6 Killer Appz? Perhaps...

After watching the TED Talk by Niall Ferguson I can certainly think of a few things to say. The first is that I think he simplified the points he was trying to make, perhaps because of the nature of TED Talks and that they are limited to 20 minutes. Overall though, I agree with what he had to say about the institutions that led to the "Great Divergence." The points he brought up about the U.S and U.K (and the rest of Europe too) were particularly stunning, especially in looking at the patent chart and the chart comparing work ethics in the U.S/ U.K with those in China. He defiantly hit points of what caused the West to advance over the East, but I believe he may have missed one. Never once did he bring up resources. Although he explained increasing military technology through the scientific technology, he never explained where the resources that built these ships, guns and made the bullets came from. Africa, for instance, has large stretches of land that are barren of resources that are useable, including water. So what effect did the availability of resources such as iron, water, wood (for ships) and paper have on these developing societies? Although he did say if I played this game I would loose... so maybe I am totally off. But I think that resources had to play a role in the advancement of technology and medicine... it's really hard to think with a dehydration headache or when you are really hungry. That and something has to make the products which are consumed in a consumer society. He defiantly hit on points that were important, I just think that missed some, and that oversimplifying thousands of years (and billions of people) into 6 categories might be a little too much in order to still be able to support his "thesis" if you will.

On the other hand, it is defiantly a wake up call for Americans to see how they are falling behind to China in almost every global comparison, and I think his remarks at the end of the video about the focus being placed on the E.U crisis and U.S debt crisis are defiantly interesting and deserve some thought. It in particular makes me think of rising gas prices, and a talk I heard on NPR once about how broadcasting rising gas prices was actually speeding up the increase of gas prices, I would if the same type of concept applies?

Too Much Sharing? Too Much Caring? Too Many Sultans?

 The period of global interdependence was, to say the least, a double-edged sword. Although exploring and finding sea routes and improved methods of trade between societies during this time opened up a world of economic opportunities for some societies, it destroyed others. Africa, for example, was ravished by the slave trade, which was largely supported by the availability of trans-Atlantic transportation and the need for cheap labor to work American plantations. At the same time, the development of capitalism in Europe lead to the development of joint-stock companies, which fueled economic growth and international trade out of Europe, although in the end would lead to bad news for American Native Americans. China saw a return to native rule and was then controlled by Manchus, with native Chinese culture intact, even preserved through struck laws and tightly regulated trade. It really must be seen as the time period that lay much of the history which we use to sculpt many of our modern laws and decisions, but also laid the foundations of wrongdoings that would resonate through to our recent history and in some sense even today. Overall, I think the time period of the origins of global interdependence was detrimental to society. During this period countries were torn apart, the slave trade accelerated out of control, dependancies on American foods were developed overseas (which lead to the continued slave trade), and population crisis began to form. Some these problems we still have to fix today. Trade is good and can bring prosperity, but I think in this time period it went horribly wrong and a dominant society that parasitized other societies formed and ran out of control.

A Little Too Much for One Chapter?

Although the logic between grouping the Safavids, Mughals and Ottomans together in the book is not to difficult to discern, it still struck me as a cumbersome way to present the information in those two chapters. Perhaps it was logical to group Islamic empires which arose during this time period, which is the reason (I believe) that these societies are presented together. Indeed it does seem to make sense when they begin drawing comparisons between the empires, but in initially getting the information across it made reading the chapter slightly confusing. Especially since some topics are addressed when talking about one empire, but then never again addressed when discussing another empire. Also, occasionally I found myself looking back to make sure I was still thinking about the right empire while reading, since the book would mash together the empires, or at least draw thin lines between them. Certainly when talking about topics such as religion and trade having them all in the same chapter made it easy to follow, it still left room for confusion. In all, I wasn't a huge fan, and I think that it was a bad decision, they could have grouped them together too, if they had set up the chapter in a different layout.

Oh Fabian...

In the expert from the book "Dues Destroyed" , Fabian leaves very little for the reader to misinterpret. As a matter of fact, the excerpt from the book can best be seen as a deliberate and systematic attack on Christianity and its doctrines. One of the main comparisons that Fabian draws is between the "barbaric" beliefs of Christian theology and the knowledge that the Buddhist doctrine possess. Fabian also brings an interesting point to the table, that Christians "value their lives less than trash." Here, Fabian has directly attacked the concept of being a martyr, one who dies for their faith. He also discusses how Christians had taken over other lands throughout the globe, specifically referencing the Philippines and Mexico. How they try to dismantle the beliefs of the natives, and claims that they are only able to convert those who they do because they are lands with "nature close to animal". Fabian's assertions may, in fact, not be incorrect either. Much of the converting that was done in Mexico was because of the diseases that the Spanish brought with them, and so the native peoples believed that the Spanish (Catholics) were correct in their beliefs, since they did not get sick, and converted to Christianity. Fabian also claims that Christian missionaries have no other goal than to destroy and manipulate the cultures that they encounter, tear them down and then "import their own." He argues that they must, in fact, tear down Buddhist belief, the Law of Buddha and Way of the Gods to bring in Christianity. Fabian's "Dues Destroyed" does really batter Christianity against a wall. He accuses Christian missionaries as government destroyers and Christian faithful as suicidal barbarians with no regard for their own lives. Fabian, however, paints Buddhism in a pure, clean and intelligent life that runs and moves society in the way of tradition and peace. He equates his years of following Christian doctrine with a mistake, and claims he gained new knowledge and destroyed the "wickedness" within him from the Christian doctrine by becoming a Buddhist. He says there is "little truth" in the Christian doctrine, and that he was glad to become a follower of the Buddhist faith.

Chapter 26 - The Good Stuff

This is a ShowMe I put together to look over the important topics in chapter 26 as well as some of the changes and similarities between Africa in the past and Africa now. This mostly discusses the slave trade and political changes in Africa and the impacts of trade and the slave trade.

Chapter 26 - The Good Stuff ShowMe

Capitalism: A Second Look

After read a little more about capitalism, it seems like a fitting time to revisit and look at it again. After reading about capitalism and the impact that it had on European history, I think I have a little bit more of an understanding as to exactly what it is. To me, capitalism seems to be a way of manipulating the economy so that the most possible profits are extracted, while maintaining relatively cheap operations and cost of movement and productions. Furthermore, it seems that capitalism and this notion that the individual can manipulate the economy and those that rely on it to make a profit is what runs our modern politics, and a similar way to what happened in Europe. Here, as in (what I gathered from the reading) Europe, capitalism is favored by the government (or at least one half of it) and so legislations that makes that capitalism easier are passed more often than they maybe should. That being said, it is also very apparent that capitalism is a parasitic structure that feeds on the lower class. The serfs in eastern Europe being the lower class, along with the peasants in eastern Europe's "Putting-out system", were the backbone and the main reason that these operations yielded a profit. Without the lower class, which can be employed for little money and easily manipulated, capitalism would never have been nearly as successful. In our society today, we still depend on a lower class to make the world as we know it work. Whether these low paid workers are here or abroad, the general reaction of society is to treat them however they need to be treated to keep prices down. Without people who are willing to do the jobs that are too "easy" or "dirty" for others (even the lower class in the U.S lives and easier life than people in other countries around the globe, look at the Foxconn fiasco), society would stand still, trash would build up, we wouldn't have food, and our global economy would grind to a halt when we ran out of oil. So, from the reading I have learned that capitalism is the tool that runs our economy, and that are politics are a bad habit started by Europeans years ago.

Christianity and its many Divergences...

Throughout history, Christianity has always been the religion that splits into new groups time and time again. Christianity has split multiple times and developed many branches; Nestorian Christianity, Aryan Christianity, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant (to name a few). When looking at Christianity with other religions and patterns that have lead to divergences (such as in Islam, say), the presence of a high ranking, powerful religious official who is in charge of those who spread, preach and practice the religion is always present. In Islam, the argument into what the lineage of the Caliph should be led to the development of the Sunni and Shia clans. In Christianity, it is very similar, when a significantly large group of people believe in something that the religious leader (the Bishops in early Christianity and the Pope for most of the divergences after that) goes against, they often rebel and form their own sect. In a less than stable Europe, the ability to break away from an established religious practice and form an alternate religious following is available, and so, as in history, groups have broken away and formed their own sects, practicing the same basic theology with different rituals and traditions. So, Christianity branches off so much because corrupt and absolute leadership anger people, who then move away from the church.





 As for capitalism... well... let's see. All I really know is that someone has to own something that generates a profit (like a factory or insurance company) and then they build on that profit which adds to their own personal value. If that's right, that's all I know. If that's wrong, then I guess I know nothing about capitalism other than that it always comes up in politics.