Today's discussion on the Mansas (Sundiata and Musa) raises a number of issues regarding how leadership has been implemented. Clearly, both Sundiata and Musa had very strong feelings about the manner in which a society should operate. Sundiata, in creating the Mali society, was attempting to instill a just and righteous civilization that would grow and thrive. Musa, on the other hand, inherited a society that already was thriving and made it even more successful.
The keys to Musa's success relied upon trade. Trade has helped push forward history through the interactions between societies that developed, and in the Mali example, the fact that Musa was able to use the commodities present in the society (Salt and Gold) to his advantage allowed him to make Mali a central power not only in Africa, but throughout the world. Trade (and the resulting interactions between civilizations) also encouraged cultural and social development across North Africa and into Southern Europe. Musa was able to capitalize on his advantages and the downturn in both Europe and the Middle East to further develop worldwide relations and increase his own civilization's standing in the world system.
So the question that arise from today involves trade. Specifically: can you think of other time periods in which trade/interactions have been the main motivating factor for historical development throughout the world?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Human Nature, Confcianism and Legalism
So, based on today's discussion, its clear that the Confucians and Legalists had very different ideas about Human Nature. The Legalists were generally very pessimistic, thus leading them to conclude that for a state to succeed, rules and order needed to be maintained. If people were free to choose whether or not to follow a leader, they would never do so, so in order for the society to thrive, rewards and punishments were necessary.
The Confucians, having a generally optimistic view of society, concluded that people would naturally do good if they were shown an example of goodness on behalf of the leader. Essentially, the Confucians advocated for a moderated form of anarchy, but not the negative idea of anarchy we associate with the word today, but a very positive view of anarchy in which people are so good that they don't even need laws.
So, in your opinion, which of these two is closer to getting it right on human nature? Consider things like Hurricane Katrina-when people were stripped of all laws, what happened? Then again, billions of dollars are given to charitable organizations each year, much of which is done anonymously. There are examples of both positive and negative views of human nature all around us. So what are we-good or bad?
The Confucians, having a generally optimistic view of society, concluded that people would naturally do good if they were shown an example of goodness on behalf of the leader. Essentially, the Confucians advocated for a moderated form of anarchy, but not the negative idea of anarchy we associate with the word today, but a very positive view of anarchy in which people are so good that they don't even need laws.
So, in your opinion, which of these two is closer to getting it right on human nature? Consider things like Hurricane Katrina-when people were stripped of all laws, what happened? Then again, billions of dollars are given to charitable organizations each year, much of which is done anonymously. There are examples of both positive and negative views of human nature all around us. So what are we-good or bad?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Early Civilizations and the Environment
The first civilizations on this planet had it rough. Like…really rough.
These small groups of people stopped chasing their food from place to place around 3000 B.C.E. (beginning what is known as the “Neolithic era”) and settled down in modern day Iraq to establish permanent homes that would rely upon the environment to insure the survival of the people. Unfortunately for these civilizations, the environment is not a consistently reliable source of survival. In fact, at times it does more to insure death and destruction than health and well being.
These first civilizations settled between two major rivers: the Tigris and Euphrates. Living between these two rivers would allow for inhabitants of the civilizations access to one of the fundamental benefits presented by the natural environment: water. Of course, the people of this civilization had to find ways to get that water to the central farms that were developing, as the movement from hunting and gathering to fixed locations required people to use the available land to plant and grow food. Irrigation was born. Civilization as a whole grew tremendously as people were able to successfully grow food for both themselves and their neighbors.
Of course, living between two major rivers does have its down side. Heavy rains at any given time would flood the rivers, potentially destroying the farms and/or killing a whole bunch of people. The people of the Neolithic era had to be constantly aware of the potential for disaster. Even more unfortunately for them, there was little they could do to prepare.
A similar catch-21 developed when the first civilizations realized the benefits of domesticating animals. Possessing and maintaining farm animals was a great way to help sustain early civilizations, as these animals (both living and recently deceased) could provide a lot of different resources for humans: eggs, meat and clothing are but three tremendous benefits of having animals around. But, like the dangers associated with living near rivers, domesticating animals also brought with it some danger. These animals carried a number of diseases for which humans had no immunities. Being in constant contact with these animals would eventually lead to the deaths of a number of people in these early civilizations, as they caught and passed on the viruses and diseases carried by the animals.
The inhabitants of the first river valley civilizations had to constantly be aware of their relationship to their environment, as any sudden change in conditions could literally mean the end of their society. With each innovation that would eventually lead to tremendous growth for the world as a whole, there was inevitably a cost that would have to be paid by some members of society. And that cost usually involved a level of give-and-take between mankind and his environment. Unfortunately for the people of the Neolithic time period, the “take” tended to be a lot more severe (and happen more often) than the “give.”
Most importantly, however, it is important to understand that, from even this early time period, there was an unmistakable connection between mankind and his environment. When the environment was cooperative, the early civilizations thrived. When the environment was uncooperative, civilization stagnated.
These small groups of people stopped chasing their food from place to place around 3000 B.C.E. (beginning what is known as the “Neolithic era”) and settled down in modern day Iraq to establish permanent homes that would rely upon the environment to insure the survival of the people. Unfortunately for these civilizations, the environment is not a consistently reliable source of survival. In fact, at times it does more to insure death and destruction than health and well being.
These first civilizations settled between two major rivers: the Tigris and Euphrates. Living between these two rivers would allow for inhabitants of the civilizations access to one of the fundamental benefits presented by the natural environment: water. Of course, the people of this civilization had to find ways to get that water to the central farms that were developing, as the movement from hunting and gathering to fixed locations required people to use the available land to plant and grow food. Irrigation was born. Civilization as a whole grew tremendously as people were able to successfully grow food for both themselves and their neighbors.
Of course, living between two major rivers does have its down side. Heavy rains at any given time would flood the rivers, potentially destroying the farms and/or killing a whole bunch of people. The people of the Neolithic era had to be constantly aware of the potential for disaster. Even more unfortunately for them, there was little they could do to prepare.
A similar catch-21 developed when the first civilizations realized the benefits of domesticating animals. Possessing and maintaining farm animals was a great way to help sustain early civilizations, as these animals (both living and recently deceased) could provide a lot of different resources for humans: eggs, meat and clothing are but three tremendous benefits of having animals around. But, like the dangers associated with living near rivers, domesticating animals also brought with it some danger. These animals carried a number of diseases for which humans had no immunities. Being in constant contact with these animals would eventually lead to the deaths of a number of people in these early civilizations, as they caught and passed on the viruses and diseases carried by the animals.
The inhabitants of the first river valley civilizations had to constantly be aware of their relationship to their environment, as any sudden change in conditions could literally mean the end of their society. With each innovation that would eventually lead to tremendous growth for the world as a whole, there was inevitably a cost that would have to be paid by some members of society. And that cost usually involved a level of give-and-take between mankind and his environment. Unfortunately for the people of the Neolithic time period, the “take” tended to be a lot more severe (and happen more often) than the “give.”
Most importantly, however, it is important to understand that, from even this early time period, there was an unmistakable connection between mankind and his environment. When the environment was cooperative, the early civilizations thrived. When the environment was uncooperative, civilization stagnated.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Hurricane Katrina, the Environment, and World History
Hurricane Katrina and the chaos that resulted stand as a dark time in the history of the United States. Unlike the time period immediately after 9/11, when the citizens of the United States, along with the government, came together with a spirit of unity that was almost unprecedented, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina seemed to push people even further apart and left much of the country to wonder why we weren’t able to effectively deal with a crisis in New Orleans that, from a casualty standpoint, was at least the equal of 9/11. Furthermore, the lack of a unified and successful response to this tragedy which left thousands dead brought to light some massive inequalities in this country (based on both social class as well as race) that this country is going to have to deal with over the coming years. More than a few people wondered how the response (and preparedness in the first place) may have been different if the affected area consisted of wealthy residents as opposed to the poor that lived in New Orleans and Mississippi. These types of questions, crystallized by Hurricane Katrina, are going to linger in our national consciousness for a very long time.
In another way, the discussion of the tragedy that occurred in 2005 helps us lay out the core concepts of this unit. There was an environmental crisis that forced people to react, adjust, and attempt to solve the problems. In doing so, social relationships were formed (and broken), the government attempted to solve the crisis, and (most importantly) many of the divisions that existed in the United States (social, political, economic) that were living just under the surface of our society were exposed and highlighted in a way that should make every observer a little uncomfortable. In understanding the manner in which an environmental crisis contributes to the evolution of human history, a few major questions are raised.
1. How does the interaction between man and the environment shape world history?
2. In what ways does mankind have a reciprocal (“Back-and-Forth”) relationship with the environment?
3. In what ways does that reciprocal relationship result in larger questions about the nature of our society and history as citizens of the world?
4. How do we balance the question of human needs against the dangers of environmental instability?
These questions should remain in your head as we progress through the timeline of world history. As the unit progresses, be sure to look back at these questions on a regular basis. You may find that your answers to these questions may not remain constant throughout this unit. In fact, I hope that you struggle with these questions throughout the next few weeks and, at the conclusion of the unit, can make a solid, cohesive argument in favor of a number of potential answers. Good luck.
In another way, the discussion of the tragedy that occurred in 2005 helps us lay out the core concepts of this unit. There was an environmental crisis that forced people to react, adjust, and attempt to solve the problems. In doing so, social relationships were formed (and broken), the government attempted to solve the crisis, and (most importantly) many of the divisions that existed in the United States (social, political, economic) that were living just under the surface of our society were exposed and highlighted in a way that should make every observer a little uncomfortable. In understanding the manner in which an environmental crisis contributes to the evolution of human history, a few major questions are raised.
1. How does the interaction between man and the environment shape world history?
2. In what ways does mankind have a reciprocal (“Back-and-Forth”) relationship with the environment?
3. In what ways does that reciprocal relationship result in larger questions about the nature of our society and history as citizens of the world?
4. How do we balance the question of human needs against the dangers of environmental instability?
These questions should remain in your head as we progress through the timeline of world history. As the unit progresses, be sure to look back at these questions on a regular basis. You may find that your answers to these questions may not remain constant throughout this unit. In fact, I hope that you struggle with these questions throughout the next few weeks and, at the conclusion of the unit, can make a solid, cohesive argument in favor of a number of potential answers. Good luck.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Introduction to Environment Unit
Balance. When considering the issues of environmental use by humans throughout history, the principle of balance plays an enormous role. As time has progressed, the balance struck between human needs and environmental necessity helps determine the most essential elements of human history. Much of history can be seen as an attempt to continually redefine the balance struck between these two realities, while both the greatest gains and most dramatic setbacks can, in many ways, trace themselves back to the relationship between humans and their environment.
This breaks down very clearly. Humans and their environment live in a constantly changing state of flux. As human needs change, they make adjustments that impact the environment in which they live, allowing people to thrive. As the environment responds and changes, humans either adapt to the new condition, move away, or die. This relationship is continual and in a constant state of adjustment. Every human advancement, be it social, economic, political, or cultural, has an environmental impact. The adjustments to the environment made by humans go a long way towards determining whether or not civilization (in some form) can continue in that region.
As we will see in this unit, humans constantly have to adapt to their changing environment, and while it is usually a very subtle process, there are plenty of times throughout history in which the relationship between humans and their environment became so unbalanced that a massive correction took place, usually devastating the human population. What makes the history of environmental interaction so interesting is that usually you can see direct historical progress between the actions of civilization and the resulting environmental reaction. The give-and-take of the relationship between man and his environment is very clear and allows for students to develop some significant historical skills. As the unit progresses, the key will be to be able to identify the causes (and effects) of human use of the environment and how that use brings about a specific and significant environmental response.
One note: Although this is a unit that revolves around the relationship between humans and their environment, do not assume this will be a 100% pro-environmentalism, Al-Gore-could-have-written-this-whole-thing unit. We are studying the historical relationship between man and his environment. The conclusions you draw from this study are yours. As long as you can back up your opinions with factual evidence, the position you take on environmentalism is up to you. The events of history are meant to be analyzed and should result in an understanding of how things have worked in the past. This unit will address how this relationship has evolved over time. You should let the historical evidence guide you to your opinion on this issue. Good luck.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Pericles, Leadership, and Decision-Making
Pericles, in his funeral oration, does a terrific job of emphasizing both the characteristics of a leader as well as the pitfalls of leadership.
The essential job of a leader is to make people willing to do seemingly irrational things to promote the cause for which the leader is attempting to promote. Furthermore, a truly successful leader understands the causes that truly require him to exercise that leadership. Pericles gets an A+ on the first criteria, but fails the second.
In his funeral oration, Pericles does all of the necessary things a leader must do. First of all, he unifies the people in a common history so as to give them a sense of community with one another. Then, he highlights all the great things about Athens, so the people understand that there are greater things than themselves. Finally, he explains to them that the men who have died have made themselves great because they have died for this great place.
So what’s the results of this great speech? Well, hundreds come out to join the Athenian army in fighting the hated Spartans…and they are promptly slaughtered and taken over by Sparta. Oops.
The second part of leadership deals with making the right choices. Its one thing to convince others to give up their lives for your cause. Its completely another to have the foresight to understand the true meaning of that cause and to understand why it is appropriate to follow the path you’ve chosen. This leads back to the allegory of the cave. The true philosopher king differs from the politician creating the shadows most apparently in his judgment. He is smart enough to find the truth and lead the citizens to it. Pericles had the ability to lead, but unfortunately for him, chose the wrong “truth.”
Which, of course, leads us to question #2 in this unit: what does it mean to exercise good judgment in leadership? Who today is an example of this, and who is not?
The essential job of a leader is to make people willing to do seemingly irrational things to promote the cause for which the leader is attempting to promote. Furthermore, a truly successful leader understands the causes that truly require him to exercise that leadership. Pericles gets an A+ on the first criteria, but fails the second.
In his funeral oration, Pericles does all of the necessary things a leader must do. First of all, he unifies the people in a common history so as to give them a sense of community with one another. Then, he highlights all the great things about Athens, so the people understand that there are greater things than themselves. Finally, he explains to them that the men who have died have made themselves great because they have died for this great place.
So what’s the results of this great speech? Well, hundreds come out to join the Athenian army in fighting the hated Spartans…and they are promptly slaughtered and taken over by Sparta. Oops.
The second part of leadership deals with making the right choices. Its one thing to convince others to give up their lives for your cause. Its completely another to have the foresight to understand the true meaning of that cause and to understand why it is appropriate to follow the path you’ve chosen. This leads back to the allegory of the cave. The true philosopher king differs from the politician creating the shadows most apparently in his judgment. He is smart enough to find the truth and lead the citizens to it. Pericles had the ability to lead, but unfortunately for him, chose the wrong “truth.”
Which, of course, leads us to question #2 in this unit: what does it mean to exercise good judgment in leadership? Who today is an example of this, and who is not?
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Allegory of the Cave and the Origins of Leadership
The fundamental elements of leadership began in Ancient Greece, and the two events we studied this week exemplify two very unique, but equally important aspects of leadership. First of all, in Plato's “Allegory of the Cave,” there are a number of important leadership qualities exemplified by the author. As we saw last unit, Socrates (and his student, Plato) were products of the Democratic city-state of Athens in ancient Greece in the years (roughly) 440-399 BCE. As citizens of the world's first democracy, they lived in an environment that promoted discussion of who would make the best leader (because each citizen had a right to vote for leaders, it was only natural to discuss what characteristics that person should have. Conversely, in a dictatorship, its not really as necessary to talk about the virtues of a potential leader. Pretty much the guy with the best army is going to end all that discussion.)
As seen in the picture below, the cave consists of three parts. The average citizens of a society are represented by the individuals in chains, staring at the wall. The shadows projected by the people walking in front of the fire are the reality for the average citizens. Only by escaping the cave and entering the “light” of knowledge will the average citizen escape the false reality that exists in the cave.
So where does leadership come in? Its simple: a true leader has two abilities: (1.) the ability to escape the false reality of the cave and enter enlightenment, and (2.) the ability to return to the cave and convince the average person to join him or her outside of the cave and into knowledge. Of course, this is easier said than done, as confronting the average person with the fact that everything they have ever known is a lie might make them, ummm....not so happy. They'll probably think that leader is crazy, and if he/she persists, the group will probably kill him/her. Thus, the effective leader knows how to speak to the average person in a way that convinces them that this leader is doing things in their best interests. This is known as developing empathy. In other words, the leader understands the needs of the people, and instead of talking down to them, explains the reasons why his choice of actions will be better for everyone. This, of course, is a huge risk for the potential leader. But, according to Socrates, leadership cannot happen unless you have the willingness to accept the risk that comes with the responsibilities of leading a group of people.
A leader is both intelligent and charismatic-he knows what's best and can convince the average person that he's right. That's why Socrates referred to this theoretical person as the “Philosopher King”.
Does this kind of person exist? Socrates said he hadn't seen anyone ever earn the title “Philosopher King.” Furthermore, can this type of person ever exist? Or will we (comfortable looking at our own “shadows”) destroy anyone who ever attempts to lead in this fashion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)