources of information as well as interview many experts. Also, Qatar as emirate has increased its involvement in the affairs of the region, and has being seeing itself more as a power broker (as can be seen with the decision to place the Taliban embassy in Qatar.) CNN is typical of American news, and has covered the situation decently but without a great deal of depth and has fallen into the Western wishful thinking that it's only a matter of time that Al-Assad will fall. The reasons for this is because they, as most westerners, would like to see the regime go, especially because of its ties to Iran. Russia Today is, well, the Putin News Network. They have downplayed the violence to a degree, but they are perhaps one of the few news agencies other than Al-Jazeera talking about the deep divisions inside the opposition. the reasons for this is because Russia Today is a reflection of Russian policy. Russia, much like China, has chosen a path of both non-intervention, but also upholding national sovereignty. The reasons are for trying to further stability, as they don't want to further destabilize the region with intervention while Iran is already agitated, but also for reasons of Real Politik. Russia doesn't want more American influence in the region,. but they also don't want to set the precedent of international involvement in nations to install liberal democratic institutions, mostly because Russia doesn't have a great track record with liberal democratic institutions.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Well, this is my first blog post ever and all it took was a mandatory class assignment. I've never really done something like this so I'm not sure how to approach it, so I'm just going to go for a stream of consciousness sort of thing.
So a few things about me. I'm a white, upper middle class, nihilist, libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, 19 year old male. I was born and raised in San Antonio by a mother with a lot of disposable income. Suffice to say it was a fairly lavish lifestyle and I've never known hardship. Yet in that environment I was never really sheltered, I was allowed to watch what I wanted and my mother made no attempt to shield me from seeing. The thing I remember loving the most as a child was a book full of maps my parents gave me. It fascinated me for some reason and I just looking at all the countries and all the different and weird names that I never saw before. As I got older I was always aware of there being this wider world out there and I was always curious about it. I ended up watching a lot of CNN and the History Channel because I just found it cool. That interest carried over into debate where I was exposed to a lot more things and a lot of very different philosophies, perhaps too early. I was probably not ready to read as much post-modern literature as I did in high school. As my debate coach told me, I've got the Post-Modernism bug really bad.
When I started writing this, I really didn't know what non-material thing I could not do without. It's a rather odd question to be asked as a materialist (I mean that in the classical sense, although I am an unrepentant consumer as well.), but I think I actually know now. If there's one thing I could no do without it's the ready access of information. To be able to look up and at least get a basic understanding of almost anything in a few seconds, to be able to see almost any movie, listen to almost any song, read any book with just an internet connection and the will to is perhaps the single greatest achievement of modern man. To be able to be so easily exposed to so many facets of the world, that is the glory of the information age.
But enough blathering about myself, I'm supposed to be blathering about history. I've always defined history as the series of events that led to our current situation. Because to really understand why things are the way are they are now, you have to look at how things were before. This is of course rather laborious considering how vast human history is, let alone the vastness of cosmic history. But still, by knowing history you better understand the events of the present and their significance and you're better able to predict the course of the future.
The history book we're required to read, does have a bias to a certain extent, but this is true of all works and I find that it tends towards more objectivity than previous history books. Truth be told, I found it refreshing. I expected there to be some liberal bias, but chapter 30 actually did a pretty good job summing up much of the modern world. It said things flatly, and I think people tend to read in too much emotion into their history books which really isn't present. But as they say, history is an argument. History has always been written by victors, and how history is presented very much affects the cultural consciousness and the thinking of people. The fact is, all history is struggle. Interests are nigh infinite and the resources are limited, so competition is constant, fierce, and mostly unavoidable. History has been something written in blood, and most people like to forget the unsavory elements of how we got here. But that's why I always found my nihilism rather liberating academically. Once you stop looking at things through the lens of modern perspectives and just accept things as they are and as they were you can truly understand them.
So a few things about me. I'm a white, upper middle class, nihilist, libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, 19 year old male. I was born and raised in San Antonio by a mother with a lot of disposable income. Suffice to say it was a fairly lavish lifestyle and I've never known hardship. Yet in that environment I was never really sheltered, I was allowed to watch what I wanted and my mother made no attempt to shield me from seeing. The thing I remember loving the most as a child was a book full of maps my parents gave me. It fascinated me for some reason and I just looking at all the countries and all the different and weird names that I never saw before. As I got older I was always aware of there being this wider world out there and I was always curious about it. I ended up watching a lot of CNN and the History Channel because I just found it cool. That interest carried over into debate where I was exposed to a lot more things and a lot of very different philosophies, perhaps too early. I was probably not ready to read as much post-modern literature as I did in high school. As my debate coach told me, I've got the Post-Modernism bug really bad.
When I started writing this, I really didn't know what non-material thing I could not do without. It's a rather odd question to be asked as a materialist (I mean that in the classical sense, although I am an unrepentant consumer as well.), but I think I actually know now. If there's one thing I could no do without it's the ready access of information. To be able to look up and at least get a basic understanding of almost anything in a few seconds, to be able to see almost any movie, listen to almost any song, read any book with just an internet connection and the will to is perhaps the single greatest achievement of modern man. To be able to be so easily exposed to so many facets of the world, that is the glory of the information age.
But enough blathering about myself, I'm supposed to be blathering about history. I've always defined history as the series of events that led to our current situation. Because to really understand why things are the way are they are now, you have to look at how things were before. This is of course rather laborious considering how vast human history is, let alone the vastness of cosmic history. But still, by knowing history you better understand the events of the present and their significance and you're better able to predict the course of the future.
The history book we're required to read, does have a bias to a certain extent, but this is true of all works and I find that it tends towards more objectivity than previous history books. Truth be told, I found it refreshing. I expected there to be some liberal bias, but chapter 30 actually did a pretty good job summing up much of the modern world. It said things flatly, and I think people tend to read in too much emotion into their history books which really isn't present. But as they say, history is an argument. History has always been written by victors, and how history is presented very much affects the cultural consciousness and the thinking of people. The fact is, all history is struggle. Interests are nigh infinite and the resources are limited, so competition is constant, fierce, and mostly unavoidable. History has been something written in blood, and most people like to forget the unsavory elements of how we got here. But that's why I always found my nihilism rather liberating academically. Once you stop looking at things through the lens of modern perspectives and just accept things as they are and as they were you can truly understand them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)