The theme of this unit encompasses the law, human rights and the concept of justice. The reason why we begin with Guantanamo Bay is because, as of right now, there isn't necessarily a universal set of laws that govern the area, and thus the concept of "justice" for the area is open to debate. And has it been debated...
Guantanamo, as we discussed in class today, is an incredibly unique place. U.S. laws don't really apply to the prisoners there, but the area is nonetheless under the control of the U.S. government. As such, questions abound about what, exactly, are the rights of the people imprisoned there.
What I really would like you to think about this unit is what the term "justice" really means: Is it a universal set of rights every has? What happens if justice for me equals an injustice for you? What is the best way to determine justice in a large society, when contrasting ideas of what is (and is not) justice contradict one another? Every event discussed in this unit should raise these questions for you.
But back to Guantanamo. You should, at this point, be researching the debate that we will be having next week. In doing so, you are really researching differing ideas about justice. That is, do the rights of the imprisoned to a fair trial and evaluation of the evidence against them outweigh the possible safety benefits for thousands of Americans if they remain imprisoned? Is justice the same for everyone?
The questions raised here are questions you should ask about every event we study throughout this unit. In doing so, it should lead you to understand better the evolution of what we know now to be justice, because (as I mentioned in D period today), the idea of human rights is a very new concept in the history of the world.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thursday, December 20, 2007
"Do" Instead of "Do Not"
Gandhi represents a real sea change that occured during the late 1800s into the 1900s. Instead of the common conception of religion being a series of rules designed to govern people's behavior, people like Gandi (and later, the Liberation Theologists) began to emphasize the power of good behavior and quests for social justice. This is a fundamental change from the manner in which religion had heretofore been thought of. Gandhi's mix of Hinduism, Jainism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam created a wholly unique vision of the manner in which the present world (and after-life) existed. Of course, since his reality demanded that action, not beliefs, guided religion, it should come as no surprise that he would lead the nonviolent protest movement against the British imperialists who had control of India at the time. His version of reality demanded that he act.
This is a large part of the point I have been beating into your heads lately. The concept behind religions-be it Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or whatever-has changed dramatically over the last 3,000 years, and the very "truths" of these religions, open to interpretation, change as humanity changes. What it was like to be a Jew in 100 B.C. is exponentially different than what it means to be a Jew today. Sure, the holy book is the same, but the interpretation of that book, over time, has meant very different things to different people living in incredibly different historical periods.
So where does that leave us today? As I mentioned in class, the world is still adjusting to the concept of religion as "do" versus religion as "do not." Those who still believe religion is a set of rules tend to see the world in wholly different (and contradictory) ways from those who see religion as demonstrated through good actions. As such, we see many conflicts that arise out of these contradictory realities. From 9/11 to the situation in Darfur, the competing visions of reality that shape those people involved set these conflicts in motion, and help keep them going. Hopefully, as people begin to become more comfortable with these competing ideas of what religion truly means, these conflicts will subside and the world will begin to gain some understanding of itself.
This is a large part of the point I have been beating into your heads lately. The concept behind religions-be it Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or whatever-has changed dramatically over the last 3,000 years, and the very "truths" of these religions, open to interpretation, change as humanity changes. What it was like to be a Jew in 100 B.C. is exponentially different than what it means to be a Jew today. Sure, the holy book is the same, but the interpretation of that book, over time, has meant very different things to different people living in incredibly different historical periods.
So where does that leave us today? As I mentioned in class, the world is still adjusting to the concept of religion as "do" versus religion as "do not." Those who still believe religion is a set of rules tend to see the world in wholly different (and contradictory) ways from those who see religion as demonstrated through good actions. As such, we see many conflicts that arise out of these contradictory realities. From 9/11 to the situation in Darfur, the competing visions of reality that shape those people involved set these conflicts in motion, and help keep them going. Hopefully, as people begin to become more comfortable with these competing ideas of what religion truly means, these conflicts will subside and the world will begin to gain some understanding of itself.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Religion as Agent of the Powerless
All religions preach nonviolence. Every essential text, from the bible to the qu'ran preaches a nonviolent approach to life. Additionally, the idea of nonviolence is essential to the teachings of all religions. Hence, we today consider it simply natural that people shouldn't be violent because we were all brought up (rightly) being taught that violence is wrong and immoral. But we never question why is it natural that we should be so "naturally" against violence.
The answer comes from religion, and the origins of religion's anti-violence stance can be analyzed historically. During their early years, each major religion was a minority in the society in which it was created. As such, it was persecuted by the group in power. Each religion, consisting of a relatively small group of followers, could not advocate violence, because it would easily be crushed by the group in power. So nonviolence became the only manner in which a newly-founded religion could survive in the ancient world.
The key change occurs when that religion goes from being the persecuted minority to the religion of the those in power. The powerful members of that religion have to then re-adjust the interpretation of the basic nonviolent foundations of that religion. So religion becomes an excuse for violence. However, it is important to understand that it wasn't religion that caused the violence, it was the position of power. Religion does not necessarily promote violence-the attempt to either gain or solidify power does.
As we saw last week, religion is often used by powerful people to retain their power by violent means. However, religion certainly be used by those without power in a nonviolent manner to achieve social justice. People like Martin Luther, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama are terrific examples of that...
The answer comes from religion, and the origins of religion's anti-violence stance can be analyzed historically. During their early years, each major religion was a minority in the society in which it was created. As such, it was persecuted by the group in power. Each religion, consisting of a relatively small group of followers, could not advocate violence, because it would easily be crushed by the group in power. So nonviolence became the only manner in which a newly-founded religion could survive in the ancient world.
The key change occurs when that religion goes from being the persecuted minority to the religion of the those in power. The powerful members of that religion have to then re-adjust the interpretation of the basic nonviolent foundations of that religion. So religion becomes an excuse for violence. However, it is important to understand that it wasn't religion that caused the violence, it was the position of power. Religion does not necessarily promote violence-the attempt to either gain or solidify power does.
As we saw last week, religion is often used by powerful people to retain their power by violent means. However, religion certainly be used by those without power in a nonviolent manner to achieve social justice. People like Martin Luther, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama are terrific examples of that...
Friday, December 14, 2007
Missionaries and their Reality
Its easy for secular people to dismiss missionaries as either fools or con artists, getting people to follow a government or governments that just seek to enslave or kill them. But that judgment doesn't do justice to the history of missionary work as it relates to colonialism. Its important to understand that these men and women truly believed in what they were doing.
I made this analogy in a couple classes: missionaries in the 1500s thought of themselves as if they were in a lifeboat and all others around them were drowning. Their Christianity was the lifeboat, and the drowning people were the non-Christians who were doomed to hell if they didn't accept Christianity. They felt that if they didn't do everything they could to get the non-Christians into the lifeboat (convert them to Christianity), that was essentially murder. They were complicit in destroying the souls of the nonbelievers. They believed the fate of the world rested in their hands. This explains why they were so vigilant in their attempts to convert people, especially the Africans.
Don't get me wrong-this is not meant to excuse the behavior of those missionaries who essentially said "convert or die." The death and destruction that came from colonialism is inexcusable. But its our job as students of history to understand why they did what they did. The missionaries were dedicated to their cause, so much so that (in many cases) they decided that death was preferable to disbelief.
The other important issue discussed today relates to the comparison of Buddhist missionaries to Christian missionaries. Notice some essential differences: (a.) Era in history-the Buddhist missionaries did their work before 1500, which severely limited their geographic impact (as there wasn't a whole lot of transportation technology available), and (b.) Nature of Monotheism versus Polytheism-remember, Polytheism is not based upon the acceptance of a single God. The Christian missionaries were naturally going to be more aggressive because their reality told them to be so.
Overall, the presence of missionaries throughout history has had an undeniable and massive impact on the world throughout history, and the world as we know it today would be dramatically different if those missionaries did not convert thousands. Who know, without missionaries and evangelism, Mike Huckabee might just be another guy, not the new frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.
I made this analogy in a couple classes: missionaries in the 1500s thought of themselves as if they were in a lifeboat and all others around them were drowning. Their Christianity was the lifeboat, and the drowning people were the non-Christians who were doomed to hell if they didn't accept Christianity. They felt that if they didn't do everything they could to get the non-Christians into the lifeboat (convert them to Christianity), that was essentially murder. They were complicit in destroying the souls of the nonbelievers. They believed the fate of the world rested in their hands. This explains why they were so vigilant in their attempts to convert people, especially the Africans.
Don't get me wrong-this is not meant to excuse the behavior of those missionaries who essentially said "convert or die." The death and destruction that came from colonialism is inexcusable. But its our job as students of history to understand why they did what they did. The missionaries were dedicated to their cause, so much so that (in many cases) they decided that death was preferable to disbelief.
The other important issue discussed today relates to the comparison of Buddhist missionaries to Christian missionaries. Notice some essential differences: (a.) Era in history-the Buddhist missionaries did their work before 1500, which severely limited their geographic impact (as there wasn't a whole lot of transportation technology available), and (b.) Nature of Monotheism versus Polytheism-remember, Polytheism is not based upon the acceptance of a single God. The Christian missionaries were naturally going to be more aggressive because their reality told them to be so.
Overall, the presence of missionaries throughout history has had an undeniable and massive impact on the world throughout history, and the world as we know it today would be dramatically different if those missionaries did not convert thousands. Who know, without missionaries and evangelism, Mike Huckabee might just be another guy, not the new frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Crusades-Religion as Motivation
Pope Urban was quite the speaker. His ability to mobilize people in support for a war that really wouldn't affect in any way their daily life is pretty impressive. Going away from the discussion today, I think its important to recognize the power of words to mobilize people. A good speech can convince people of virtually anything, especially if those people have little personal experience regarding the subject of your speech.
Also of importance is the connection between Urban's speech organizing the Crusades and the words of Usama bin-Laden in declaring the "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders" in 1998. They both break down to a couple essential ideas:
1. The Holy land is under attack.
2. The people who are attacking it are bringing murder, immorality and decadence to the Holy land.
3. If you defend the holy land, you are promised great benefits in heaven.
These themes are virtually identical in both Urban's speech and bin-Laden's declaration. There's a lot there to be said about the manner in which powerful people can use religion to both (a.) convince average people that they should hate someone else, and (b.) there's actually something in it for them personally to act on behalf of the powerful.
On the other side, though, is the experience of the Crusdaders that were highlighted in the second and third readings I assigned. Clearly, their experience (positive relationships developed between Christians and Muslims) contradicted all the horrible things Urban tried to convince them of, and as such, actually promoted economic and cultural relations between Europe and the Middle East.
So the important lesson for modern day is this: regardless of how hard some will try to convince average people that they should hate someone, they can't overcome the positive experience of two people who actually sit down and get to know one another.
Also of importance is the connection between Urban's speech organizing the Crusades and the words of Usama bin-Laden in declaring the "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders" in 1998. They both break down to a couple essential ideas:
1. The Holy land is under attack.
2. The people who are attacking it are bringing murder, immorality and decadence to the Holy land.
3. If you defend the holy land, you are promised great benefits in heaven.
These themes are virtually identical in both Urban's speech and bin-Laden's declaration. There's a lot there to be said about the manner in which powerful people can use religion to both (a.) convince average people that they should hate someone else, and (b.) there's actually something in it for them personally to act on behalf of the powerful.
On the other side, though, is the experience of the Crusdaders that were highlighted in the second and third readings I assigned. Clearly, their experience (positive relationships developed between Christians and Muslims) contradicted all the horrible things Urban tried to convince them of, and as such, actually promoted economic and cultural relations between Europe and the Middle East.
So the important lesson for modern day is this: regardless of how hard some will try to convince average people that they should hate someone, they can't overcome the positive experience of two people who actually sit down and get to know one another.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Religion as an agent of the Powerful
This week's theme is "Religion as an agent of the powerful." What we're trying to look at this week is how those in power use religion to maintain the status quo, or their position within society or government. Religion has been used many times throughout history to maintain the status quo. The question, though, is why religion is so easily adapted to make this happen?
As we saw with Hinduism today, when religion sets in motion a series of "truths," believers are very unlikely to challenge those truths, as doing so might endanger their everlasting existence. As times change and new people are swept into positions of power, they begin to exert their own interpretative influence into the "truths" of the religion, and the concept of reality shifts ever-so-slightly. These ever-so-slight shifts, however, occurring almost constantly over hundreds of years, may completely change the nature of the "truth." Hence, as we saw today, the caste system that began in 1500 BC in India, focused on a division of labor, shifts incredibly (based on who was trying to maintain their power in India over centuries) to the point where it is used to justify the elevation of lighter-skinned Indians solely on the basis of the color of their skin. Taken as two snapshots, one might be amazed that the caste system of the early 20th century had anything to do with the one created in 1500 BC. But tiny changes over two thousand years, taken together, make a world of difference.
As we saw with Hinduism today, when religion sets in motion a series of "truths," believers are very unlikely to challenge those truths, as doing so might endanger their everlasting existence. As times change and new people are swept into positions of power, they begin to exert their own interpretative influence into the "truths" of the religion, and the concept of reality shifts ever-so-slightly. These ever-so-slight shifts, however, occurring almost constantly over hundreds of years, may completely change the nature of the "truth." Hence, as we saw today, the caste system that began in 1500 BC in India, focused on a division of labor, shifts incredibly (based on who was trying to maintain their power in India over centuries) to the point where it is used to justify the elevation of lighter-skinned Indians solely on the basis of the color of their skin. Taken as two snapshots, one might be amazed that the caste system of the early 20th century had anything to do with the one created in 1500 BC. But tiny changes over two thousand years, taken together, make a world of difference.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Constantine
So was Constantine a true Christian? Who really knows, and does the question even matter?
One of the most important things to remember throughout this unit is the concept of historical understanding-evaluating times and people based not upon some unrealistic standard, but upon how they related to people in their times. Sure, Constantine did some horrible things, but do those things disqualify him from being considered a Christian at all? Not really. This is also a guy who (as brought up in D Period) produced the Edict of Milan, a document declaring religious toleration throughout the Roman Empire. There are positives and negatives to everyone. You can disqualify Constantine from Christianity for reasons relating to his time period, but if you disqualified every person throughout history who did not follow the Ten Commandments perfectly, you would have no Christians in history (well, maybe one, I guess).
Remember the theme of the unit-"How one constructs reality." For Constantine, his reality was a mix of Christian ideals and pragmatic necessities, spiced with polytheistic traditions here and there. In his mind, satisfying all these needs would make him the best emperor, while gaining him favor with his God. Understanding him in that context helps us better understand not only him, but the history of this particular religion as a whole. And the more we understand how people construct their reality, the more likely we are to solve conflicts between competing realities in the future.
One of the most important things to remember throughout this unit is the concept of historical understanding-evaluating times and people based not upon some unrealistic standard, but upon how they related to people in their times. Sure, Constantine did some horrible things, but do those things disqualify him from being considered a Christian at all? Not really. This is also a guy who (as brought up in D Period) produced the Edict of Milan, a document declaring religious toleration throughout the Roman Empire. There are positives and negatives to everyone. You can disqualify Constantine from Christianity for reasons relating to his time period, but if you disqualified every person throughout history who did not follow the Ten Commandments perfectly, you would have no Christians in history (well, maybe one, I guess).
Remember the theme of the unit-"How one constructs reality." For Constantine, his reality was a mix of Christian ideals and pragmatic necessities, spiced with polytheistic traditions here and there. In his mind, satisfying all these needs would make him the best emperor, while gaining him favor with his God. Understanding him in that context helps us better understand not only him, but the history of this particular religion as a whole. And the more we understand how people construct their reality, the more likely we are to solve conflicts between competing realities in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)