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?

The Rise and Fall of the Strait of Malacca

Palembang and Malacca

The Strait of Malacca played a crucial role in trade from the 7th to early 14th centuries. The strait provided a means for transportation among world traders, and allowed Asia to play a vital role in the world commerce and production of the time. In these early years, Malacca, Palembang, and Jambi – major Asian ports cities– were thriving “world cities” who dominated the world system thanks to their active and successful harbors. Years later, however, it is impossible to picture what these thriving cities once were by looking at the dead emporium that remains. At one time, ships from four regions of the world system could be found docked and trading at the channel of the Malacca River, but today this channel is merely a swamp of green-gray sludge and silt with rickety wooden piers and fragile sailing boats. The graphical demise and present state of these former “world cities” illustrates the instability of those who dominated the world system prior to Europe.

The dramatic decline of Malacca and Palembang highlight an unusual characteristic of the regions and their urbanization. Great cities tend to persist through the ages, with archaeological excavations finding layer upon layer of successive settlements. Neither Malacca nor Palembang, however, possessed this characteristic. Rather, the entrepots of the Strait had port after port, with traders moving from one to the other. The regions had no great ecological features to encourage settlement, which is why the famous port cities eventually fell to their demise. There ecological features did, however, encourage trade. There was an unruffled surface of water, which produced a yearly cycle of sailing seasons interrupted by long windless periods; two shores with low-lying coasts; and a series of rivers flowing down the strait. Behind the coasts lied highlands, where tin, wood, and other forest products could be found, and from the inlands, minerals, camphor, resins, and tress could be found. It was the abundance of these resources, along with easy access via waterways, that made Malacca and Palembang so famous.

In the ecological setting that Malacca and Palembang are in, a stable urban hierarchy is very unlikely because there is neither an agrarian region nor a differentiated terrain. As a result of these ecological faults, the entrepots of the Strait failed to provide an adequate stopping point or settlement area for the traders that frequented them, hurting their reputation as great port cities, and leading to their geographical demise.

Are there any examples of world cities/nations that fell from power after Europe became hegemonic and are in geographically despair now?

Blog 3: Islam and Business

The majority of the text for this week’s reading moves our focus east, examining the possibility of hegemony in the eastern portions of the world, including Asia and India. While these discussions were interesting and certainly peaked questions for investigation in class, I was very curious to read a sub-portion of the text that focused, again, on the Islamic people and their role in Mideast commerce.

In a portion of the text for Wednesday’s reading, Abu-Lughod discusses the importance of “Islam and Business” (216), setting the tone of this subsection by recognizing the West’s eventual dominance over commerce, but additionally noting the competence and self-sufficiency of the Islamic people in terms of commerce and trade. “Although the West eventually ‘won,’” she states, “it should not be assumed that it did so because it was more advanced in either capitalistic theory or practice. Islamic society needed no teachers in these matters” (216).
Abu-Lughod goes on to describe how Islam always concerned itself with business matters, and though it may be strange that a religious group and its sacred documents be concerned with business contacts and agreements, “it must be remembered that Mecca was an important caravan center and that Muhammad, before his religious experience, was a business agent” (216). Capitalistic theories have flourished in Islamic society since the first century, A.D., and while the contractual documentation does not exist for the Middle East as it did for Europe, the documentation of ht institutions of partnership and commenda in the early Islamic period are a testament, and may be evidence for, the loss of Islamic commercial hegemony in the Middle Ages (217). While this evidence is inconclusive, the succinct evidence of Islamic partnerships, contracts, the commenda, the wakil (the agent), and credit and monies, promote the notion of early Islamic power over capitalistic commerce and trade.

It should be noted, however, that Abu-Lughod states the lack of historical documents citing the agreements and contracts that ensured the latter commercial practices. The contacts, she cites, were oral histories, and not physical documents, as the Europeans have.

Because of the paucity of documentary sources,” she says, “it is not possible to
investigate the quantitative aspects of trade… one can only study the legal texts that
describe mechanisms… or set forth principles… for their execution (217).

If this is the case, while there is substantiate evidence of the Islamic commercial competency, it is difficult to determine how the Islamic hegemony existed and remained for such an extensive period of history. How, I wonder, do we know that this is the definite case? Might other countries or cultures have held hegemonic power at this time as well? I am curious to know how Islamic practices fit into the historical transformation of capitalism and commerce? How much did their practices influence this transformation to modern practices?

-Erika Moul

Baghdad, India, and China

As ever, Abu-Lughod is still emphasizing that Europe was not necessarily destined to dominate the world. Parts II and III illustrate societies that were very technologically advances, wealthy, and potentially very powerful. But Iraq, India and China never reached their full potential due to the combination of internal and external factors.

            Baghdad was an interesting case where it seemed to be in decline while still impressively wealthy and great. As Abu-Lughod discussed earlier in the book, first-hand accounts of life need to be carefully analyzed to discover the real truth. Witnesses of Baghdad’s economic prosperity are contradictory: “When they compare Baghdad with the past, they see decline, but when they compare her to most other places, they see an undeniably active economy…bolstered by the heightened demands of the export trade” (193). Unfortunately for Baghdad this ‘heightened demand’ didn’t last forever. Once again the Mongol Empire asserted itself, and once the Middle East was conquered, the relocation of the capital/trading center ruined Baghdad and its sister city of Basra. The Mongols were certainly an external factor that Baghdad had little or no control over, with little hope of being able to compete with the Mongols militarily.

            I would not call the kingdoms of India “local hegemons” because to me that is an oxy moron. Hegemony usually carries a connotation of wanting world dominance, not merely local. Referring to them as local powers and cores seems more accurate. And that’s all they were, and the unified inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent were not very ambitious. Although they seemed to be in a weakened position due to their lack of unification, the Indian culture seemed to do quite well for itself: “India was self-sufficient in or indifferent to many of the heavily-traded commodities on the medieval world market” and “she sold more than she bought” (285). So India exported more than it imported, creating a so-called favorable balance of trade, once again underscoring the fact that the 13^th century world system was one of “proto-capitalism”.

            Like India, China had great potential to be an economic powerhouse, but similarly lacked that ambition, and instead isolated itself from the world. At one point, China “seemed fated in the 13^th century to become the hegemonic power if not of the world at least a goodly portion of it” (259-260). But interestingly, not long after, Abu-Lughod states that “the East had already substantially ‘fallen’ before the Portuguese men-of-war appeared in the Indian Ocean” (260). But why had it fallen? Why did China take a step backward just when it appeared to be ready to dominate the world? As is extensively discussed in the book, China was technologically advanced, had established solid economic institutions, and had military might. They had the will and ability to control sea trade by insisting on keeping foreigners out of their ports.

But then they took things a step further and basically stopped all trade with foreigners. This may have been a reaction to their being conquered by a lesser civilization, it may have been due to the plague or the inherent social structure of China, but to me the most interesting explanation is that China withdrew because of the belief system taught by Confucius. Is it possible that China gave up power and wealth because one man said that “crass moneymaking” was wrong? I’d like other people’s opinions on how much of a factor this was in China’s downfall.

blog 3- egypt/india

In the week’s reading, Abu- Lughod examines European, Middle Eastern, and Far Eastern segments of the world system. The readings begin explaining the Middle Eastern system which was known for the hosting the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, which were significant trade routes. The Persian Gulf was characterized by calm seas, various land-access points because its route was so near the coastline, and more so, the land route was shorter than most other routes were. The Persian Gulf was favored over any other route and Egypt wielded much power, influence, and wealth. Later, the Red Sea became the dominant trade route in the area because economic downturn in the Persian Gulf gave way to India’s rise. This major change affected all three segments of the world system as the Middle East was responsible for getting goods from Eastern Asia to Europe and European goods to Asia. In the world system India was most important when it came to exporting rather than importing. India had been self-sufficient and really only gained a place in the trading system because of its essential location.
One of the things I found most interesting in this week’s reading was India’s stance in the global society. It is interesting to me how India had so much power and money being flushed into it. The fact that India did not take it to the next level; hegemony, is something very unique to India. I think it says something about India’s culture, goals, and values. It seems as though India did not want to emerge and a hegemony because they were contempt with the position they were in, which was still controlling the world trade, and therefore the world system. India preferred to stay on top peacefully rather than toil with war, retaliation, and unrest. It is clear that cultural ideals did affect India’s platoonic rise to power; contradictory to Europe, India valued peace (maybe above wealth and status).
What I want to know, after reading these latest chapters, what would the world be like today, and how would history be different if India had reached its full potential (sea power, or hegemony). Its possible India could have been colonizing the world rather than be colonized- then again, with their peaceful ideals, maybe not. Its an interesting subject, regardless.

Abu-Lughod Week 3

As Abu-Lughod travels east in the thirteenth century world system, the territory gets less and less familiar and more and more interesting as it seems evermore critical to trade and culture. At the beginning of Part III, she studies India, the middleman between the East and the West. India was divided into three overlapping zones, divided for geographic purposes as well as simultaneous religious/cultural differences. The western zone was predominantly Islam while the eastern zone was Buddhist and the central zone Hindu. The geographical boundaries were much more dramatic though. They were most divided by the monsoon seasons and the winds they brought. Since India protruded out into the Indian Ocean and most trade was done by sea at this point, the wind pattern was critical. There was a very specific schedule that needed to be followed through the year that only allowed limited travel. Southern India reaped most of the benefits from the trade, being the hinge between the Middle East and China, but western and eastern India flourished as well. Western India, Malabar, was the hinge between the Mediterranean and the Middle East while eastern India, Coromandel, linked the Middle East to Southeast Asia.
I don’t mean to follow any trends, but it really is intriguing, the question of why India hadn’t unified. At this point it was divided, particularly into the three cultural zones, but the most major stop on the way from East to West and vice versa. India barely had to work for its position in the world system, it just came to it. But if it had all this automatic power, why didn’t it capitalize, unite, and dominate the world system? It is a mystery to me as to why India seemed void of any interest to unite, but with their lucky location, it’s true that there seemed to be no need for such measures. Each of the individual parts of India were also truly self-sufficient creating less need. The Portuguese invasion also prevented this from happening too. Now it’s getting to more familiar territory as the Portuguese navy is beginning to dominate the seas. Originally the Chinese navy was the most powerful in the Indian Ocean, but Portugal came in and soon took control, heavily taxing traders in the area. During this time, India also didn’t feel the need to create a navy since it was so wealthy because of its location. The Portuguese invasion caused India to fall and ensured European dominance in the world system, evolving to the modern world.
But still, I wonder why India hadn’t united. These are completely valid reasons and it’s logical that they didn’t feel the need to. But looking back in retrospect it just seems so foolish since India could have been so unbelievably great and powerful. Was there a lot of conflict between the independent parts of India? Did they not see what was coming with this world system?

Dana Bodnar

Week 3

In this week’s readings, Abu-Lughod covers a large portion of the history of trade from the Mongols, Baghdad and the Persian Gulf region, Cairo, the Indian Ocean system, and to China. Yet again, throughout these chapters, Abu-Lughod stresses the interconnection of the world system during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Furthermore, she stresses there was no one dominant force—no world hegemony. However, she does describe the potential that both India and China had to become the dominating world force. The location of India was perfect for hegemony it was considered the connection between the Eastern and Western parts of the Indian Ocean—most traders had to move through here. But India did not have the desire or the military power to fend off intruders; they were happy with their position and did not desire much expansion. With the coming of the Black Death and other economic problems, India lost its chance to become the leader in world trade. China also had the opportunity to become a hegemony and just as India, also had a crucial position in the world trade system. For a number of reasons China did not rise to this position—they actually withdrew from the seas, faced economic hardships, and finally really had no innate desire for world domination. Although India and China are both very interesting cases, I would like to focus on the area most interesting to me, Chapter 6: Sinbad’s Way—Baghdad and the Persian Gulf.

Of all the routes that linked Europe and the Far East, the Persian Gulf was the “easiest, cheapest….and the most ancient and enduring” (185). Compared to the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf was easier to navigate through because of its lack of rocks and bad conditions. Additionally, the Red Sea required being in the open sea; whereas, through the Persian Gulf traders could hug the shoreline, which was much safer. In this chapter, Abu-Lughod also stresses the importance of Baghdad as a great cultural trader center. She provides many passages noting the greatness of Baghdad, for example, “There is no city in the world equal to Baghdad in the abundance of its riches, the importance of its business, the number of scholars…” (191). Unfortunately, every great power must come to an end; the fall of Baghdad was inevitable. Although the sources are inconclusive of how and when Baghdad precisely fell, the fact that Islamic scholars no longer mention the city and famous travelers never mention it, suggests that the trade there diminished and eventually stopped. There is also evidence that the Mongols conquest of Persian and Iraq sped up already looming local changes. In the end, the clear winner in terms of trade in the Middle East region was Egypt and the rule of the Mamluks.

What I found extremely interesting in Chapter 6 was Abu-Lughod’s focus on the accounts of the growth and eventually collapse of Baghdad. She cites many passages from famous travelers writings and even includes a description of the fall of Bagdad from the Persian writer, Wassaf. Even more interesting, she stresses the tragic poetic aspect of these accounts. One of the questions I have about this chapter is why mention Basra? Was this outlet to Baghdad really that important in the larger scheme? What was the significance of Basra declining in relation to Baghdad, and more importantly, the entire world system?

I’m about to call (almost) everyone else wrong, and its ok to hate me for it

So, reading through other people’s comments on the events of this past night, I feel the need to comment on it.  And, I intend to stick to the title I’ve given this post.  I went down towards the park tonight with a few friends.  They clearly wanted to go to simply observe what was going on.  I went partially for that reason, and partially because there is a valid reason to protest groups like the G-20 (why 19 nations and the EU should get to dictate world policy to everyone without input escapes me, for one thing, but that is a topic for another day).  When we first arrived there was a peaceful gathering.  Apparently we missed the police clearly the area around the fountain, but generally there were protesters of all kinds sitting along the road.  They were occupying about half of it, while lines of police lined the other half.  While there was clearly a standoff, there wasn’t much tension in the air.  The protesters eventually began singing and dancing, and the police started to fill in areas that they left.  The entire feeling of the event changed after the police advanced to take the entire road.  The group singing and dancing remained on the sidewalk, but now there was tension and fear present.  Everyone could be seen looking over shoulders, keeping tabs on the police (and their ever growing numbers and ever expanding lines), preparing for the next charge.  Someone mentioned that there wasn’t a cohesive sense of what was being protested.  This is actually not as bad as they claimed, as one of the interesting things about anti-globalization protests is that they will draw in a wide variety of groups and people.  If your issue is with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza, the G-20 provides a time to voice that, if it is environmentalism, protecting workers rights in the developing world, Tibet, women’s rights, etc, the important decision makers are there.  People from this wide front of ideas can all come together to voice these opinions.  That doesn’t make people unintelligent (though there are some like that in every protest, left-wing or right-wing).   The protest and rally continued in this way for a while; with minor police movements in the areas surrounding the roads, and a few questionable arrests, all while the police expanded their area of coverage and increasingly surrounded the protest.  Eventually, SWAT teams were sent into the area, more and more reinforcements arrived for the police, and their new sound dispersion system was brought on site.  We were informed that, on the authority of the chief of police, we were all unlawfully assembling (yet, according to the first amendment (emphasis mine): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”)  This is when tear gas was fired into the crowd.  Note that this was not the small part of the crowd on the street; this was the crowd in the park, which was within its rights under the first amendment.  This led to a scramble, which apparently sent some scrambling to the far side of the Cathedral and towards Squirrel Hill, while a large number of us moved towards the Union.  From this area we were able to see the plumes of tear gas fired at those protesters.  The police then turned towards the crowd by the William Pitt Union.  Rubber bullets were fired, tear gas deployed, and noise dispersion (in what may have been its first use in the United States) was used (I was able to avoid the bullets and only get the periphery of the gas).  Student and non-student protesters continued to back up, moving towards the quad.  Eventually, the police charged, locking this area down, and chasing protesters up both Fifth and Forbes Avenues, as well as taking over the quad dorms, apparently deploying tear gas to this areas (living spaces for students) and entering buildings.  I personally left at this point towards Fifth Avenue to return home.  When I got to Fifth, I found myself within a group of protesters about 10 feet from a rapidly advancing (running) line of riot police.  I don’t think I have ever run as fast as I did then, and I quickly made my way up to my dorm.  I am told that the Towers patio and lobby was raided, and that beatings and arrests took place, and that similar stories of lines of riot police chasing protesters occurred on Forbes Avenue, leading to some property damage and broken windows of businesses.  I find it interesting that this damage occurred after protesters were being chased by the police in that direction, and that the police seemed to have begun these maneuvers with little to no provocation.  I don’t believe that responsibility for the reports of rioting tonight lie solely with the protesters.  The police acted with disregard for the rights of students (or people in general) and with a complete disproportionate response to events.  Some estimates even had higher numbers of police on scene then protesters.  The term police riot has been used to describe when, according to Wikipedia: “police [use] wrongful, disproportionate, unlawful, and/or illegitimate force.”  This has been used to describe the 1999 WTO Protests in Seattle, which kicked off many of the newer tactics and regulations.  This concept may very well also be applicable to tonight’s events.

week 3 commentary

For this week's reading, we learned more about the Middle East and their trade with the East. During the 13th and 14th century there was much trade between the Middle East and the East. For trade to occur, merchants would take either the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf. At first these two routes were being controlled by the same power but when the power got divided, these two routes became rivals, competing for more merchants to take their path. For this matter, the Persian Gulf was favored more than the Red Sea due to better weather conditions and better goods. This allows us to see how weather is able to influence the economy. But due to changing power control of Baghdad, the Persian Gulf route's favor began to dwindle. Thus the Red Sea's usage became more frequent. Egypt controlled the Red Sea allowing it to gain power. Egypt allowed trade to occur but they would not let anyone to come through. However, as Egypt's power faded, India was able to gain control. India was a nation that had great exports rather than imports. They were a nation that was self sufficient enough to live without goods from other countries.

One thing that fascinates me about this week's reading is Egypt's rules on visitors. It's amazing how were a great trading nation but they would not allow anyone to come to their country. This type of governmental system reminds me of North Korea in that they would not allow anyone to come into their country as well as leave their country. It's amazing how long they were able to sustain power. I feel like for a nation to grow they need other influences to learn from and this includes having visitors come into their country. I wonder what makes a ruler want to keep this kind of policy and what they think will come out of it by ruling in this way.

-angela han

Blog Post #3: The Indian Subcontinent

This portion of Abu-Lughod’s writing focuses mainly upon the disconnect between what was expected of India, and the reality of history. Due to India’s location, as the hinge dividing the Indian Ocean, and thus controlling all trade that traveled through it, it was expected for India to be a dominant force of global trade in the world system. However, India instead had a passive role, and did not grow into any kind of economic or political superpower.

India was not a maritime power, although it was host to the maritime powers of the day, as a trade destination. India was host to a slew of sea ports along its coast, where a plethora of traders and merchants gathered to engage in the trade of goods. Even so, India was not any kind of sea power, nor it seems, did it aspire to become one. Over the time of India’s history there was a long standing tradition of India export much more than it imported, which could have been the reason behind India’s disinterest in the kind of trade that might have shifted the balance to more importation based commerce. This kind of trading method made India an economically stable and self sufficient nation; so in fact, it may have been beneficial for India to remain self sufficient. Perhaps a more risky venture in to global trade would have left India more vulnerable to naval violence or aggressive trading tactics that would have stripped India of its economic power. India’s geographic position made it as vulnerable as it was powerful. For example, India was jeopardized when Muslim merchants expanded their trade shipping on the east in the early fourteen century, as well as when the Chinese expanded west. This resulted in a decline of trade in south India, between the two. This unequal sharing of powers would lead to the vacuum of powers in the absence of the Chinese in the second half of the fourteenth century, which would be exploited by the Portuguese.

Particularly interesting is the trade items that the Indian merchants were in fact interested in. Although the majority of the trade goods were ignored there were certain items, such as those from south East Asia that were marketable. I am interested in what made those specific items interesting to a nation as self sufficient as India.

I am curious as to what the world would have looked like, if India had reached its true potential, and become the economic and naval power it was capable of.

-Dan

Before European Hegemony, During Potential “Indian” Hegemony

During the period of the 13^th and 14^th centuries, virtually the entire world was involved in one trading system.  This system had no dominating force to administer control on the rest of the players, though it did have one region that certainly had the potential for it.  India had a monopolizing opportunity for any trade between the Middle East and China, and therefore the goods from China en route to Europe and vice versa.  India never capitalized on this opportunity.  This was in part due to the fact that there was no unitary state known as India.  It was also due to the fact that Indian statesmen and merchants really didn’t seem to find a purpose in such.  According to Janet Abu-Lughod, the type of trade policies commonly thought of as the standard operating procedure for hegemony and control were completely unknown in the Indian Ocean region until the arrival of the Portuguese in the 16^th century.  The way that trade should be conducted, according to the merchants of the area, was for ships of all nations to sail freely through the sea and then exchange their goods at ports without excessive harassment by the local authorities.

 

For Indian hegemony, unification was probably necessary.  At the very least, it would have been helpful.  This would have allowed the strength in numbers, production, wealth, etc that was needed for the expansion of influence across the ocean.  There would have also been a need for this newly unified state to become a naval power.  Controlling, and constantly patrolling, the sea lanes used for this trade would have required a very large, very sophisticated navy, and many many well-trained sailors.  These were not things that were possessed by the various states on the Indian subcontinent.  Indian traders and rulers seemed to lack much of an interest in growing a navy.  After all, it would seem to be a pointless venture, as any trade with any substance would need to not only pass through India, but required long layovers at their ports.  If the entire world brought their trade to India, why should they bother spending money shipping their goods elsewhere?

 

What would the world look like today if India had taken in interest in dominating its neighbors, or if India had simply unified into one state at this point in history, rather than now?  The world would almost certainly look very different than it does, but whether this would have been enough to prevent the eventual hegemony imposed by Europe will never truly be known.

Lessons from India and China

    India and China were two important parts in the world system during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Both subsystems played integral parts in the trade route and expansion of resources. If the important location could ensure hegemony, then south India would have enjoyed permanent enjoyment with wealth and class. India's geographical position was considered a hinge between the eastern and western basins of the Indian Ocean. It was also considered the center of the sea lane from the Mediterranean to China. China's economic collapse was the reason for their fall. Bad government and political factors were the reasons from the lack of revenue and expenditures for the China Empire. China's geographic position in the thirteenth century world system was crucial. China connected the northern overland route with the Indian Ocean route. Both China and India were both intense parts of the completion of world trade.

    One of the most interesting facts that were learned this week was the impact of geographical location within the world system. The most fascinating fact to me was India's location. India was in the center of the thirteenth century world system. Whoever wanted to trade throughout the entire world system was forced to go through India. Because of this, south and north India became prosperous and wealthy. Because of the fact that they were wealthy, India was content with this position. India took advantage of trade with the east and west while exporting less than those nations. For example, the Roman system traded with India. India did not trade as valuably ad the Romans did. Hence, the Romans imported less when India exported a lesser value. The creativeness of the Indian merchants allowed India to import many exotic goods while maintaining a good state.

    The lessons from India and China during the thirteenth century third system were important schooling for future world systems. Some questions that I have are as follows:

• Why didn't India be more aggressive with their wealth and prosperity?
  
• Did India cause the Roman fall?
  
• Does the weather truly affect trade?
  
• Was China truly a hegemonic?
  
• Here is my opinions:
  

  These questions were referred to the discussion during class. I feel that India was not aggressive because those being the center allowed the people to be content. India was an important factor with the Roman Empire's fall, however, external factors was the reasons for the fall of Rome. Weather does affect trade and trade routes. China was a hegemon as they were a critical aspect of the thirteenth century world system and world trade.

Before European Hegemony - Blog 3

Although the Papal injunction dictated that Christians should not trade with Muslims, their trade continued because the only land paths to the Indian Ocean were through Muslim territory. Egypt especially blocked Europeans from trading with the East, most likely because it was a way to reestablish power after the Crusades failed. Baghdad was the main intersection for trade, at least until the Mongols destroyed it. Location alone was not enough to stimulate the Gulf. However, the Islamic empire was so unified that it facilitated large amounts of trade. India was in the middle of everything, which forced all traders to go through it. However, they were not proactive enough to sustain this position. India had been completely satisfied to let traders come to it, but when its position was challenged, it did not have the manpower or military to counteract the charges. India could have become a hegemonic power if it had tried to expand, but it merely profited from its central location. Egypt and India both decreased in power after being weakened by the Black Death and other influences, but it was the Portuguese that defeated their fleets and took over the trade routes. Abu-Lughod then discusses China. China could easily have taken over, but it lacked the will to do so. China actually withdrew from the seas due to assorted reasons, including a desire to isolate itself from the tenets of the Mongols, such as involvement in international trade. This signifies the institution of the West as the hegemonic power. It is Abu-Lughod’s point that it was necessary for the East to fall before the West could rise. She also sufficiently defends the view that the West became the dominant power more as a coincidence, and it could have been another area that ended up being the hegemonic area. She points out that the West simply chose the correct time to attack the weakened East.

I thought it was very interesting to learn that capitalism developed so distinctly in the Islamic society. It had long been understood that Islam was adverse to capitalism. However, Abu-Lughod points out that numerous types of partnerships, contracts, and credit were created by Islamists, which is where the Italians garnered many of their techniques. I also found it interesting that the Portuguese seemingly came out of nowhere to destroy the Egyptians and Indians. It would have been intriguing to see how the Portuguese developed and why they chose that moment to enter the world trade system. I understand that it is part of Abu-Lughod’s mission to show what happened from an Eastern point of view, but I still would have liked to see this part from both sides.

The part that I would have liked to have been elaborated upon was how the Egyptians succeeded in blocking the European traders. Christians were forbidden to trade with Muslims, but that did not prevent that trade from actually occurring. I suppose it makes sense that that mandate was not followed while the other one was, since the first was not enforced with military action where the second one was. However, it seems like at least a handful of European traders still should have been able to slip through the cracks. If nothing else, since the trade with the East was so valuable, I would have expected a talented group of smugglers to have existed. Another point that I would have liked to know more about was the taxes that were instituted while India was the main crossroads. It has been pointed out that if India had established taxes then it could have made a much larger profit. However, some amount of taxes and costs for protection must have existed. It would have been interesting to explore the possibilities of what would have happened if India had changed its policies. For example, would India have lost a lot of its trade if it had instituted higher taxes, eventually leading to its downfall that way?

week three readings

While I find it a bit hard to focus after the insanity that unfolded outside my dorm I suppose I'll blog to the best of my ability.

This weeks readings informed us of the crucial role that India played in the world trade system in the thirteenth century. As it was the hinge state between the east and the west, India became a major port of call for anyone wishing to trade with either entity. Because the techonology of the time made it impossible for traders to make the entire trip at once, the self-sufficient nation found the world coming to it's shores with all the luxury goods it had to offer. Once the world discovered the goods that India itself had to share they became hooked. This brought the not very unified country unwillingly into world trade. We discussed in class that India did not need to throw itself into the world trade system, it was brought into it by people from around the world who used India as a rest stop between trade posts.

I find it very interesting how the major places along the world trade route of the time seem to change quite frequently. Once one route is even partially blocked off or fragmented between nations another route opens up that is more viable for traders looking to save money to make money.

What I don't understand entirely is why India did not become a major naval power. I know we discussed this in class but it's still a little fuzzy for me. The country was not unified, this I know, but it still was a major marine market place which attracted the attention of the entire world at the time. Why was ther little to no protection enforced on it on the ocean?

BEH 3: Indian Ocean

This week’s readings finished talking about Europe and Abu-Lughod took us into Asia. The “middle way” was the easiest and cheapest way to connect Europe to the Middle East, and then to the Far East. This route gave Baghdad importance because it was located “at a cross point where the most heavily traveled land and sea routes to the Far East intersected” (189). Baghdad began to decline because of attacks by the Mongol Empire. When the Mongols took control of Persia and Iraq, the fall of Baghdad was sped up, and helped lead to the rise of Cairo. We learned that the reason Venice survived through the Black Death was because Egypt and specifically Cairo and the southern route to Asia survived. Egypt then began to decline in power. Abu-Lughod explains that there were “two external factors [that] were central in bringing about the transformation of Egypt…from a hegemonic…economy…to a ‘dependent’ economy” whose power came only from making raw materials and the fact that they had access to the Indian Ocean (236). Next Abu-Lughod took us to India and China. Like Baghdad, India was located at a pivotal point, where they could have dominated world trade, especially after the withdrawal of China from the world system. The system on the Indian Ocean was divided in three different sections, or “interlocking circuits.” The reason for this was mainly cultural, although geographical too. The western section was mainly Muslim, the middle section was mainly Hindu, and the third easternmost section or circuit was mainly Buddhist, as it was located around China.

I found two things particularly interesting in this weeks readings, first the fact that the Middle East had so much power in world trade. I never knew that Egypt had power throughout the world. I always just figured that Egypt kept to itself. I have never learned much about the Middle East, thus reading about both Egypt and Baghdad The second thing I found interesting in this weeks readings, is that India could have been a hegemon, and instead was passive and did not take the power it could have had over the world system. What I do not understand being brought up in a society with natures to look out for ones own interest and personal gain is why countries during these times such as India and China did not become a hegemon and instead chose to stand back, or withdraw all together in China’s case. While I understand India being divided because “the west coast looked to the Middle East…and the east coast looked to Southeast Asia,” thus it was divided in two main parts (270). I do not understand how they didn’t take the opportunity to gain power in the world by just unifying.

This leads to my topic for discussion I would like someone to help me with. Why did China not take the power? Why did they decide to withdraw all together? People are out for their own needs, why didn’t someone do something? And when China decided to withdraw why didn’t India pick up their slack? With all the power India could have had, why didn’t the country unify to become a world leader? Help me put the pieces together.

Asia, International Trade & Cultural Differences

In Part III of Before European Hegemony Abu-Lughod begins her examination of the Indian Ocean system, focusing on the Indian Subcontinent, the Strait of Malacca and China. These three regions were linked in trade approximately 4,000 years ago, with the earliest known sea trade system connecting Gujarat to west and south Asia. Eventually, a vigorous maritime trade system connected Arabian and Persian traders with the ports of Gujarat and Malabar. The Chinese did participate in this system, with “junks” sailing through the Strait of Malacca, and sometimes trading in Indian ports such as Quilon. India’s central location and wealth from centuries of trade make the subcontinent an obvious hegemonic power, but India remained a relatively “passive” industrial and trading power, though not nearly as passive as the Chinese, who all but closed their ports to foreign traders, and exhibited minimal interest in international trade except as tribute. This relatively peaceful trading system differs greatly from the ruthless competition European traders, such as the rivalry between Venice and Genoa. This cutthroat behavior was not seen in Indian Ocean until the arrival of the Portuguese in the sixteenth century.

The Indian Ocean trade dynamics were particularly interesting to me. I found it surprising that no one power dominated the sea-lanes or took interest in conquering foreign ports (as the Europeans, and especially the Portuguese, did). If any of the major powers had tried to control the sea-lanes, perhaps one of them would have gained hegemony over the wealthiest trade routes of the medieval world, with unknowable consequences on today’s system. That no country even attempted to conquer the Indian Ocean seems abnormal when compared with Europe, the Holy Land and Egypt, in which conquest was the fastest and easiest route to economic dominance.

I was also impressed by the Chinese civilization's highly advanced technology. The Chinese lead the world in medicine, physics, mathematics and practical technology, such as printing, metallurgy, weaponry and navigational techniques. Originally I did not understand why after regaining control from the Mongols, the Chinese withdrew from international trade, in comparison, all of the other "advanced" nations rushed to international trade. Abu-Lughod explains some of the factors that contributed to the Chinese isolation, including Confucianism, the Ming government, and the desire to recover from the less civilized Mongol era.

One angle I would like to explore further is the impact of a nation’s culture on its trading patterns. For example, the Crusades were a religious movement that completely rearranged trade patterns in Europe. The Islamic shari’a laws are another example of religion impacting trade. Muslim merchants followed these laws from the Qur’an when developing an international trade system. The same effect can be seen in China, as Confucian ideals detail Chinese attitude towards commerce. Maybe if the merchants had better understood their differences they could have found their similarities and preserved the world trade system. So I ask, to what extent did cultural differences affect the trade of the Pax Mongolica system?

Different, but necessary.

For this particular blog, I am going to write about the events that occurred on the night of Thursday, September 24th 2009. Though I found this week’s reading particularly interesting, there are some events that absolutely deserve to be talked about. And what better way to share than with my Global Societies class.

Thursday night, my friends and I carried on with our tradition of watching The Office, Community and It’s Always Sunny and Philadelphia in our room in Sutherland. Some of the friends in our group are girls who live in Holland, and some other friends live in Towers. With all of the “G-20 madness” going on, we did not want them to walk down alone. So, we decided to take them down to their dorms to make sure they were safe.

Once we got in there we decided to go look at the Cathedral, because of the obscene amount of riot cops hanging around. We were watching from the William Pitt Union lawn when they started to push us back, apparently assembling and watching from is unlawful, so we ended up on the Tower’s Patio on the Fifth Avenue side.

At this time, the police had pushed all of the people on Forbes Avenue into the Tower’s Lobby and it was completely packed in there. We stayed on the Tower’s Patio and continued to watch the riot police attack random people in the church, the street, and the sidewalk. The riot police began to assemble across Fifth Avenue and march towards the Tower’s Patio. Everyone dispersed and tried to get into the Towers, and we were pushed toward the exit of towers.

During this process, one of our friends was grabbed (he was near the back of the pack). He put his hands up in the air, to indicate he was not trying to resist, and they took him down. They began beating him over the head multiple times with their batons. He was eventually zip tied and taken away. During these events, I turned around to try to tell them he was not doing anything. I was pushed backward, by the riot police, into a metal railing twice and they almost hit me in the head with one of their batons (my glasses were hit and bent a little).

What I saw that night was some of the craziest things I have ever seen in my life. Literally, it was straight out of a movie. To be completely honest, I feel crushed. I understand that rights are violated, and I understand that things need to happen for security purposes. But when do my rights end? When is it not okay for us to be standing on the patio of our college, our home?

Instability and Mongol Dominance

This reading focuses mainly on the instabilities that brought the Mongols to their knees. Granted, they did not have the issues of Baghdad (a great drought,) but they were nonetheless crippled by issues arising from their ruling system.

Namely, the parasitic nature of tribute as a basis for the state. They relied on the labors of conquered peoples to fuel their war machine, meaning their subjects perpetuated their own persecution. The demands of defense rose, and new sources of surplus had to be found, but the economic structure was not generative.

Their nomadic structure also required them to constantly expand geographically. Expansion of surplus required the conquest of more and more productive units, and any shock would topple the system. If conquering could not be done, the system was forced to contract, not adapt.

Lastly was the Black Death, which wiped out a huge portion of the population and decimated the Mongol work force, forcing them to retreat back into their mystic mountains where everything smells like soup and the trees are made of pumpernickel bread.