Musings...
This week's session was rather insightful. The first part of it was mainly dealing with global dominance and how technological advances in many areas of the human spectrum have affected life in the past, present and the future as we know it. Relating back to what Yali had asked last week, we managed to answer it this week, and then some. The first thing that hit me was when Prof mentioned the fall of the Roman Empire, a great empire that stretched over a large fraction of the known world during the time and lasted for many, many centuries. He asked why such a great empire fell. It wasn't glaringly obvious to me as I'm quite rusty with historical facts and figures but the answer was disease, specifically, the Bubonic plague AKA the Black Death. What was more interesting was the fact that when this plague returned in the 1300s AD, it sparked the Renaissance, marking the end to an age of superstitions and darkness. After much thought, I found it increasingly hard to accept that the plague which had brought much of Europe to its knees had inevitably gave it the Revival. After about 800 years of darkness, people suddenly wanted to believe in science and logic (which by then, was probably almost void except in the Middle East)? This was also thought to me in high school but to this day I still don't see why or how people could suddenly wake up and change after 800 years of darkness. If anyone has more insight on this please do enlighten me.
Moving on, we discussed about global dominance throughout the first part of our lesson. And after watching the intelligently hilarious video on the British Empire and also reading the first reading assigned, it became how and why colonies existed. In my view, colonialist wanted to fully exploit their colonies, not just in tapping their resources but in some colonies, exploiting their manpower (making slaves out of the natives). This was inherently so in the Americas, where the native Indians from the north, central and south Americas had been enslaved by the European colonials. And what irks me the most is when people tell me that they brought about a system of order, justice and education. I feel that such systems and ideals did not have to be taught through hard dominance and it is ridiculous to assume that the intent of the colonialists was to solely do just that. For instance, when Singapore had first created its army, we asked other nations for help. The Israelis answered the call, they came in and taught us how to create an army and today we are the strongest and most capable force in the southeast Asian region. This was not done through hard dominance (although I've heard the pioneer days of NS were complete and utter hell) but rather through proper channels like education and helping create the infrastructures needed to get the job done. When I try to reconcile the actions and intentions of the colonialists, I can only find greed, oppression and a hint of supremacist ideals. I find that the root cause of why the colonialists invaded and had little to no regard for the indigenous peoples was the fact that they saw themselves superior. If there was even a basis or foundation of mutual respect, they would not have enslaved or massacred the natives like they did all over the world. Just my two cents. A major take-away point is that the world needs to learn that it's these ideals that destroy humanity and are the roots of atrocities and evils that have plagued us, as a race, through history.
Another interesting take away from class was from the "Dominance Pyramid'. I found it extremely interesting seeing the traits and characteristics of countries and companies and sizing them into the Pyramid. Companies like Apple were heavily discussed, and the notion of the "king of the hill"was brought up by one of my fellow muses. If you were the king of the hill, meaning you are the top of the industry, would you continue to push the bar higher or slack off and become complacent? Seeing the trends of empires, global giants and corporate immortals, it seems that the kings of the hills usually get so large and obese that they eventually roll off the hill and end up in a decline. Interesting. Furthermore, what I took away from this was - your hunger for improvement will perpetuate your dominance.
In the second half of the class, we discussed development in many forms. We were also told that development may not always be positive as there may be negative externalities like environmental degradation. Thus, there has to be social and economic impact assessments done before we can implement a development. What was interesting was the simple question of whether development drove world change or vice versa, or whether both drove each other. I believe that both world change and development drive each other in different time periods and different parts of the world. If there is a global epidemic, it might spark a change in the pharmaceutical corporations and vaccines might have to be made affordable and sustainable for all parts of the world, probably resulting in advances and developments in medicine and pharmacy. Similarly, if the developments in green or eco-energy become sustainable, affordable and a complete substitute for fossil fuels, then the world might change to using these technologies and then a new age of energy and conservation may begin. Thus, I believe that both aspects affect and impact each other depending on the developments and the changes in the world.
Being a person who likes history, I would have liked if more discussions and explanations were done for why the Bubonic plague had started the Renaissance after 800 years. But then again, we're not in European history class. It still boggles my mind though.
Personal rating for this session: 8.801/10
Off to further musings,
James G14
Wednesday 24 August 2011
Tuesday 16 August 2011
Session 1: First Impressions
Musings...
My first session in TWC class seemed to bring me back to history lessons I had in high school and junior college, with the exception that history lessons spewed ridiculous amounts of facts and tyrannical teachers expected you digest those facts (without regard as to whether you had an understanding for why or how those facts played out). This was rather refreshing for me as you had to really analyse, think and reflect on history and the present. We discussed the origins of civilizations which seemed rather mundane at first as I felt that ancient history most of the time may not apply to what's happening in this fast-paced, ever-changing world. But the mundanity lied in my inability to ask the right questions. Topics like Yali's provoked much thought in my mind. As a history student, I understand the idea of the "White Man's Burden" and how such supremacist ideals work, but I never truly questioned why they were so. Much like Yali, I was stumped.
Through more discussion, I realized that factors like geography played a major role in determining how civilizations develop. Prof brought up the idea that if the geography of a certain civilization or group of people was open to travellers, traders and migrants, then they would collect and "absorb" the influences of these passing peoples and further develop themselves. This process kept churning until the civilization became knowledgable, adept and exposed to other ideas. I found this extremely true and fascinating as when I referred back to all the major civilizations and kingdoms, in my ailing memory, that prospered, I found that the large majority of them assimilated with other cultures through conquest, trade, war and exploration. In essence, civilizations with access to the open world became more advanced and thus, in time, more dominant. Places like the Amazon where civilizations are hidden deep in treacherous jungles and wild habitats seemed to be more primitive and less dominant as they rarely experience the influence and ideas of the outside world. A key take away for me on this topic was that human development (and eventually, civilizations' development) depended on the ability to interact with other humans from other lands and cultures in order view the world in broader sights so as not to be a "frog in a well" (Chinese proverb).
Another major topic that struck me as an unusual truth was the fact that the rise of civilizations hinged on the ability of the people to adapt from being hunter-gatherers to farmers. The ability to domesticate. Once again, I muse about the great empires and civilizations and one empire comes to mind that slightly contradicts this adaptation idea. I thought about Genghis Khan and the great Mongol Empire... Genghis Khan once said, "Perhaps my children will live in stone houses and walled towns - Not I", keeping true to his nomadic roots. This man did not want to domesticate nor be a humble farmer, he was a conqueror, warrior and chieftain; yet he created one of the largest empires in history. But before I let my naivety conquer me, I realized as with all great conquerors, Genghis Khan did not destroy every land or people he conquered, instead he assimilated, rallied and adapted - growing his army and his empire by still having a system of domestication away from the war fronts. Smart guy.
Interesting facts I was somewhat unsure of were the many contributions of the Middle East to the renaissance as well as modern sciences and mathematics. I knew that the Middle Eastern civilizations were advanced and developed but I never knew the extent to which their contributions have impacted today's world. It was an eye-opener for me. Then again, much of written history today is, aforementioned in class, euro-centric. And it doesn't help that European Christians fought nearly three centuries of crusades in the Middle East attempting to wipe out the Islamic faith and plunder their riches for the glory of God. Controversial? Maybe. Ridiculous? Most definitely. But whether the crusaders like it or not, the Middle Eastern civilizations have contributed much to modern advances and some Muslim scholars had figured out stuff centuries before their European counterparts.
This speeding train of thought brought me to my next station of musing - what we could have discussed further in class. I find some odd amusement in discussing controversy but then again, who doesn't? I thought a discussion could be ignited based on aforementioned ideas like the "White Man's Burden", religious differences and racial supremacy. These warped ideals seemed to be major driving forces for many of the conflicts, catastrophes and carnage that have plagued human history - from the crusades to the holocaust to the Ku Klux Klan. And the question is whether such ideas and animosities could create an unstoppable behemoth of hatred and malice in today's modern, cultured, civilized and technologically advanced world?
Personal rating for this session was 8.7654/10
Off to further musings,
James TWC G14
My first session in TWC class seemed to bring me back to history lessons I had in high school and junior college, with the exception that history lessons spewed ridiculous amounts of facts and tyrannical teachers expected you digest those facts (without regard as to whether you had an understanding for why or how those facts played out). This was rather refreshing for me as you had to really analyse, think and reflect on history and the present. We discussed the origins of civilizations which seemed rather mundane at first as I felt that ancient history most of the time may not apply to what's happening in this fast-paced, ever-changing world. But the mundanity lied in my inability to ask the right questions. Topics like Yali's provoked much thought in my mind. As a history student, I understand the idea of the "White Man's Burden" and how such supremacist ideals work, but I never truly questioned why they were so. Much like Yali, I was stumped.
Through more discussion, I realized that factors like geography played a major role in determining how civilizations develop. Prof brought up the idea that if the geography of a certain civilization or group of people was open to travellers, traders and migrants, then they would collect and "absorb" the influences of these passing peoples and further develop themselves. This process kept churning until the civilization became knowledgable, adept and exposed to other ideas. I found this extremely true and fascinating as when I referred back to all the major civilizations and kingdoms, in my ailing memory, that prospered, I found that the large majority of them assimilated with other cultures through conquest, trade, war and exploration. In essence, civilizations with access to the open world became more advanced and thus, in time, more dominant. Places like the Amazon where civilizations are hidden deep in treacherous jungles and wild habitats seemed to be more primitive and less dominant as they rarely experience the influence and ideas of the outside world. A key take away for me on this topic was that human development (and eventually, civilizations' development) depended on the ability to interact with other humans from other lands and cultures in order view the world in broader sights so as not to be a "frog in a well" (Chinese proverb).
Another major topic that struck me as an unusual truth was the fact that the rise of civilizations hinged on the ability of the people to adapt from being hunter-gatherers to farmers. The ability to domesticate. Once again, I muse about the great empires and civilizations and one empire comes to mind that slightly contradicts this adaptation idea. I thought about Genghis Khan and the great Mongol Empire... Genghis Khan once said, "Perhaps my children will live in stone houses and walled towns - Not I", keeping true to his nomadic roots. This man did not want to domesticate nor be a humble farmer, he was a conqueror, warrior and chieftain; yet he created one of the largest empires in history. But before I let my naivety conquer me, I realized as with all great conquerors, Genghis Khan did not destroy every land or people he conquered, instead he assimilated, rallied and adapted - growing his army and his empire by still having a system of domestication away from the war fronts. Smart guy.
Interesting facts I was somewhat unsure of were the many contributions of the Middle East to the renaissance as well as modern sciences and mathematics. I knew that the Middle Eastern civilizations were advanced and developed but I never knew the extent to which their contributions have impacted today's world. It was an eye-opener for me. Then again, much of written history today is, aforementioned in class, euro-centric. And it doesn't help that European Christians fought nearly three centuries of crusades in the Middle East attempting to wipe out the Islamic faith and plunder their riches for the glory of God. Controversial? Maybe. Ridiculous? Most definitely. But whether the crusaders like it or not, the Middle Eastern civilizations have contributed much to modern advances and some Muslim scholars had figured out stuff centuries before their European counterparts.
This speeding train of thought brought me to my next station of musing - what we could have discussed further in class. I find some odd amusement in discussing controversy but then again, who doesn't? I thought a discussion could be ignited based on aforementioned ideas like the "White Man's Burden", religious differences and racial supremacy. These warped ideals seemed to be major driving forces for many of the conflicts, catastrophes and carnage that have plagued human history - from the crusades to the holocaust to the Ku Klux Klan. And the question is whether such ideas and animosities could create an unstoppable behemoth of hatred and malice in today's modern, cultured, civilized and technologically advanced world?
Personal rating for this session was 8.7654/10
Off to further musings,
James TWC G14
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)