Week 7 Make Up

This week's readings in the last of Hobsbawm's novel was mainly focused on science and revolution. In this final section, Hobsbawn elaborates on the nature of the rise of science and its impact on religion, and subsequently, revolution and war. How are these related, one may ask?

Religion had been the basis of people's beliefs as long as history books were written. People didn't question why the sky was blue or why the grass was green, because the answers were all in whatthe priests told them. All they knew was to go to mass and do their prayer and they would be rewarded in heaven. But all of a sudden, the Scientific Revolution came along and upturned all this earlier religious dependence. People started questioning things, and scientists came up with solid, factual answers to age-old questions. Religion was no longer the panacea to all problems and questions in the world. Therefore, due this rise of the education of the masses, religion began to fall back. As it fell back, it made more room for even more questions by science, leading to more answers and eventually led to more inventions and technology. These new found innovations provided an even greater sense of identity for nations, strengthening nationalism.

There is also the question of revolution. A point, or rather, a question, that was stressed in the book was the reason for why people will revolt. What is the fundamental reason people will rise up and protest something? The answer: dissatisfaction. When someone is dissatisfied with something and feel like the possibility of being satisfied is very well within reach, they will protest and speak out. And if this certain individual gains enough supporters that follow behind his cause, it will become a revolt. The switch from religion to science was a sort of quiet revolution, seeing as the people were no longer satisfied with pat answers like "Because God made it that way." So, they saw satisfaction and cold hard facts in science, and revolting against religion, switched to science as "the favorite."

Week 10 Make Up

In Book lll of "Leo Africanus," the question of identity is discussed. In the book, Hasan takes a new name when he is exiled. If you think about it, our names define who we are. It's our label, what we respond to, who we are know as. To change a name is to change a person's entire identity. So when Hasan changes his name to Leo Africanus, he changes his identity in a way, to become a man of travel instead of a man of nation or tribe. His wish is to put aside the influence of culture and become an unbiased man, able to travel and not be burdened by his past. In my opinion, that is an impossible goal. A person is founded and grounded by what he/she learns in childhood. It is entirely impossible to set that part of yourself aside and pretend to have unbiased accounts and views about certain things when culture will always be a part of you.

Another thing that struck me was the Pope's blatant favoritism towards Leo/Hasan. What made him so special that he was practically treated like a son by the Pope, and regardless of the fact that he was imprisoned, the Pope still took great care in providing for Leo/Hasan's needs and education. The obvious motive would be that the Pope was hoping that when Leo/Hasan got baptized, he would return to his home and bring numerous converts to the Catholic church. But was that the only reason, or did the Holy one have an ulterior motive?

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and found it a) a much easier read that all the other non-fiction narratives assigned earlier on in the semester. The author weaves a riveting tale through which history is also taught, and I found that I retained the same, if not more, information than I normally would with a textbook. It also puts into stark contrast the ways our society today and the society back then clashes. Issues like sexism, polygomy, cultural identity...I would not normally think of those things on a daily basis, but reading about it triggered my thoughts on it and therefore, I thought the book and overall enlightening experience.

Week 8 Make Up

This week's readings was in a new book, "Leo Africanus" by Amin Malalouf. This was was a welcome relief from all the monotonous and confusing textbooks before, and I was still able to learn about the history but through a narrative, a work of fiction, rather than a stuffy textbook.

I thought one of the most interesting things in the reading was the complete and total culture difference. The main character's father has two wives, the favoritism of a son, these are all aspects that shocked me as I read through the beginning of the novel. The father has two wives, the first beign the main character's mother and the second being a slave. Then, when both women become pregnant and eventually give birth, the father openly favors the newborn son and pays much less, if no attention to the infant girl.

This culture shock boggled my mind. In today's society, monogomy is the only option to marriage a large majority of the population knows, and the small percentage that IS aware of polygomy frowsn down upon it as almost unspeakable. But in that society, it was completely acceptable. Also, equality is stressed to almost a breaking point in today's world. But in the novel, the father blatantly prefers the son as opposed to the daughter. Today, fingers would be pointed at him left and right for total and blatant sexism, but back then, it was allowed. This makes me think about the statement "a small world." We think that just because we have all this new technology and avenues of communication that the world has become a smaller place. But has it really? Crucial culture differences such as these cause a major rift between opposing societies. Sexism in one society is seem as the status quo while in another it is considered almost as severe as a crime. How then, can our world become a smaller place when such rifts exist?

Week 6 Make Up

In this week's reading of "The Age of Empire," Hobsbawm discusses the rise of nationalism and along with that, the rise of women's roles in society. During the late 1800's until the early 1900's, the idea of nationalism began to form. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, nationalism is "national spirit or aspirations" or "the devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism." This concept did not exist before and so when German citizens thought of themselves as Germans and Italian citizens thought of themselves as Italians, it was never before seen. People now had pride for their own country, and patriotism arose. Of course, there were certain countries that did not follow the crowd and go along with the idea of nationalism. The United Kingdom was one example. The different municipalities of the UK did not want to identify with England and continued to speak their own language and/or dialect.

There was also much discussion about the rising role of women during this time period. This was known as the age of the "new woman." Due to industrialization and urbanization, the life expectancy was now much longer therefore women postponed the age of marriage, leaving more time for their own success. Women started entering the work force, claiming and holding jobs to put food on the table, along with their husbands. The birth rate also declined significantly due to the leaving a better standard of living considering the drop in the household number of mouths to feed. Women now felt empowered, and seeing that they were now equal in the fact that women now could "bring home the bacon," women began to fight for equal fights. This led to a series of struggles and contraversies that eventually and painstakingly led to the emancipation of women. Thus, the "new woman" was created.

I think it is very interesting how time moved throughout this whole period. Things were going relatively slowly during the wars and the movement of globalization, with trading and such. And suddenly, due to just a few inventions, it seems as if society exploded. Age-old traditions were broken and completely rewritten, and the status quo was abolished and redone so many times that the original can hardly be recognized. Even something as simple as a state of mine (ie nationalism) caused such an upheaval that even the traditional role of genders was turned upside down and inside out. It is a little intimidating to think that something seemingly small and insignificant will be discovered in the near future and transform society as we know it.

Blog 7

During the readings for this week we continued reading the book by Hobsbawn. He continued to tell of the growing European powers and how it lead to social stratification. Eventually recognizing the social stratification led to a revolution. A revolution can go either one of two ways. It can lead to a change in thought, therefore chosing to live life differently because of the change or its a further reinforcement of tradition. During this revolution, it was all about science and technological advances. medicine, sociology, technology, and other sciences were all pushed to the extremes. People became fascinated with science, it was almost like science was magic. Hobsbawn called science the king of mental domain. People finally were able to separate their faith and their reason.
I remember having a discussion in class about technology during this time and why people of this time put so much emphasis in trying to advance it. I could understand why and how people were so interested because they never seen anything like it because during those times there seemed to be no explanations to certain events. Now when things that seem to be magic, people of our time can attribute it to some type of scientific fact.

Week 5 Make Up Post

In this week's reading, Hobsbawm discusses the rise of the proletariat and the shift of power to the rising phenomenon of democracy. Throughout the late 1800's to the early 1900's, there was a dramatic shift in world politics as the proletariat, or the "working class" slowly rose to power, therefore creating a resurgence in the ideal of democracy. There are many reasons for this shift, but much of it is just a simple case of cause and effect.

Industrialization caused urbanization, and as more and more new inventions were being discovered, the farms and peasant from the countryside knew a good opportunity when they saw one. A shift of the masses occurred as the industrialized cities became more and more populated, filling up with small-town folk hoping to make a more comfortable living. As the cities got more crowded, a sense of togetherness began to form and the people soon started forming trade unions, workers movements, and then eventually even political parties to make their voices known. When changes began to happen, the "proletariat" realized the capacity for change and their power over that capacity, and thus arose democracy.

In today's world, democracy is treated completely differently. Instead of being chosen by the people to adopt democratic ideals, it is forced upon some people. America, being the light and beacon of democracy, is now trying to enforce i in other countries. It thinks that because democracy worked for America, it should work for every other country as well. But, as seen in the case of the War in Iraq, such beliefs do not hold against contestation. Other countries did not go through the process that America did in following democracy, therefore it is both unfair and unpractical to force this political theory on other countries. Thoughts?

Blog 4

During this week we finished the book Age of Empire by Eric Hobsbawn. It basically described the world druing the time period of 1875 – 1914. The booked talked alot about imperialism and specifically how it affected the United Kingdom. Initially, iimperialism was thought of as being postive and a step in the right direction towards a united country. It had a HUGE economic and a HUGE cultural impact. Even though it made these positive advances, it did not help the relationship between the metropoles and dependencies. Britain created a new imperialist expansion with South Africa being its main comepetition. Britains, seemingly, easy success was due to the exploitation of Britain's already existing position as a BIG TIME inporter. South Africa, India, and Egypt were all independent projects for Britain. With imperialism, Britain took a large share of the new regions. therefore gaining control of its biggest competition by controlling the dense parts of Africa.
This book taught me alot about imperialism and its purpose. Although it was indeed a strong and smart thing to do during this time; I am happy it did not make it to modern society's of today, such as America. I really did like this book, well the things i remembered, and i think future classes can definitely benefit from this book and the things it talks about. It provides alot of knowledge

Cyberspace

I find that the internet is a great thing with millions of possibilities. The internet is still a very young invention and still has a far way to go before all the information in different books and such can be found on there, but I feel that it will not be long before everything can be found. I found it interesting that in the movie Cyberspace declaration of independence that it was said the way information is regulated on the internet is wrong. I believe that technology is developing at rate that is suitable with everything that is going on in the world. I also believe that the video format made it hard to take the point of the video seriously. I do find that both patents and laws are very good things. Some information needs to be protected. I think some people can not handle having certain information at their fingertips because they may misuse it. I feel that because people invented the internet that they should be allowed to regulate it. I find that the government regulates everything else so it shouldn't be a surprise that the internet is. I feel that as time passes and technology advances certain copy writes will not be needed.

-Teresa Green

Week 4 Make Up

This week's readings come from Eric Hobsbawm's "The Age of Empire," and focused primarily on the Europe's reign of world power throughout the 20th century. This power was primarily due to drastic changes in population count, technology, communication and transportation, and the connection between politics and economics. The series of changing events went something a little like this:

New inventions and rapid industry growth led to the economic boom of big and/or major cities. This in turn led to major population growth as more and more people moved to the cities and the boom caused the increased population to thrive. The people were looking for new jobs in these industrialized cities but anoher reason they fled from the rural areas was because moving had become so much easier. With increased transportation fashions, ie advanced railway systems and new found inventions like the steamboat, more and more people made the move the major cities. This major population shift also caused overpopulation, something no one had ever heard of before.

This got me thinking. One little rift in history can cause so many different and perhaps unforseen waves and ripples in the following years. And as much as the society back then and society now are different, some parallels can still be drawn. Back in the 20th century, the invention of the steamboat resulted (indirectly) in the creation of overpopulation. But now, invention like the telephone and the television and now the cellphone have resulted in world-wide connections. With a few numbers, a person in America can ask a person in Beijing what the weather is like. Circumstances like these could have never have been imagined back when the steamboats were first invented. Yet, noting the differences, the similarities in the impact these inventions made on society are still just as significant.

Week 3 Make Up Post

This week, Abu-Lughod talks about the history of trade from the Mongols to the Cairo region, the Indian Ocean to China. What I found especially interesting was how she stressed interconnection throughout that time period, and even more interesting, how there was no one, defined world power, no single world hegemony. She describes the possible candidates for the spot, though: China and India.

India was in the perfect position to become a world hegemony. It was the bottleneck and bridge between the two different parts of the Indian Ocean, the Eastern and the Western. Therefore, this meant that a large majority of traders had to move through India to accomplish their trade routes, therefore leaving much much rich, cultural residue in India and also providing it with an economical boost. Trading was highly crucial back then and therefore having control over basically an entire trade route put India in a very powerful position. But, even so, India did not take its chance in becoming a world hegemony. Even though they were powerful, they held no desire to expand. India was very content with their situation and had no desire, need, or will to fend off the troubles that would come with being a world hegemony. Subsequently, the Black Death arrived and with the onslaught of other economic problems, India lost their opportunity.

China also had the opportunity to rise and become a world hegemony, but due to a number of reasons, it did not. It had the perfect opportunity too, but at the end of the day, it did not have the desire to become so powerful of an influence in the trading world. This made me wonder, though. Why exactly did China withdraw? It had all the promise and hopes of becoming a world power, with military power that no one could compete with, solid economic foundations and technological advances that no other country at the time could even come close to. Why then, did China back down?

Week 1

The first week of classes we were introduced to the book Before European Hegemony. The demise of the economy and the many barbaric invasions is what eventually led to the fall of the empire. The invasions began in the 3rd century between the German and the Romans in Europe. The fifth centur is when the invasions that held the most weight occurred. Invasions before this were not as successful. By the end of the 5th century the fall of the empire began to heavily take place and Northwestern Europe was becoming more apparent that it is separate from the rest of the country.
Due to the invasions the Government quickly loss controll. It was not "central" anymore , therefore causing friction between different groups. In the 8th century Charlemagne became emperor. He took advantage of the church to try to regain control of the government and the rest of the political system. It became a long slow process and Charlemagne ended up dying and the empire crashed once again. It seemed as though a "key saviour" in establishing Europe as a substantial power was the introduction into feudalism. Feudalism really helped Europe rise back to a place of influence. It allowed trading centers and exchanges to take place. By the 11th century Europe became more integrated and producing more goods for exchange. Population all over the country began to spark in response to these new changes and different patterns.
The “fall” occurred due to many events not just one single event. It also took a long time to occurr. It didnt just happen over night. It took centuries! Charlemagne got the ball rolling slowly but feudalism gave the ball the kick that it needed to pick up momentum.”

week 13

Neoliberalism

This week’s reading was about neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is simply a ‘new’ kind of liberalism. “Liberalism” can refer to politics, the economy, or religion – among many other things – and is progressive in comparison to conservative methods. The main theme of liberalism is free trade. Neo-liberalism has developed from liberalism, and can be seen in the economic policies of the last 25 years or so. Many Americans believe that neo-liberalism policies are a means of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The main points of neo-liberalism include: rule of the mark; cutting public expenditure for social services, deregulation, privatization, and eliminating the concept of “the public good” or “community” (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376). Rule of the market in terms of neo-liberalism means total freedom of trade for capital, good, and services. This method of trade is intended to benefit everyone by increasing economic growth via an unregulated market. Cutting price expenditures for social services refers to services such as education, healthcare, and healthcare, and decreases the government’s role in each sector. Deregulation is the process of reducing government regulation of anything that could reduce profits. Privatization is the process of selling state-owned enterprises, goods, and services to private investors. Privatization has led to a concentration of wealth in a small number of people. Eliminating the concept of “the public good” or “community” refers to neo-liberalism replacing the two with individual responsibility. This process takes responsibility away from the government and into the hands of the individual, forcing people to find their own solutions for problems such as health care, education, and social security.

Neo-liberalism is especially evident in Latin American, which is what the article by Patomaki and Teivainen focuses on. Patomaki and Teivainen argue that the most common political theoretical response to the process of globalization is the theory of cosmopolitan democracy. Cosmopolitan democracy holds that globalization forces individuals to rethink the political community within which our democratic ideal and aspirations can be realized. Many models of cosmopolitan democracy, however, are partially detached from real world historical processes. In their article, Patomaki and Teivainen detail why they believe it important to redefine the conceptual basis for cosmopolitan democracy in political economy terms.

As noted, many models of cosmopolitan democracy are often detached from real world historical processes. Held developed a model of cosmopolitan democracy that was greatly influenced by the European integration process, and is therefore very Eurocentric and partically detached from many real world historical processes, such as those present in Latin America. Patomaki and Teivainen argue that this has at least three consequences:

1) it lacks an account of what is going on in different sectors of the globalizing world

2) it excludes the process of transformation towards 'cosmopolitan democracy’

3) it is not as open-ended as such a model should be

In addition to these three consequences, it can give rise to negative effects of power because it is based solely on reflections of European experiences. The Mercosur region of Latin American was found in 1991, and is partially modeled on the European Union. Mercosur, however, is very different from that of Europe and is a prime example of why Patomaki and Teivainen argue that the conceptual basis for cosmopolitan democracy should be redefined in political economy terms to FIT the real world processes of that particular economy.

week 12

Postnationalism

In this week’s reading, Mohammed A. Bamyeh discusses post nationalism. Post nationalism came about to replace nationalism in Europe after it reached its demise, and today, the European Union has the most advanced institution of post nationalism in the world. Bamyeh highlights two major distinctions between nationalism and post nationalism, being their relation to value judgments and multiplicity of forms. Nationalism tends to always be looked at from a moral standpoint (good vs. evil), as its history shaped and continues to shape our perspectives and opinions on it today. Post nationalism, on the other hand, escapes the limit of moral judgment because it has no major history yet, and is just beginning to unfold. Post nationalism also escapes the limit of having to impose a single ethnocentric form upon it, because it offers multiple venues for solidarity. Conversely, nationalism was always singular in character, and spread throughout the world in the form of an exact replica of the model used in Europe. This replication of solidarity resulted in such things as war and ethnic cleansing, and Bamyeh suggests that nationalism is by “far the most destructive ideology ever experienced by humanity.” He argues that today’s form of globalization, post nationalism, is far more promising than nationalism, because it reintroduces alternative modes of conglomeration and solidarity.

Post nationalism is concerned with the way questions of collective identity are reworked and refers to frames of solidarity offering themselves as alternatives to nationalism. Post nationalism is a more specific outcome of globalization; it seeks to find alternatives to modern nations and states and seeks to transcend the limits of defining group identity by nationality and political form by the modern state. Bamyeh says that there are three common features of a post national culture, which include:

1) Post national culture is perspectively fragmented rather than wholistic
2) Post national culture is not congruent with state ideology
3) Post national culture approaches all given identities as restraints and
emphasizes expansive action in the world

Bamyeh also says that there are four types of post national solidarity, and goes one to describe each one. Spiritual solidarities represent the global growth of religious solidarities, and are characterized by religious fervor as a means to accomplish a global mission. The second type, material solidarity, represents the global connections between people, mainly concentrated in society’s professional classes, that foster an interconnected global life. Humanist solidarities represent the idea of human interest as a basis for solidarity. Humanistic solidarities believe that global humanistic causes can be articulated in broader terms than economic interest to the self and beyond national borders, and strive to do so. The last type of post national solidarity is the life-emancipatory solidarity. This type emphasizes liberation and modes of expression that are restricted within a society. Life-emancipatory solidarities encourage movements oriented toward individual freedom to pursue lifestyles or choices that contradict mainstream cultural patterns.

All in all, post nationalism is in the works to replace nationalism. Bamyeh made a statement to help explain why the transition to post nationalism is taking place, and it really helped me understand the way institutions in the world work. He stated that there are “less audible social formations which, in due time, assert themselves because they better correspond to the realities of their age than do established institutions and discourses.” This really made sense to me, because times do change, and it only makes sense that the institutions that govern society change as well.

Week 8

Leo Africanus

Leo Africanus begins with Leo describing the relationship between his mother and father and how he came to be born. He tells readers that when he was born his father was overwhelmed with joy, but it was nothing in comparison to the joy his mother felt. When I first read this, I assumed his mother, Salma, was more joyous simply because she is a woman; women bear their unborn child for 9 months, which usually results in a stronger emotional connection to their young, and women are generally more emotional anyway. Salma’s joy was indeed distinct from Leo’s father, Muhammad, because of their gender, but not for the reasons I expected.

Leo goes on to tell readers that his mother and father are actually cousins, who were betrothed to each other at since childhood, and married four years prior to his birth. A mere two years after their marriage, Muhammad brought home a mistress he called Warda, who was beautiful and young. Salma takes over narration at this point. She explains that she was free, and that Warda was slave. Because Warda was a slave, however, she was able to express more freedom than Salma; “she could go out unveiled, sing, dance, pour wine, wink her eyes, and take off her clothes.” Salma could do none of these things as a married woman, and was even supposed to refrain from showing any interest at all in her husband’s pleasures. She tells us that Muhammad would call her “my cousin” and that at the end of the night, it was Warda, not herself, who went to bed with her husband. This description highlights the dynamics between Leo’s parents and his father’s mistress, and gave me the impression that Leo’s mother was very alone before his birth.

Salma then goes on to explain how she became pregnant with Leo. Her friend Sarah came over one day and say how unhappy she was in her present living situation with her husband. Sarah gave Salma a potion, and told her to pour it into Muhammad’s glass that night, after three nights, and again after seven. Salma did so, and within a few weeks she found herself pregnant. Salma was ecstatic, because she knew a child meant that Muhammad would be there for many years to come. Even this failed to ease the tension Salma felt towards her husband, however, as Warda was also pregnant and whoever birthed the first son would give Muhammad his legacy.

This insight to Salma’s situation really made me feel for her. I could not imagine having to: 1) marry my cousin, 2) tolerate my husband having a mistress whom he went to bed with every night, and 3) being nervous that my child would be a girl rather than a boy or be born too late. It is clear to me that Salma is not must unlike other women during her time, and that her worries were the norm. The fact that free women felt less free than slave mistresses is very sad to me; almost as sad as the fact that there actually were slaves. Reading this section really made me appreciate the rights that women have today and the fact that relationships in this day and age are so different from what they were in terms of gender roles.

Week 7

The Age of the Empire

In Chapter 13 of “The Age of the Empire,” Hobsbawm details how the norm in Europe shifted from peace to violence. Prior to 1914, peace was the norm and was expected by Europeans. Since 1914, however, Europe has been plagued with world war after world war. Hobsbawm notes that since 1914, most Europeans over the age of seventy have passed through at least two wars over the course of their lives, and most over fifty have experienced at least one. In great contrast to this, from the period of 1815 to 1914 there were no wars involving European powers, and it was most likely because of this that no one expected a world war to breakout, despite it being forseen.

Beginning around 1870, Europeans expressed the likelihood of a future war, and the chances of a world war were made apparent. The concerns about war were well heard, and in the 1890’s, the World Peace Congress was established.
In the 1900s, the likelihood of war was drawing nearer and in the 1910s, its nearness was taken for granted, as many statesmen still did not believe a world war would ensue. It did. There was an international crisis in July of 1914, where international leaders met to deter a world war. The leaders were troubled at the state of the world, but believed that a peaceful solution could be made and the crisis would deteriorate, ending the possibility of a world war.

The optimism of leaders was most likely due to the fact that war was utterly non-existent in Europe for over a century. Today, I cannot even fathom world leaders meeting to discuss the threat of an upcoming world war, and be so confident to believe that no war would ever ensue. I believe if our leaders took on this optimistic attitude, they would be criticized by citizens and actually seen as a threat themselves. Do you think that this shift in attitudes took place because of the shift in history from peace to war that took place during the 1800 and 1900s?

Week 1

Before European Hegemony
In the section “Emergence from Old Empires,” the epic “fall of Rome” was outlined and discussed. I was very intrigued with the timeline of the “fall”, and the different impact it had on northern and southern Europe. The process of the “fall of Rome” took several centuries, and is accredited to a disintegration of the economy and numerous barbaric invasions. These invasions began as early as the third century A.D., when Germanic tribes broke through Roman lines in northwestern Europe. Although this first wave of invasions was unsuccessful, successive ones were not. In the fifth century, several more invasions occurred, and by the end of the century, a unified Roman rule was beginning to demise, and the separation between northwestern Europe and the rest of the continent was becoming clearer.
The continuous invasions on Europe quickly their toll, and the empire regressed on both a political and individual; the government was decentralized and disorganized, and there was far less sophistication across people. Europe suffered gravely, but found hope when the eighth century finally rolled around, and Charlemagne took the title of Emperor of the West. In an attempt to reorganize Europe’s political system, Charlemagne took advantage of the church, which was the institution that retained any unity. It was after this that western Europe began to put back together the pieces of its fragmentation. This rise was rather slow, however. Charlemagne eventually died and the empire again fragmented and fell to attack. At the end of the ninth century, a system of protofeudalism was established, and a century later feudalism became institutionalized. This adoption of feudalism really helped Europe come back from its demise. It enabled small trading centers to operate and exchange took place with merchants who received protection from local lords in exchange for their commercial services.
At the end of the tenth century, invaders (Vikings) turned back, and by the eleventh century, northwestern Europe was becoming more integrated and producing more goods for exchange. This led towns to quickly multiple and there was an internal explosion of population and urbanization that helped doctor that damages that occurred during the “fall of Rome.”
The “fall” took a much larger toll on northwestern Europe, and it is only to this section of Europe that the “Dark Ages” refers to. The “fall” occurred due to a series of events that took place over the course of centuries, more specifically a uniformed government and continual invasions. The efforts of Charlemagne helped initiate Europe’s comeback, especially northwestern Europe’s, and the installment of feudalism was the catalyst to ending the “fall.”

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is often seen as a derogatory term given to its supporters because opponents use it to highlight the ills of global capitalism and decadent consumer culture. As the name suggests, it is a revival of Liberalism. The ideology states that the state should be kept to a minimum in the lives of the people to allow the most freedom to the individual. Neoliberalism is also closely linked with Laissez-faire economy principles. For Neoliberals, the self-regulating market is very important because if this assumption is false then there would be a bigger role for government.
Neoliberalism tries to embrace the classical liberal views but is more willing to let government have a part to play. Government is useful for regulating the market and is important for things like consumer protection. The goal of neoliberals is to create governments and structures that allow the people to be as free as possible NOT the overall dismissal or monopoly of government that some other political ideologies would promote. In this way, it is a departure from old Keynesianism which sought to increase the power and influence of government in the market. However, government must have some part in the public’s life for any of the liberal goals to be achieved.
Neoliberalism should not be confused with Libertarianism which is a political ideology very close to classical Liberalism that wants little or no government intervention in the publics dealings.

xtra credit: wikipedia bias

Every publication is subject to bias and Wikipedia is no different. The fact that much of its content is user created should make most of us think twice before accepting the content as indisputable. However, unlike some other media (such as books and journals) Wikipedia actively seeks out bias and tries to be as much like an encyclopedia as possible. This is because many people would agree that an encyclopedia is as close as one can get to an unbiased source of information.

The simple fact that Wikipedia seeks to be unbiased is an important feature that has allowed it to rise in importance for those wishing to educate themselves. Wikipedia is conscious of its bias and welcomes constructive criticism. In a way, the glaringly obvious biases in some articles on Wikipedia are the cause for observers to question and change the content and keep the Wikipedia experiment alive.

A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

I think that the internet and overall technology are capable of much more than we can even fathom. The declaration condescendingly implies that the way information on the internet is regulated is wrong. I feel that technological progress we as humans have made is where it should be. Personally, my mind would explode if I realized all that is potentially possible with the internet.

The video neglects the notion that humans created the internet, and humans are ruled by governments. We should be able to access what we want to but ultimately the government will regulate access. Governments regulate access to most things anyways. We are not “legally” allowed download music or do drugs but obviously people still find access to drugs and I have an Ipod full of music I didn’t buy. Just because something is regulated doesn’t mean we can’t find a way to access it.

Patents and laws keep us from progressing, which should be good since we “are not welcome” or ready for this future (Implied by video of declaration). I understand that ideally all information and ideas should be accessible; but it would mean ALL information. People would be able to find resources to help others (like a charity organization) as well as how to make biological weapons. I’m really not comfortable with that idea. I don’t trust humanity enough either. Hackers shouldn’t be allowed to alter programs that they don’t create or want to destroy. That’s why if you hack a government website it’s a federal crime. Overall, I just feel that the futuristic world that the video implies is one day possible and that we will get there in time as laws and copyrights change; but, for now the laws should remain until they are not needed to regulate human behavior. .

Neoliberalism

This article discusses the emergence and the laissez-faire type ideological principles of neoliberalism and responses to it from South America. Neoliberalism emerged in the 1970s and is based on the idea of a gobal economy becoming necessary. Neoliberalists argue that the best way for the global economy to grow is through free international trade and sound budgets. They propose cuts in welfare spending, low inflation, and the deregulation of the financial markets. The problem with this theory is that it caters to the socio-econmic elite whose position is based on transnational mobility. Smaller poor countries will suffer while the wealthier nations will continue to profit. The idea of neoliberalism seems fair enough. It appears to believe that free trade would give all nations the same opportunity for economic growth and power.

This however, is an ideal that I do not believe would ever materialize. If the markets could somehow run themselves without the intervention of the "human aspect" then perhaps this could actually work; but in actuality, the markets are not run separate of human endeavors and soon the agendas of the larger, more powerful countries would overtake the smaller countries and push them further into poverty. Exploitation has been a constant for centuries that would not all of a sudden disappear and allow the markets to run independent of regulation and be fair. How could anyone still be a proponent of this sort of globalization and trade when we are experiencing now the global recession that was caused by no one watching the markets and allowing those in charge to do whatever they pleased?