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
No comments:
Post a Comment