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.

Griots vs. Written History: Is there Really a Difference

The Griots, wonderful elements of the sub-Saharan African culture, were story tellers who passed stories, tall tales and historical accounts to one another through only oral communication. But how do the Griots compare to written history sources, such as religious books or textbooks? Well, the Griots had just as much ability to change the story as did anyone who wrote down history, and we have seen first hand through the descriptions of India in our textbook that historical accounts often exaggerate the splendor of the accomplishments of man or the splendor of an empire. So what is the difference between writing these exaggerations and spreading them through word of mouth. The real noticeable change, I think, happens when a culture dies out. If a griot passed away and his stories had not been relayed to another griot, then there is a good chance the culture and stories he carried would die with him. In comparison, written history can remain long after a scribe dies, and as long and the language doesn't become extinct than the texts can be deciphered. The other downside to griots is the change that happens as stories are passed down. Exaggerations become greater and the story is muddled every time that it is told, where as once an account is written those are the exaggerations that will be read and analyzed in the future. Overall, I think griots are a great source of culture, stories and entertainment, but I think that accounts that are used and relied on should come from a written source. Even though those written sources may only be ever so slightly more reliable that the oral traditions passed from generation to generation. I think the story of the reconstruction of Niani, passed down through griots, attests to how some details may be enhanced or exaggerated, but perhaps the main plot is left intact through generations of Griots. However, we are here reading it on paper, not receiving it through word of mouth, and if we had to sit down, memorize it and pass it down, how much would change and how? In conclusion, text history is the way to go.

Looking Back: The Mongol Trail

Well, today we came close to the conclusion of the trail convicting the descendants of Ghengis Khan for crimes against humanity, specifically genocide, terrorism and kidnapping. Looking back on the trail, for which I was the cross examination attorney for the defense, I thought it was a very enjoyable experience. Although overall I think I did a good job with the cross examination. I definitely had a few blunders, especially in questioning the Abbasid caliph. Although it was a much smaller blunder, I also said that it was the grandson of Kublai Khan, this was a false statement, it had been his second son. Although the point behind the fact still stands valid, the fact itself was incorrect. I think I could have been able to ask more direct questions, and not have tripped over my words so often. But, given the job I was to do I think that I did OK.

As for my beliefs, I think that the Mongols were perhaps overzealous in their conquests, they were not as bad as they have been made out to be. They are responsible for opening trade routes and for spreading culutre throughout Eurasia, two very important aspects of the Mongol story often left out. It is also overlooked often I believe that the mongols were warriors and nomads, and that their culture was significantly different than the cultures of those whom they were invading. That being said, they were not innocent people. They killed hundreds of thousands people and did horrible things to almost every society that they encountered. Although they deserve to be admired for the incredible empire that they built, I really can't help but see them as anything but overambitious conquers who went about regardless of the harm and suffering that they caused.

If I had watched the trail today, I most likely have said that the mongols were guilty. The prosecution hit hard right were it counts. Of course, it is hard to be objective since I was the cross examiner I really am unaware of what my impact on the trail was, since I was not observing. As I went through my research, I did realize that the mongols are hard to defend. Not impossible, but very difficult. Like I said earlier, there seems to be a very strong bias and I think that really impacts the information that is openly available for research. I would find the Mongols guilt of kidnapping and terrorism, but I think that the case against genocide was too weak to sway my opinion from not guilty to guilty.

Ghengis Khan: A Psychopath? Or not.

The video we watched in class today was not the first time and will absolutely not be the last time that Ghengis Khan is portrayed as a psychopath. But was he? The point is debatable, there is not doubt, but I do not believe that he was. I think a key point in developing this opinion is the definition of a psychopath:

"a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts."  - Collin's English Dictionary 2009 10th Edition

There is no doubt that Ghengis Khan was a violent man, but there was nothing abnormal or violent about his behavior. The Mongol culture was violent and unforgiving. Stealing women from neighboring tribes for marriage was a common practice, and in a nomadic society there would be no incentive for the lives of tribesmen from other tribes to be valued. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that his violent behavior towards other tribes was violent (in context to his culture) or unusual. He grew up in a hostel society, and having grown up in this society held different values, nothing he did was unusually hostile in the Mongol culture, and so there is no reason for him to feel guilt, and so there is no reason to classify him as a psychopath. Whats more, Ghengis Khan valued the lives of others, and was concerned about wasting them. A psychopath would hold no value in the lives of others. From a psychological standpoint, there is nothing about Ghengis Khan that suggests that he is a psychopath. He merely did what his culture taught him to do and expanded it to a larger scale by commanding a powerful military, and is therefore not a psychopath. In my opinion, he was a ruthless and hostile general who held a tight reign on his troops, and because of this was an effective and powerful ruler capable of large scale expansion, even if it came at a cost. Nothing about being a powerful and ruthless ruler implies that a person is a psychopath, and there is no reason that the case of Ghengis Khan should be seen differently.

The Final Thoughts: A Reflection

Well, now that I have the submission of this project behind me, I think it would be worth it to comment on how I think the project went. Please keep in mind the post with my submissions is the one below this post.
I think overall that the medium I chose worked very well for the project. Sharing the final products through the blog was very easy, and I am very pleased with my final products. Somethings that could have gone better for this project: fact finding. This was not an easy task, but between the book I found, many online resources I found what I needed. Another thing that I found today that I wish I had found earlier was one of the databases that the school is subscribed to. I used it today to make sure that all of my letters were accurate according to this source too, which they were. It felt good to have that final source corroborating what can sometimes on the internet be very different stories. Overall though I can say that I am happy with and confident in my letters.

The Final Step: The Letters to the Editors (The Submission)

Below are the three letters to the editors that I wrote, there is one for each of the crusades that I covered, which were numbers 3, 5 and 7. And, of course there is a bibliography too. They are all Google Docs that are public, so there should be no problem viewing them.

 Letters to the Editor:

1. Third Crusade 
2. Fifth Crusade
3. Seventh Crusade

And of course because no project is legitimate without legitimate sources, a bibliography:

Crusade Project Bibliography