A Glimmer of Hope

A Glimmer Of Hope

World Cup soccer, the world’s most popular sporting event is over, but a lasting image for me is Nelson Mandela waving to the crowd in South Africa in an appearance he made shortly before the championship game. Much like the picture of Mandela on page 690 showing him voting as a free man, Mandela is the face of South Africa and represents its freedom from apartheid and white domination. It was the process of decolonization that gave the people of South Africa their freedom and dignity from the empires of Europe. It was a struggle that was hard fought by the South Africans, and eventually, with the rest of the world’s help through boycotts and embargos, the cries for freedom were heard.

South Africa was the host of this year’s World Cup, and given its checkered past, came through as one of the best hosts this tournament has ever seen. Mandela was instrumental in helping South Africa become the host for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. He is now 86 years old and made a very brief appearance at the championship game as a show of support for his nation that had hosted this great event.

Hosting World Cup is a significant milestone in South Africa’s history because this event is a prestigious world-renowned tournament, which crowns the absolute best in the world of soccer. The tournament was played over a span of a month and its venues were located throughout South Africa. Thousands upon thousands of people traveled to this small country at the tip of Africa- some from as far away as the Netherlands to cheer on his or her own country. Soccer is truly a global sport and the World Cup brought people of different races, colors and religions together under the same peaceful banner. Everyone enjoys watching the “beautiful game” and this was apparent during this year’s World Cup. Watching World Cup soccer being played in South Africa made me feel as if a weight had been lifted from the world’s shoulders. Here, among all of the previous controversy of apartheid, this small nation was able to host a spectacle as large as the World Cup. This is a glimmer of hope for me in the world today.

Nelson Mandela is considered the world’s greatest statesman and a global icon for peace because he has campaigned tirelessly for peace and freedom for the Black people of South Africa. His approach was similar to Gandhi- asking for nonviolent demonstrations to try and get their message across to the South African government, but this did not work and the government responded with repression and violence against the leaders of the vocal movement. Mandela was arrested and imprisoned from 1962-1990, but the echoes of his work were felt around the world. With internal struggle and violence as well as international demands to end apartheid, the South African people finally won their freedom and equality. Nelson, for his instrumental role in abolishing apartheid, was elected the first president of post-apartheid South Africa from 1994-1999.

It seemed extremely fitting that South Africa would host this year’s World Cup tournament in order to unite people, change the world and lay a foundation for a better future. “This World Cup was the stage for a very special moment, tied up with the history of freedom and the history of one man,” explained the FIFA President. “This is a man who has suffered so much, but since being freed from prison he has spoken only of peace and understanding. I first met Nelson Mandela in 1992 and he had a dream: to bring the World Cup to his country. That dream has come true. He brought the World Cup to South Africa, and on the day of the Final he realized his ambition of attending in person. I have to pay homage to the world’s greatest living humanist – Nelson Madiba Mandela (FIFA World Cup).”

The Question of Blame

Since my in-laws are German and both grew up in Germany during World War II as children, I became intrigued by World War I and the implications of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany. My mother in-law experienced first hand the annexation of the German speaking part of Czechoslovakia to Germany while my father-in-law lived in a small town outside of Stuttgart during World War II. Their lives were severely impacted by the hardships of the war. Going back historically to World War I, the Treaty of Versailles provided the conditions for World War II; however, I was struggling with the “punishment” concept imposed on Germany from the Versailles Treaty. I couldn’t get the answer I was looking for in our textbook so I did some online research to better understand why Germany was blamed for the Great War and the subsequent punishment that was metered out in the Versailles Treaty.

There are a number of superficial and fundamental causes of the Great War. In reading through a number of web sites, the most comprehensive site, http://www.firstworldwar.com laid it out pretty succinctly. The struggle for power, domination, land, military might and a lot of political posturing was prevalent in Europe, but it was the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand that lit the fuse for war. Germany had a big hand in all of this because they were considered the instigators behind Austria declaring war on Serbia. Due to the alliances that had been formed, Triple Entente (Russia, France, Great Britain) versus the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy), each big power came to the aid of the little guy because of treaties that had previously been signed. Germany’s biggest mistake and which drew a lot of criticism, was the invasion of Belgium, a neutral party, to obtain access into France during the war. It seems fair to say that Germany should shoulder much of the blame for World War I since it had the opportunity to prevent it and German military establishment seemed eager to go to war to advance their agenda; however, there were other factors and circumstances for the power struggle that was going on in Europe and all parties involved were at fault. I kept coming back to my question as to why punish Germany so severely in the Versailles document?

Germany was a big fish in the struggle for power within Europe. Through historical documents from this time period, Germany single-handedly precipitated an escalation of the Austrian-Serbian crisis in order to launch the war they were looking for with Russia and France. After the assassination of the Archduke, Germany told Austria to be unreasonable in their dealings with Serbia. Austria had issued an ultimatum to Serbia “that the assassins be brought to justice effectively, nullifying Serbia’s sovereignty (www.firstworldwar.com).” but instead of rejecting the ultimatum as was expected, Serbia conceded all but a few minor points. Austria-Hungary could then have accepted Serbia’s concessions as they stood; however, Germany encouraged Austria to attack Serbia anyway. Germany had given Austria a “Blank Cheque” which was an almost unconditional guarantee of support for Austria-Hungary no matter what she decided to do. Germany was actually looking forward to war. Additional documents show that Germany also had a plan called the Schlieffen Plan - which included passing through Belgium in order to get to France and after France’s defeat the German army would make their way east to Russia. All fingers pointed to Germany and they would pay for their “war-plans” at the end.

The end of the Great War was declared with the signing of the Versailles Treaty. Germany was presented with the document at the Palace of Versailles and was given three weeks to accept the terms. German delegates complained about the severity of the conditions, but these went unheeded, and it is well documented that Britain and President Woodrow Wilson felt that the document was extremely harsh against Germany. According to the Versailles Treaty, Germany had to take sole responsibility for the war, pay steep reparations to the “winners”, lost 13.5% of its 1914 territory and all of its overseas possessions, had growth on its army restricted to 100,000 men and was banned from the use of heavy artillery, gas, tanks and aircraft. This was a huge blow to Germany. Their chances of domination had dissipated, and by all historical accounts, Germany’s pride and nationalism would resent this treaty for the next twenty years. It is easy to look back now and speculate as to what might have happened if all of these situations were handled differently. I am glad I did a little more research to understand Word War I and the Treaty of Versailles. It helps me understand what happened next in the course of world history.

Seeds of Change

The two chapters I chose to read this week were Chapter 17, Atlantic Revolutions and Their Echoes and Chapter 20, Colonial Encounters. I enjoyed reading both of these chapters because I found the material easy to understand and much was applicable to the classes I had taken in the past year. There were lots of little points along the way in the reading that caused me to jot down some notes and points to cover in my blog for this week.

The most striking common thread that I found for the cause of change was the reference to the “Age of Enlightenment.” In very simplistic terms, individuals started to question the process by which they were living and to challenge the officials, elite or nobility who were in charge. When people are allowed to be creative, and have free thought process, so much is possible. The question of why, how, and what are important to learning, and the seeking of knowledge. The intellectual leaders of the Age of Enlightenment questioned the process and caused others to start to do the same.

Chapter seven compared the revolutions that took place in the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, starting with the American Revolution and ending with the Spanish American Revolutions. I liked the author’s simple explanation for the cause of the North American Revolution. This sticks out for me because I work in a fifth grade classroom where most of the social studies curriculum is spent learning about the causes and effects of the American Revolution. Every year, fifth grade students are taught that the colonists got tired of being pushed around by England with all of the taxes and tariff’s being imposed, and they wanted their independence; however, the smaller, finer details are what is missing in their instruction. Strayer tells us is that social life was pretty good in the colonies - colonists led a pretty autonomous life until a certain point. People were not hindered by the rules that they had endured in Europe and there was economic opportunity. These are some of the biggest reasons why individuals had left Europe in the first place. But, England was in debt and needed money and therefore felt it had the right to impose taxes on the colonists. As throughout history, the colonists questioned an unjust, aggressive tax and fought back.

I digress in my writing to think about today’s political environment with the election of Obama. It is a proven fact that the political elite has always governed in America, dating back to the Adamses, Washingtons, Jeffersons and Hancocks. These men were wealthy and powerful and were able to push their agenda forward speaking for the “people” but not everyone was spoken for; women and people of colored were left out. Obama has become the man of the people because of his humble roots; there is hope for the commoner. It took a long time for the people of color and women to gain their rights and it is still a fight today.

Haitian Revolution

I liked reading about the Haitian Revolt and that the slaves came out on top in that society. It was inspiring to me that people of color could, and did win against such tyranny. Every point made in this section brought a small smile to my face: “the lowest order of the society – slaves – became equal, free and independent citizens (Strayer, pg. 509).” I liked that they reclaimed their land and stepped back into a more hunter-gatherer type of environment, “small scale farmers produced mostly for their own needs, with a smaller export sector (Strayer, pg. 519).”

There is an ironic twist to the story of slavery on this island that Strayer points out to us. Though the people were successful to end slavery on the Haitian island, slavery found the path of least resistance by moving to the island of Cuba where sugar production now moved also increasing the need for slaves there. Around this time, slave states also increased in the United States because France, who had held Haiti and needed to recoup its losses from that revolution, sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States. This land selling allowed for more states to become slave states. Though slavery ended on Haiti, it continued to be a huge practice elsewhere: sad, but true.

Women’s Movement

Questions, questions, questions. Back in the Paleolithic Era, it is shown that men and women were equal in society. With the advent of the Agricultural Era, women took a back seat to men. We were told that women could not handle the plows, the equipment and machinery, and that warfare was left to the men as well. A patriarchal society developed and has stayed throughout the world to this very day.

The Age of Enlightenment is again part and parcel the reason behind the women’s movement in history as it questioned the “inferiority” of women to men. This was especially prevalent in France, where a new foundation for society was taking place. Women, right alongside men, took the stand that a society should be created where everyone was equal including women. This stand did not take hold but did spark the genesis of the movement. Through this movement, women became more involved and were able to gain more education and freedom. It has indeed been a struggle and is often hard to grasp that one’s sex would determine their success in life. All one has to do is look today at the salaries of women in business, as well as the lack of numbers of women in leadership roles, to see that this fight continues. We must continue to push at the ceiling, hoping to break through. Perhaps, history can help us out as we learn that one needs to persevere in order to make a change.

Colonial Movement

Europe was pretty ingenious after the various revolutions took place. Though I totally am opposed to the colonialism that took place in Asia, Southeast Asia and Africa, I can, for a moment shake my head that the European nations did indeed want land and power bad enough. Perhaps, looking back to previous chapters as to the start of oceanic and trade exploration and when Asia dropped its exploration, does this speak to the type of people Europeans were - driven, motivated and a “no-holds-barred” type of attitude. If you think about what makes people successful in today’s world, one must have that same attitude. A bigger-than-life, strong, domineering, innovative, highly advanced and creative person is how one succeeds in today’s world. This is exactly how Europe was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – strong, creative and dominant.

Genghis Khan

Patty was telling us about this exhibit last week. Here are some additional details as well as a link to the Tech Museum website.



Overview

Genghis Khan rose to become the most powerful man of his time; he and his descendants built the largest contiguous land empire.

On the modern map, the Mongols' conquests include 12 million square miles and nearly 30 countries with a population of more than 3 billion people.

Though unable to read, Genghis Khan gave his people a written language and a sophisticated society with fair taxation, stable government, appreciation of the arts, freedom of religion, and open trade along the Silk Road to host the exchange of goods and ideas.

* Experience life in 13th-century Mongolia, entering the tents, battlegrounds, and marketplaces of a vanished world. Explore Genghis Khan's life and those of his sons and grandsons during the formation, peak, and decline of the Mongol Empire. Participate in several engaging, family-friendly activities and watch live cultural performances by traditional Mongolian singers and musicians.

* View rare treasures from 13th-century Mongolia; more than 200 spectacular objects will be on display to illustrate this story, including gold jewelry and ornaments, silk robes, musical instruments, pottery, sophisticated weaponry, and numerous other fascinating relics and elaborate artifacts.

A Picture Paints a Thousand Words

A Thousand Words

The picture on page 432 of our textbook says it all. Looking at the faces of the two slaves, I see fear, uncertainty and anguish in their eyes. Their expressions seem to plead for mercy, and the outstretched arm tells me that the one slave is asking for help or perhaps begging not to be sold. The well-dressed African merchant is selling the two slaves to a businessman, who has one finger up in the air indicating that he wants only one slave; however the two slaves are shackled together indicating that they are to be sold in pairs.

Global Commerce is chapter fifteen’s title, and it is hard to fathom that trading, selling, buying of human beings was a contributor to the globalization of the early modern world. Yes, there were other factors that led to globalization – spice, textile, silver, furs - and chapter fifteen covered those topics too, but slavery still cuts through me very deeply.

Do I understand the slavery issue better after reading this week’s reading? A little, but I still have questions as to why people would treat other human beings as subhuman. I know that there are forms of slavery as well as other inhumane practices in the world today, but we talking about a commerce that helped grow America, and at the expense of other human beings.

Slavery dates back to the start of civilization and was seen across many societies like Mesoamerica, Russia and the Middle East. It was considered a normal human enterprise that was often linked to warfare and the subsequent capture of prisoners. However, as we read, slavery found in America was more distinctive than in the past. For one, the sheer size of the enterprise was the largest seen. In a span of 400 years, over 11 million Africans were sold into slavery. There were devastating effects on Africa’s economy from losing this many people to this horrific venture. In the New World, slaves were considered dehumanized property - they had no rights and once they were slaves, their family and offspring were also slaves. There was no chance for freedom and a slave had little or no hope that they would ever become a free person. For me, the biggest distinction was that slavery had now become a “race” issue. Being African, you were black and black meant that you were a slave or destined to be a slave. There, it was said - slavery, race and African. Perhaps it has been said before, but I have never read the origins of slavery and race. I felt saddened and embarrassed by what I had read, especially given my European roots.

The biggest question that I have is why were African people targeted and not some other “barbaric” degenerate to work the sugar fields and tobacco plantations? Why not use white, yellow, brown or red prisoners or less desirable members of society? Why not allow freedom to the slave after that person gave a certain length of time to the success of the plantation? Why did people have to treat slaves like animals, living in squalor? Strayer tells us that marginal Europeans, who were predominantly Christian, couldn’t become slaves because Christians were “exempt” from becoming one, and that European indentured servants were expensive and temporary. Why Africans? Geographically, the people along the west coast of Africa were relatively close, readily available, and had a large population base. Africans were not Christians and so there was not any “religious” backlash from enslaving them. They were also good farmers, and were used on agricultural plantations where their expertise was put to good use. Most importantly, Africans were immune to the tropical and European diseases that had affected the Native American populations. But, Strayer tells us again, that race, that ugly four-letter word, was at the heart of the issue. In a nutshell, for whatever reason, Europeans saw African people as an inferior race of people and exploited them. It was wrong back then, and it is still wrong today. The African elite and merchants did not help their people and society either, selling people into slavery but they were coerced and mesmerized by the wealth and prosperity it gave them; globalization at its finest hour.

Random Thoughts

Leadership

Leadership is a critical management skill which is the ability to motivate a group of people toward a common goal or objective. Last week in class, we were asked to read excerpts on two great historical leaders, Shao Xinchen and Emperor Claudius, and then pick the leader whom we thought was better. While reading chapter 12 on pastoral peoples and the Mongol Movement, there was a segment that described Chinggis Khan, the supreme leader of the Great Mongol Nation. He exhibits that great leadership qualities that were discussed in class the previous week. Chinggis Khan had come from nothing and there was little to show in his life that he was destined to become the leader of the Mongol people. Strayer describes Khan as a “remarkable character” and one that possessed “personal magnetism and courage.” Khan was fiercely loyal to friends (another important leadership quality) and his enemies were beaten down by his strength and determination. Strayer goes on to tell us that after Khan had assembled his powerful army of tribesmen through conquer and assimilation, he needed to keep them together without fighting. Unifying them to a common goal was paramount to his success, and he did so by moving towards expansion of the nomadic peoples into China, which would bring his people wealth. Wealth, as stated before brings power, and the Mongols became a powerful force in the development of Asia’s history.

Not only was Khan courageous, intelligent, and determined, but one thing did stick out to me about his style of leadership that I find important. He was a hands-on leader. Khan’s army was organized, disciplined and fiercely loyal to him because he was willing to also fight alongside his men towards the common goal. Lao-Tsu, the father of Daoism, said “To lead people, walk beside them…” On page 346, Khan is quoted from texts “I eat the same food and am dressed in the same rags as my humble herdsmen… I am always in the forefront, and in battle I am never at the rear.” Leaders inspire those around them by their deeds and actions. Khan was a great leader of men because he knew that everyone was important in battle and he was no better than the soldier standing beside him. This characteristic is no different today in our great leaders of the 21^st century. People must be inspired to want to follow.

Culture or Religion or Both?

Islam is not only a religion but a culture as well. Reading about the growth and spread of Islam reminded me of a paper I wrote in my World Religions class. Strayer tells us that Islam is not a religion looking to convert people but rather a way of life. On page 310 of our textbook, the social element of the Islamic religion is explained. The Islamic people have found that their cultural identity is caught up in the belief of their own one God, Allah. Through this, they came to associate themselves with a community of people called Muslims. This is the “culture” of Islam; a way of life.

According to the textbook, Religions of the World by Lewis Hopfe, the Islamic religion has been able to spread and expand in the Middle East as well as across the world in part because it is a universal faith that recognizes no national borders and makes no distinction among races. Islam is also a religion that can appeal to large groups of people because it is considered “easy” to practice and understand. There are no special ceremonies, rites of passage, meditation or great sacrifices one needs to make. The last reason for the expansion of the Islam religion is that Islam has “delivered” the masses from persecution instead of being the religion that has persecuted. Given the history and rulers of Christianity in Arab countries, Islam is considered to be the savior of people in this part of the world.

Thoughts and Questions

Where would we be today if instead of Europe embarking on exploration of western lands, that the eastern civilizations did it instead? Why were eastern civilizations not concerned with exploration beyond the Middle East and Indian Ocean?

China was a highly progressive society with a flourishing cultural, economic and innovative center of civilization. What caused it to become stagnant? Is Communism the reason? My historical knowledge is lacking so I am looking forward to continuing the search for answers as we continue to learn about World History.

Food for Thought

I was flipping through the current issue of the food magazine Saveur titled The Market Issue the other night before going to bed, which featured articles about food from around the world. As I was reading, a two-page spread of the world showing all of the wide world markets caught my eye. This article correlated to chapter 8, this week’s reading assignment on commerce and its affect on the world’s culture in the first century. There was a striking similarity between what I had read on the sea routes in India, Southeast Asia, Africa and the Americas, and the areas featured on the map in the magazine. “Pretty intriguing,” I told my husband. “The areas of this map, are basically the same areas highlighted in the chapter I had just read.” It is incredible to see how much today the same commercial centers exist and continue to flourish as they did in the first century. The Saveur article talks about the 30 top destinations, which are the greatest markets in the world based on size, and types of products available at these various markets. India, the east coast of Africa, Southeast Asia, Japan, the western coast of Africa, Mesoamerica, and the west coast of South America are all featured global market destinations.

Today, black pepper comes from the Kerala state in India where 90% of today’s black pepper is produced and this marketplace sets the global price for this popular spice. On the West African coast in Kumasi, Ghana, grains, groundnut paste, kola nuts, dried caterpillars, yams, chiles, coffee and plantains are found. In Guatemala, highland fruits like mamey sapote, jacote and granadia fruit are sold. Though all of the foods found in these markets may not specifically be what was sold and traded in the first century, it does speak to the diversity of the products and the variety of foods found around the world back then as well as today. This is what drove people to new lands; wanting more in order to survive and experience new things.

Trade, both across the land as well as sea was developed and used by cultural groups, city-states, and empires to obtain what was needed in order to survive. Trade also flourished in order for societies to obtain goods that they desired. These desired goods improved the owner’s wealth, status and hierarchy within their communities. Sea trade opened up more of the world and allowed people to find new and exotic items. There was a greed element to developing new trade which drove people to explore and seek collaboration with other cities and states.

Interestingly enough, religion played a major role in the development of trade and was the catalyst for economic and political change. This was especially prevalent in the rise of the Islamic religion, which was friendly towards commercial life. This “friendliness” allowed Islam to become a force to be reckoned with within Eurasia and Africa; it was a powerful religion that commanded immense prestige, power and prosperity for its populace. There was a cultural shift in civilizations as religious ideas were introduced: People were obtaining power from wealth, and religion was played a role in obtaining this wealth. Within Southeast Asia, East Africa and in West Africa, Islam accompanied the trade that took place. There was a desire for products from each of these regions and this resulted in power. Power equals money and vice-versa. This is still seen today in all cultures across the globe.