Age of Empire Blog 1

The change from the seventeen hundreds to the eighteen hundreds was a drastic one. The global population just about doubled and industrialization was happening rapidly. Trade became more centralized around Europe, more concentrated, smaller. Europe went from struggling for importance in the Pax Mongolica to dominating the capitalist world and the bourgeois. Europe was the most literate in the world at this time and dominated the cultural scene as well as that of technology while the USA stayed in the shadows until the 20^th century. However, even though they were behind in technology for a time they were still part of the dominating western world. At this time, all of the western countries had a serious superiority complex.

In the change of centuries those countries that had ideas and beauty like the Islamic World, China and India had little importance anymore and no guns and weapons to stand up to the Europeans. The separation between what is now third world and first world countries in the 17 hundreds was not much of a separation at all. However, with time and into the 18 hundreds the separation widened. The now third world countries became dependent on European and all western countries and steadily dropped lower and finally landed in the third world level they are in today.

I think that a big reason for this separation and that third world countries such as those in Africa could never build themselves up to the level that the Europeans was greatly caused by the slave trade. It seems to me that it would be next to impossible if more than half of the young men were taken from your country to regain your status. I can’t see how most African countries could even have a working population and a growing economy during the slave trade.

I also think the slave trade is something that really should have been talked about more. It involved millions of people and continents. It could have been one of the most important reasons why Africa had so much trouble entering the dominant world.

--Dorothy Smith "Bunny"

Hobsbawm 1

The Age of Empire first takes look at the changing global scene of the 19th-20th centuries. By utilizing increased infrastructure, and advanced transportation (steamships, railroads,) the world began "shrinking," opening opportunities for industries that previously did not exist, such as tourism. This also resulted in a renewed interest in exploration, leading to expeditions to the Poles, led by brave men like Sir Edmund Hillary.

During this time we also saw a huge influx in human population, leading to various divisions through expanding areas. Certain regions advanced very quickly, while others were relatively trapped in previous eras. As science and research greatly accelerated, this only expanded the division as only the wealthy nations could afford such advances. This even more created the hegemony we previously discussed in class. In this case, the 19th century was distinctly European.

While I agree that most of the wealth and power was localized to Europe, I have to question if the whole continent can be classified as a power source. Perhaps the Germanic tribes, or British Empire would be a better representation of the times. There were certainly very decrepit areas, particularly in Eastern Europe, who did not have advantage of the American/African trade the West had.

I would like to know what other factors caused (and continue to cause) Eastern Europe to lag behind. The communist block did not really take full power until post WWI. So what explains their slow ascent in the world scene?

Hobsbawm ch. 1

Hobsbawm begins this section by discussing how the world of the late eighteen hundreds was now completely global, in a sense that the time for true discovery had come and passed. The world was now charted extensively, leaving the only exploration in the north and south poles, and to regions not usually visited, otherwise known as tourism. The world was also more populated during this period. For example, Hobsbawm points out the case of the Americas, which rose from around seven million to one hundred and sixty million in a one hundred year period (Hobsbawm 14). Both this and the connecting of the world, becoming geographically tinier, attributed to solidifying the exchange of goods and services between countries.

Something I found interesting was the comparison Hobsbawm makes between the gross national product per capita between the modern, “developed” countries and the same nations between seventeen-fifty and eighteen hundred. These figures today would place every one of these nations in the category of being Third World, the lowest point on the totem poll. However, Hobsbawm believes this was a problem brought on by the Chinese Empire. During this time period, around one-third of the world’s population resided in China. It was intriguing to me that the Chinese standard of living was equal too, or possibly superior to the powerful European nations. However, the western nations were expanding with an economic revolution which would re-shape the world. These nations would eventually begin to pull away from Third World nations, creating a new hierarchy in the economic power struggle.

Do you believe the emergence of modern technology in Second and Third world countries accompanied by the sever recession in the United States is a foreshadowing to our nation being replaced as one of the top nations in the world? Is the United States time on top coming to an end?

Age of Empires

In the videogame Age of Empires III, you start out as a colony in an isolated part of the world. Once you make your workers gather wood and food etc. you can level-up. After enough level-ups you become a real empire and start pwning everyone else with your military and economic power.

I think this is a good analogy for the time period which starts where Abu-Lughod left off in Before European Hegemony and continues through Hobsbawm’s account of the later stages of the “long 19^th century” (1789-1914). Hobsbawm calls the later years of this period the Age of Empire (1875-1914).

Hobsbawm notes that these empires were able to become powerful because they were economic hegemonies. They used colonies for raw materials, then they used their developed industries to manufacture goods or refine raw materials, then they profited from selling these products.

Undoubtedly Hobsbawm’s writing is Marxist-bent, as he almost always describes the social classes in the Age of Empire as either bourgeoisie, petty-bourgeoisie, or proletariat, and he primarily contrasts these classes. I think it is interesting that these social classes can also be (relatively) applied to the general class/nation make-up of the world at the time. Hobsbawm says that there were developed countries and there were dependent countries, much like there were bourgeois and proletariat. The dependent countries were largely exploited by the developed countries. Clearly the Western countries were the developed and the non-Western countries were the dependent. This is a great contrast from the 14^th century world-system.

Now it seems like the old developed countries are close to being joined by the old dependent countries. I wonder what the consequences of this might be. What happens when all countries are developed?

-Stefan Larson

The Age of Empire 1

Eric Hobsbawm has very interesting views about the early eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in his novel, The Age Of Empire. He goes into great detail about the 'Developed' nations versus the 'Dependent' nations. The 'Dependent' could also be known as third world countries. These nations differed on many accounts. First, a country was determined a developed nation if they had a strong industrial system. This was the time when infrastructures were really flourishing. If the nation had the tools to create roads, railroads, and sea ports. Being that this time period was the Industrial Era, a developed nation was determined by their technological advancements- telephone, automobile, etc.. The dependent nations were mostly located in cities, and they were considered "poor... or lagging."

Hobsbawm discusses the fact that Europe was a strong, developed nation that many countries wanted to base their success off of. They had flourishing technological advancements, population growth, and economic stability. America came through though as a strong competitor as well. Many people migrated to America causing a massive population growth. This growth in population made America create more industry, thus more jobs. Its speed of development really showed its potential and its certainty that it would become a superpower, just like Europe.

Education was a huge factor that distinguished the 'developed' nations from those that were lagging. European culture allowed for education to be prevalent, as well as America. Mass illiteracy was based in Russia, and thus not allowing that nation to expand. However, with a massive depression, the world's economy would become dead. The once flourishing nations were now treading in very deep water. Problems in business and industry did not seem to disappear, preventing the developed nations to escape their problems.

A question I have is not to complex. What could the underdeveloped nations do to get themselves out of their situation? Nothing. They had no resources to help themselves, they were stuck in a position that was thrashed upon them. Do you think they could have done anything to assist in their awful situation?

AoE Commentary 1

Hobsbawm's Age of Empire is so far very different in approach and style from Abu-Lughod's Before European Hegemony. The first two chapters discuss the various economic conditions and happenings of the late 1800s and early 1900s - making evident and obvious that the trends mentioned were only applicable to 1913 "the pre war" era. The Industrial Revolution marked noticeable changes in the entire world - either directly or indirectly. First coming to Great Britian, the Industrial Revolution allowed the places it infiltrated to a profound level to rapidly develop. Essentially, most industrialized countries found membership with the First World. However, those mentioned previously as being indirectly affected by the Industrial Revolution largely became "dependants" and found membership in the Second or Third Worlds. The Industrial Revolution gave rise to what historians largely call the Age of Empire where the First World carved the rest of the world and essentially carved the pie [world] into their own pieces. The size of a country's piece of pie directtly correlated to their "worldd power." Case in point - Italy's standing in the world fell after it lost its bid in the Ethiopian or Abyssian Crisis to the other world powers [e.g. Great Britain, France]. Hence the late 1800s and early 1900s [pre WWI] was marked by imperialism both as a politcal and economic medium of power. Hobsbawm repeatedly states that to say imperialism was a result of one or the other, or to even really discuss them seperately is to play with idealogy. The consequences were that economic rivalry became political rivalry as countries competed for status and general power.

I knew that the years between the First World War and the Second World War were marked by the Great Depression and economic fallout globally. However, I found Hobsbawm's approach and illustration of the cause and effect relationship very interesting. Economic rivalry became political rivalry. Then if you throw in some origins of World War 1 into the argument, you can divide the adversaries in the war to the haves and have nots. Germany a relatively new country was looking for a way to gain global status and prosperity while Great Britain and France - those with these great things already - obviously did not want to share the wealth. I thought it was cool to learn the dynamics between the competition between the haves and have nots in terms of the WW1 [which is a major time period point for Hobsbawm.]

I found it difficult to comprehend the very nittyy gritty economic discussion and what exactly was happening on a detailed level. The influx of statistics and numbers was also overwhelming. Can somebody summarize what the change was that Hobsbawm discusses? I understand that Great Britain was the top producer initially, but later other countries became more influential. However, I am unsure of the semantics/mechanics of the change.

The Age of Empire 1

The first few chapters of Hobsbawm's novel deal with the developing of the world during the 19th and 20th centuries. By the late 19th century the world had become a lot more global. With the inventions of the railway and steamships, international and transcontinental travel time had been greatly reduced. Months had been reduced to weeks, meaning the tourist trade had come to a larger scale. Most of the world had already been discovered by this point so new endevours included inhabiting the North and South Poles. There was also rapid growth in population during the 19th century. In Europe as well as in the Americas, the population had more than doubled. Although the world was becoming even more global regarding trade and even travel, there were big divisions starting to happen. During this time economic disparities between regions caused certain countries to become even wealthier while others lagged behind. A large cause of the gap between richer and poorer countries had to do with their technology. The nations who could afford more expensive technology had an advantage in warfare and battle. Although stated as a generalization most core/rich nations had their roots in industry while the poorer regions dealt with agriculture. Defining the difference between the two different sections was easy however categorizing some parts of the world became hard. Europe for instance had some key regions where capitalism was thriving however parts of Europe did not. Europe in the 19th century was the core of capitalism and never before then had there ever been a century so uniquely European.

What I found interesting about the information presented so far is the rise of some countries economically along with the stall of others. During the 18th century the differences between industrial and non-industrial countries were not all that great. The economic disparities were not large and most countries were on relatively equal footing. However in less than a hundred years things changed so drastically. All of a sudden some countied had a gross domestic product of over seven times a country who a year before basically had the same GDP. I am not sure what caused such a large increase in the short time span. Was it just the technological innovations of the times which allowed takeovers of other countrues, and therefore more economics growth for the conquerors? I felt like the answer was never truly explained.

One idea in the novel so far that I do not understand is the way Europe was classified as being a richer region. In the book the 19th century was basically said to be a European century and went on to say that Europe was the center of capitalist development. However previously the author had said that while some parts of Europe were weathier and industrially inclined most parts were on the outskirts of economic devlopment. How can Europe be considered the center of capitalismm during this time if most of the regions were lagging behind, and not constituted as rich nations. I think the author should have been a little clearer on how economically sound the ouskirts of Europe were; because the margins of capitalism may mean different ideas to different people.

The Age of Empire

The main idea that I was able to construct from this reading is best represented by Eric Hobsbawn’s comment, “They plainly lived in flourishing times.” He set the stage for The Age of Empire by providing an overall summary of the overwhelming growth in the world at this time. The technological revolution is a prominent example of growth since the railway, steamship, automobile, aeroplane, telegraph, telephone, electrical light bulb, and cinema became extremely developed, which further led to expansion in both production and communication worldwide. There was now a mass mobilization of the industrial working class, and an extreme increase in the massive body of purchasers. The better quality and quantity in consumer goods was growing exponentially, with the concentration of capital and the rationalization of production. There was also a growing convergence between politics and economics when policies of social reform and welfare were introduced, and imperialism rose, leading to World War I of course.

I found the suggestion of two separate sectors in the world, the developed countries and the third world regions, rather interesting. Hobsbawn did a thorough job of explaining why Europe was still the most important in the world economy but also how other countries were becoming more dominant and developing more competition. This idea of revived international protectionism was intriguing, like Hobsbawn said, industrialization and the Great Depression practically forced the development of these rival economies across the world.

Something that certainly confused me was the overall reason behind the several references to Adam Smith’s idea of the “invisible hand.” I am familiar with this concept, as it is a basic principle of economics, but the way Hobsbawn referred to it seemed almost contradictory, unless of course I am mistaken. I first was under the impression that during this era, the “invisible hand” was in control because the market worked on it’s own without any interference, but the end of the reading suggests that due to the convergence of politics and economics it disappeared. Does this simply mean that during this era it disappeared over time? I’m not sure why it was mentioned, but I am interested to keep reading and learn how an era with an economy so golden for the middle classes could possibly drive the world towards war, revolution and disruption, and a loss of this paradise, as Hobsbawn says.

G-20

Several people have already thoroughly discussed their experiences of last weekend and I do not have many more unique points that can be added. I will say simply that there were wrongdoers within both the police force and within the crowd, and that in hindsight it probably would have been best for us students to stay clear of the streets, though I do not think that should have been necessary.

One major difference I noticed between these "riots" and those following the Steelers Super Bowl was the number of cops who were physically involved in the crowd. During the Steelers festivities, the Pitt Police were noticeably present but only moved into the crowd to remove individuals who were crossing the line. From what I remember, everybody clapped when the destructive people were taken away in cuffs because a large majority of students didn't want to see Oakland damaged. During the G-20. however, students were seemingly arrested at will, whether they were active participants, curious bystanders, or people just minding their own business.

Were there justifiable concerns regarding vandalism and recklessness? Yes-Thursday night showed that there were a few miscreants capable of inflicting damage to Oakland businesses and there were threatening posters throughout Oakland on Friday more or less saying: who cares about the police or the cops, let's meet again tonight. These factors and a couple others undoubtedly combined to put police on edge, but I feel that they are trained to deal with these types of stresses. Admittedly, at the same time, students should have known better to be close to the action on Friday night after the precedent that the police had set on Thursday night in terms of quick arrests. Students should have realized that the warnings trumpeted over the loudspeaker were to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, even students who did heed these warnings found themselves at the mercy of the police, which leads me to my next point.

From reading the Pitt News today, it appears that there was some confusion and in-house arguing between Pitt Police and members of outside police forces on the scene, especially regarding the incidents on Towers patio. Radio scanners provide evidence that Pitt Police were against having a police presence in and around Towers Lobby while other police felt that they did not want to risk having a trespasser enter the lobby. There is a period of several minutes in which Pitt Police and the other policemen argue over whose decision is more valid. The result of the heavy police presence right outside the dorms was several arrests, many of them appearing suspect. To the credit of the Pitt Police, Chief Delaney and his team are working to clear as many names as possible to minimize court hearings and expenses. Once again unfortunately, however, is that once you are arrested, it is difficult to clear your name and may require the hiring of a lawyer, an expensive process. Innocent students may have to prove their innocence, seemingly the opposite of what our judicial system preaches.

We have not yet heard the end of the G-20 discussion and its coinciding events. One final note is that I idealistically wish the focus was more on the presence of 20 world leaders and that the battle between police and students was not so intense. It was truly unique to have those leaders present, especially so close to our campus. I do not feel like I was granted the opportunity to appreciate that enough. I did have the opportunity to perform some informal interviews at the rally on Friday morning, in which several activist groups stated their causes. It was an enriching experience, as I got the chance to talk to people from all over the world, including Palestine, Tibet, and Mexico. Obama and his administration have already mentioned that there may be a future G-20 conference back in Pittsburgh. I hope so, as I feel that another one could go much differently, with the focus on the economics and politics instead of on the police and students. Additionally, Pittsburgh is a candidate for the Republican National Convention in three years, which would be very intriguing considering the relatively heavy Democratic influence within the city limits. Either event should be welcomed in my opinion because of the leadership presence involved. I hope that both events do come to Pittsburgh so that I can continue to enhance my knowledge and experiences.

G20

I knew about the G-20 summit for months now. My mom is disturbingly obsessed with politics, so in my house, my sister and I know almost everything that is going on around us. My mom really wanted me to get a position helping out with the summit, but to her dismay, students were not allowed to be directly involved. When the date of the summit became closer and closer, tensions grew in Pittsburgh. The first thing I noticed about the summit was from the first Pitt football game I attended. As we were on the bus, I looked across the water to the mountains. On one was a gigantic sign that said "Pittsburgh Welcomes the World!" I thought to myself, wow this is going to be a great thing that the G-2o is here, it will be so amazing to experience it first hand.

It was Wednesday, the day before the summit began. Rumors started to flow around campus of their being riots downtown (not on our campus). I thought it would be cool to see, so I asked my mom if I could go see them, and she said no, because they would most likely get out of hand. Thursday rolled around, and we began getting text messages and emails from the UPitt emergency line saying to be careful that night, because things might get messy (reworded of course). It was night, and a couple of my friends went over to Shenley Plaza to check out the "riot." Another friend and I went to meet them, and all we saw was a line of police officers surrounding the plaza all the way up to the Phipps Conservatory, where the world leaders were. There were students there in a big circle. Inside the circle was a man with a drum, chanting out songs and other cheers. People were dancing, some students were getting very close to the police officers, almost taunting them. All of a sudden a huge black vehicle comes speeding behind the line of police. From the roof of the van appears a white square, none of us knew what it was.

Before we could say anything, we heard a loud voice come from the van. It said "We are declaring this riot an unlawful assembly, anyone that refuses to disperse will be forcefully moved." Three of my friends and I started running back to the towers, we did not know what was going to happen so we just wanted to get out of there. We look back because most of our friends are still back in the thick of everything, then all of a sudden we see three things shoot up into the sky like firework and crash to the ground creating a huge cloud of smoke. Now we are sprinting, students are becoming mob-like, everyone is trying to get back as fast as they could.

A couple hours go by, and we hear that a dumpster has been set on fire right outside of Joe Mama's (a popular restaurant right on Forbes Avenue). I was with five of my friends, a couple of us want to go back outside and just observe what is happening, because this is a once in lifetime chance. We stand on the steps headed towards Forbes, when once again, a pack of students start sprinting down the street because, now, police are marching down the street in a line trying to force students and protesters to disperse. Because students were being forced out of the street they started coming up the stairs, so my group of friends went to the skywalk (picture below).

The cops marched closer and closer to the students as they moved back. Without notification, the cops began throwing tear gas at the student rioters and began shooting them with rubber bullets. Then, everyone in the skywalk started to sprint away, a cop had thrown a tear gas bomb in the skywalk! We were simply observing, we were not being unlawful or loud. We found shelter in the doorway of the School of Law. We were watching what was happening out of the window. We saw students trapped on the staircase because police came from the tops and bottoms of the stairs. We were coughing because of the tear gas, and we had no way of getting back to towers because the Police had blocked off any exit.

Eventually we got back in the dorms. We went through Posvar Hall, through the quad to the side entrance of the towers. Our night was extremely scary, but exciting. I was a simple observer that got caught up in the mix of the protest. The next night we chose to stay in the dorms because there were rumors the riots for Friday were going to be much worse than that of Thursday. It was very exciting the G-20 came to Pittsburgh, however it caused a lot of problems between students and Police.

Age of Empire- Blog 1

This week, we were instructed to read the first 3 chapters of Age of Empire by Friday. I would like to focus my blog entry on the second part of chapter 2. Eric Hobsbawm is summing up the world economy on the Age of Empire. He describes the world economy as more broad-based than before. The world economy was expanding it's industrialization sector because of the Industrial Revolution. International trade was growing and the areas of the Age of Empire focused more of their time into the market. Canada started to strenghten her wheat production as Argentina became a huge exporter.

Also, the world economy was being described as more pluralist. Being more pluralist means that the economy recognizes the diversity of economic activity. Britain was not only the industrialized area, but more areas were strengthening their industrialization. Although Britian was a mass power, the USA, Germany, and France all help important roles in their industrial and mining production. This Age of Empire era was seen as more of a rivalry between these four national economies. Most areas still depended on Britain's financial, trading, and shipping services because Britain was so industrialized.

Another charactiersitc of the world economy was the technological revolution. During the Age of Empire, many significant inventions were made. Inventions that created significant impact on society included the telephone invention, the wireless telegraph, the phonograph, the cinema, the automobile, the bicycle, etc which were all integrating themselves into the daily lives of citizens.

Other factors played major roles in the Age of Empire's world economy such as the transformation in the market for consumer goods and a change in the modus operandi of capitalist enterprise. I found this chapter, chapter 2, very intersting because it gave an entire overview of all the improtant events taking place to shape the world economy. The economy was developing and growing from what it used to be. The new economy was a benefit to everyone (creating jobs, etc).

G20 Experience

On Thursday night when the protests started near the park I somehow got stuck in the middle of everything. I suppose I was curious about everything that was going on and wanted to be apart of the action as an innocent by stander. I got much more than I expected that's for sure. At first me and a few of my friends went to see what all the talk was about and what was going on at Shenely park.

When we got there an intimidating line of masked people stood shoulder to shoulder. No one seemed to be nervous around these people so we grew comfortable at our spot watching people heckle the dark figures. Soon there after, a man who seemed to be apart of some police force came over to us ad warned us to leave. He told us "a police action" was going to begin within minutes and for our safety we should leave. At the time students were merely dancing in the streets and signing songs about their views, nothing remotely dangerous was occurring. Out of no where this giant swat car pulls up right in the middle of their dancing and announces that we were taking part in "an unlawful assembly".

Not thinking this was a big deal many people stayed put while others started to flee. As I slowly walked back towards Forbes Ave, I glanced behind me to see the innocent dancers being gassed and pushed out of the way by rows upon rows of riot police. Not knowing what to do, my friends and I started to walk faster away to get out of any problems. As we calmly walked back more gas was thrown at us and clouds of smoke covered our vision. I wasn't really sure what the purpose of attacking people who were merely walking back to their dorms was.

As we continued on our way back an older man was attempting to interview the students on their political views. My friend and I were curious as to what he was going to ask so we stuck around to hear his interview. In mid sentence the older man collapsed on the student her was interviewing and began to aggressively cough while grabbing his chest. To me this was one of the scariest sights I have ever seen and I was quite nervous that the man was going to have a heart attack of some sort do to the gasses being thrown at us. He was forced to sit down and drink water until he ended up throwing up on himself. Soon after medics came to help him.

After that all I wanted to do was return to my room and feel a little more safe. As i tried to get up to the dorms I was trapped on the stairs while riot police stood at the top and an army of them marched down Forbes. Looking at the breezeway from the stairs I noticed a friend who was also trapped on both sides. While both of us stood encaged more gas was thrown on us. I moved closer to the main doors and was forcefully pushed inside on top of a mass of people. Not exactly how I wanted my night to end.

Personally I think everything that happened over the weekend was completely ridiculous. The police were on a power high and took advantage of any opening they had to punish anyone who stood in their way. I've heard numerous stories, and saw a few occasions, where the police were shooting their rubber bullets at students who were merely walking home or along the street. It seemed as though everything went out of control. Store windows broken, dumpsters on fire, red blood shot eyes and students running in every direction was definitely a very interesting way to start off my freshman year here at Pitt.

And what was this all for, anyway? G-20? To bring countries together and solve global issues. If we are ignorant to our own problems, how can we be responsible to take care of others, to care about others.

G-20

I did not experience G-20 first hand because because I made sure that I stayed away from the tomfoolery, but I did to hear various takes on the events that took place. From various students I talked to that stay in the dorms they spoke a lot about the police being very harsh on innocent students. I heard stories of students being attacked and beaten by police officers, mass amount of innocent students being tear gassed or shot with rubber bullets, and also different dorms and the library being locked down. From the protesters standpoint the few I talked to felt they were being peaceful protesters and unlawfully attacked by police. It seemed to me, from the point of view of an outsider looking in that many protesters that were being violent with no purpose or real cause ruined it for the protesters that really had causes they wanted heard. When I was in 7 eleven the other night there was an older white woman in their who was telling one of the cashiers in there how disrespected she felt when officers told her to go home when she was being nosy trying to see what was going on. She told the cashier that she and her husband looked like Leave it to Beaver and could not understand why the police were rude to her. I found this interesting because she felt that in some way she was above everyone else and that the police could not tell her what to do. Even though I do believe that the police used excess force in certain instances I believe that college students should have just stayed home instead of being in the middle of all the chaos. Even if you are an innocent person if your in the vicinity of angry protesters there is no way for the police to know that you are not with them.

Post # 2 and 3

I haven't posted in a while (due to illness and G20). The past two days I have been unable to post because I have been locked out of my dorm--two nights in a row. Go G20.

Recent events in Oakland, all relating to G20, sparked new thoughts on globalization, our country and government, and the role it's playing in the world. So I would first like to go through, what I saw and heard.

The past three or four days have looked like Nazi Germany in Oakland (or how it has been described). Fully geared police officers stood on every corner, day and night, watching everyone's every move. On Thursday night, I saw kids getting arrested for sitting down in front of police officers. I saw people getting tear-gased: crying, spitting up, and coughing madly. Students were yelling, but not fighting. Once the police started shooting, the students would run and push, shoving each other and causing the police to shoot more rubber bullets at innocent kids. For a moment when I was on my own, I thought I was going to get beat to the ground. I lost my friend in front of me for about twenty seconds and was shoved into a van, breaking the side view mirror. After getting out of the crowd, we were told we would not be allowed into Litchfield Towers and we needed to go back to where we came from. I live in Tower A and didn't get back to my dorm until after 4 in the morning. (We tried again around 12 or 1 and they still wouldn't let people in.)

The events of Friday were even more extreme and obscure. The police broke up a large crowd of people at Schenley Plaza, describing the gathering as "an unlawful assembly" that needed to break up immediately. I moved away from the main plaza square to the Union. As I was sitting on a bench smoking, a group of police officers moved towards us yelling to get back further. This went back and forth a few times, until the entire force of officers on that side of the Union moved towards Litchfield Towers. Rubber bullets began to fly and clouds of tear gas shot up behind us. I stood in the middle of the street, watching the ridiculousness of the situation. My friend kept tugging my sleeve, trying to drag me away. The moment I fell in and left, a can of tear gas landed between my friend's feet as I was jumping over a cement wall to get inside. The door to the building was open and we came piling through as another can of tear gas landed on the patio and was shooting through the door. I ran into the bathroom to find a girl getting sick in the sink. Apparently, she had been standing too.

We were locked in the lobby of Towers for about an hour, during which we saw a man get arrested and taken away for videotaping. My eyes filled up at that point, because I knew we had lost absolutely all control. Eventually we were let go, but I knew the entire situation was wrong.

I have never felt less patriotic in my life, as awful as that is to say. It was not because the police were responding. I understand crowd control and police intervention. But when I saw the intervention get to the point where students were getting tear gassed and couldn't breath, where students were getting arrested for accidentally being in the wrong place at the wrong time and just STANDING, where students were beat to the ground with sticks and then beat more. I saw the government have complete control. As soon as the situation was declared an "Emergency State", we lost all rights. At the very least we lost the right to assemble, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press. Never in my life had I seen human beings get so barbaric as to shoot innocent students with no shame, no heart.

So before we go to other countries and try to globalize democracy, before we try to tell other countries that what they are doing is wrong, I think we need to work on our own, or at least simultaneously.

Rachel Croitoru

g-20 experience

Yesterday I was able to volunteer for g-20. Being a korean- american I helped out at the help desk at the Sheraton Hotel in Station Square for the Korean embassy. Being that I could speak fluently in both Korean and American. I volunteered for a couple hours yesterday in the lobby with a bunch of other volunteers that were bilingual. On my way down there I took public transportation having to transfer in south side. I assumed traffic to be very busy and thought it would take me a while to get down there. Even though it took me an hour to get there, it was because those buses did not come by frequently even on a regular basis. On my way there, I saw many army hummers with military men every 2-3 blocks once I got near to the hotel. Once I arrived at the hotel, I noticed there were many reporters waiting around in the lobby. There were a bunch of security officials in the doorway of every entrance. I found the help desk and spent most of my time there asking any questions people had. There were a bunch of people that came by to look at the visitor pamphlets. The highlight of my day was when one of the other helpers was excitedly saying there's Hines Ward! I assumed it was outside and was just passing by but then I saw him coming in through the revolving doors. There was a few people taking pictures of him but couple people including me was able to take a picture with him! Supposedly he came by to give the korean president a signed football since Hines Ward was half korean. Hines Ward then went upstairs to wait for him I guess. It was around dinner time when I saw the korean embassy come. I noticed there were a bunch of bodyguards, identifying them because of the ear pieces they had on. They came in through couple large vans and brought along lots of luggage. A bunch of the korean reporters had their cameras set up by the windows to try and get a picture of the president coming in. However, even after everyone got off and entered the building, the korean president was no where to be seen. None of the bodyguards came back and then probably an hour later Hines Ward left the building without the football. So it was obvious the president came in through a back entrance to shy himself away from the reporters. So after a couple more hours, my shift was done and I left for home with again no traffic. But on the way home I was able to see a bunch of people standing around at Schenley Park. Not knowing that in a couple hours people would be tear gassed or arrested.

blog entry 3

India never sought its potential. It was never a major trader of the seas, and it really stayed to itself. Because of it's location, however, India was always very involved in trade. It jutted out of the land which broke up the Indian Ocean. This allowed India to be a large trader because people were always going through it. People came to India to trade, so they really did not care that much about being a huge naval trader. Unfortunately the lack of protection India had really hurt them. Traders were always coming in and attacking them because of their lack of force and protection. This really hindered India's chance at ever becoming a great world power.

Weather had a great impact on Indian trade seasons. Hurricanes and winds in the ocean made it impossible at some times of the year to sail through the ocean and especially to India. The trade was very dependent on the weather patterns. But, the countries had found out what times are safe to travel. The bad times to travel were deadly, ships get swept up and destroyed.

It is interesting that India never became the greatest it could have been. With its size and population, it had the looks of being extremely powerful. The lack of protection of India's land seriously hurt it and truly caused the fall of it's trade. The weather seasons also hurt it because it was not a major trader all-year-round.

Why do you think India never tried to become powerful, even when they had the chance?

Post #3

Teresa Green
Post 3- Muslim Merchants
Part 1:
In roughly the 13th century the Asian sea trade that was slanted in the direction of the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Southern China Sea was broken into three interchangeable circuits, which each had communal authority of both economic and political movers and shakers that were in charge of trade between nearby places. The major explanation for these divisions of circuits was geographic; interestingly enough these sets of circuits soon became cultural domains.

The circuit located farthest west was mainly populated by Muslims which included: ship owners, major merchants, and merchants who had ships in the northwestern coast of India. They conducted their business in three major ports: port of Cambay in Gujarat, and the Malabar port enterpots of Calicut and Quilon. They were able to carry out business by route of large resident “colonies” of Muslim Merchants. A portion of the merchants were from the Middle East, but began to settle, marry, and usually adapt to their new environment. The others who were native to the northwestern coast of India soon picked up on Muslim culture and language through extended exposure of trade.

Part 2:
I find it interesting how the Muslim merchants were such important players in trade, but did not venture far off to trade with other people not close by.

Part 3:
What do you think the Muslim merchants could have done back then to ensure that they would still be a powerful player in trade as they were then? If you think there was nothing they could have done what do you think they could do now to become a more major part of trade now?

Indian Ocean

When it comes to the Indian Ocean System in the thirteenth century, it was divided into three parts. The Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean, and the South China Sea were all divided, yet they all worked together. Each part was influenced by one or more different cultures. These divisions were not necessarily strictly political, but more or less geographical.
In the westernmost part of this division, the Muslims were the dominant ones. The Muslims were from the Arabian Peninsula and the capitals of Baghdad and Cairo.
In the middle, Abu-Lugbod says this area was "primarily 'hinduized' in culture." The middle connected the south Indian coast. The cities were Malabar in the west and Coromandel in the east with everything else in between, and a few islands of Indonesia. She also points out that there were several Buddhist and Chinese influences.
And in the east of course we have China. According to the map, this division was the biggest. This area was dominated by Buddhists and Confucianism.
Her point in discussing all of these great cultures of this divided trade route system is not to prove whose culture was the most dominant, but to prove how these cultures could trade freely "within each of the three zones". The different cultures didn't set the boundaries between these divisions, rather it was the geographical attributes and the weather that divided these areas and cultures. It was the where the "countercyclical wind patterns met" that separated the monsoon areas and divided these trade areas. "...the 'natural' condition of the Indian Ocean was for several locally hegemonic powers to coexist; no single power ever exercised dominance over the entire system (253)."

Blog 3/ Trade Routes

In this weeks reading of Janet Abu-Lughod's novel, Before European Hegemony, he clearly states that the location of a major world system can directly affect its outcome in trade. The main focus of our reading is trade between the Middle East, the Red Sea,the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf. Trading by sea was a main technique in the 13th and 14th centuries, and still is today. It is a very productive way of transporting goods from one place to another. Although, when modern ships and technology were not around there were obstacles that had to be avoided. When the different bodies of water first began trading with each other there was not definite hegemony and each worked together peacefully. Then competition started to rise between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. The Persian Gulf was unable to maintain its power in the trade system, although it had a better body of water consisting of calmer seas. The gulf was unable to keep its power due to economic deficiencies which allowed for other regions to take control.Egypt was one of the powerhouses that took advantage of the fall of the Persian Gulf and in tern strived off trade. Even though this did occur Baghdad was still the main center of trade and still occupied the majority of trade route between the Middle East and Europe. Even though the Middle East was not very fond of Europe at the time, due to wars, they still needed their trade to survive and continue flourishing.

The weather also played a very big part on trade. The location alone is a key fact in any trade system but when you're dealing with bodies of water it becomes a completely different standard. Each exchange between the Middle East and Europe through any sea had to be thoroughly planned out and equipped with the right materials for a safe arrival. The seas were not always calm enough for travelers to make it across safely and the weather did not always agree. There were many times where strong winds would wreck a trading ship and cause destruction. This would cost a lot more money than most people who were exporting would want to spend during that time.

I thought it was interesting how the weather could affect the trade system and ones power with in it. It never really occurred to me that there were such problems with high winds and rough seas because you do not hear much about travel issues like that today. Also, i find it funny how each different section of the world it going through its own time at being a hegemony. Looking towards today, and thinking about that now makes me wonder what will happen in future years to come and who will the hegemony be?