Ok ladies gentlemen, you are about to read a masterpiece of political theory here. We will refer to this document you are about to read literally ALL THE TIME FOR THE REST OF THE SCHOOL YEAR. Although he lived in the century after the Abbasid Caliphate was destroyed in 1258, Ibn Khaldun was very much a product of the far-flung Islamic civilization that the Abbasids had consolidated and expanded. He was also one of the greatest historians and social commentators of all time. After extensive travel in the Islamic world, he served as a political advisor at several of the courts of Muslim rulers in north Africa. With the support of a royal patron, Ibn Khaldun wrote a universal history that began with a very long philosophical preface called The Muqaddimah. Among the subjects he treated at length were the causes of the rise and fall of dynasties. The shifting fortunes of the dynasties he knew well in his native north Africa, as well as the fate of the Abbasids and earlier Muslim regimes, informed his attempts to find persistent patterns in the confusing political history of the Islamic world. The following passages are from one of the most celebrated sections of The Muqaddimah on the natural life span of political regimes. Please click on the following link (The Muqaddimah) in order to read this extremely important document.When you have finished reading, I need for ALL OF YOU to discuss the following: What does this passage reveal about Ibn Khaldun's views of the contrasts between nomads and urban dwellers? Why does he see the former as a source of military power and political strength? What forces undermine dynasties in later generations? How well do these patterns correspond to the history of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties we have been studying? How well do they work for other civilizations we have examined? Can elements of Ibn Khaldun's theory be applied to today's political systems? If so, which and how? If not, why not? Does the United States fit into this theory, and if so, what generation do you believe we are in? What was the author's point of view? What do you think was the intent or purpose of this document? Who was the intended audience in your opinion? Can any government escape "the curse of the Khaldun"? Your thoughts...
41 comments:
what he was describing was almost like the dynastic cycle. u know, the dynasty is ok, does well, then is destroyed. also the fact that he says this about every empire. it also hada lot to do with what u talked about in class, about luxery being their undoing. too much of a good thing. also it made me think of how most of the empires by the end kinda forget about their roots. it devinently seems like that happens a lot, like with the persian empire under xerxes, and the abbasid empire when they became less tolerant. the abbasid empire also was influenced so much by persian culture that it affected the status of women, forgetting about how they used to be treated.
I think that the three generations will probably always be around. In this case it is cyclical time which a lot of people don't consider and look at the past for answers. If the govt looks at some of these documents, they might be able to better the situation instead of letting the country follow the same fate. For the most part, generation 1 is the better of the three. there is more unity amongst the people and there is no one who can take on them like the beginning of the Umayyad and Abbasid empires. Everyone in generation one is tolerant for the most part and everything goes pretty well...until generation 2. In generation 2, things start to not quite fall apart, but people start to get restless and intolerant while the elites are soaking in the luxury almost to the point here luxury comes to its peak. The power comes more to one person to govern the large area. The leader gets greedier by the minute and the civilians get more and more pissed off. The generation 3 comes where the empire starts to crumble. Luxury reaches its peak and no one is satisfied. the civilians are then treated badly and by force. defense isnt as on guard as it should be. Things just start falling apart. the same fate that the umayyads went through, and that the abbasids are in the process of going through. I am not sure exactly what generation the U.S. is in. Our economy is crumbling like stage three. our govt isnt exactly doing well because no bills are being passed with disagreements between the president and congress. And we are kind of struggling with protecting ourselves but not to the point we are in stage three. im not quite sure. im thinking we are more in generation 2 though.
the three generations seemed to keep coming up, which leads me to beleive they are VERY important. kind of like he sees it as a way for the world to go around. they let their easy life sort of get to them, they became lazy bums. I agree with becca, if the government saw these maybe it would help them along the way and keep them from doing something stupid.
He uses this to show how ineffective the dynastic system of government was. Each successive generation was getting more and more lazy and complacent with itself which ultimately leads to their downfall. In terms of what we talked about to day with the fall of the Ummayad and the decline of the Abbasid, they became so satisfied with themselves and how much booty they had That they slipped into a state of disorder and chaos quickly. Basically the Ummayads and Abbasids accumulated so much booty that it slowly crushed their values, their heritage, and ultimately their dynasties.
i think as generation moves, people are going to get greedir and greedier because new things developes every generation. but eventually, the empires and dynasties will be destroied because they only look at things that they want.
so i think the generations gets worse and worse because of the new things that they develope every generation. like right now, most of the teenagers are more intrested in fashion than the work that they have to do in school. and eventually, if all of the teenagers in america do that, eventually, there wouldnt be any good leaders or educator in this country.
i dont knoe if i compared it to right thing;;;;;;;
i know this doesn't have to do with the document, but I heard the reading for tonight was cancelled and the vocab quiz was pushed back to Monday. Is that true?
Sapp
yes, and i apologize if i didn't make this clear to all classes. i'll post it at the top of the blog. thanks.
I think its interesting how he was able to talk about all dynasty's and describe them so well. After all this pattern basically fits all empires. But i want to know how he could assess all the different dynasties, while he was living soon near one. He does show how it is almost impossible for a dynasty to last forever because it is hard to beat this cycle. We are in it in America, and I think we are going from the second stage to the third. Every civilization (except nomads) have gone through this cycle and still are today.
He viewed nomads as a source of military and political power because because they are used to surviving in harsh environments so they have a strong group feeling. However, as the generation proceeds, specialization in labor causes wealth and makes people get used to comfortable lives with luxury. This corresponds to the decline of Umayyad dynasty, which was caused because the caliphs devoted themselves to luxurious lives rather than leading the ummah(community of the faithful). I don't think any government can escape "the curse of the Khaldun" unless they remain poor and constantly threatened because when they get used to luxurious and comfortable living, they will want more wealth.
These generations seem to be in all societies, including ours today. Its scary to think that when a country is at its wealtheist that it as the most risk. I also see that women status worsens and there are more slaves when the countries become wealthier.
His beliefs can be applied to most any of the civilizations we have studied this year. Probably to the fact that he was a historian, but his views are completely true, not only for Islamic empires, but like i said before any of the classical and post-classical societies.
Its true, the barbaric, "savage" nomads are fierce warriors, they are not concerned with luxury, and don't take crap from nobody. And as society gets stable and sedentary life make people soft. They begin to start worrying about luxury and fashion more that how their political system is controlling them.
I think Ibn Khaldun's ideas apply more than ever in today's society in America. There is a vast majority of people who don't know how the government works, or care for that matter. People start to complain about thinks that are not really a problem. People become ignorant and only listen to the media and its skewed views. For instance Nancy Palowsie [speaker of the house: no clue on the spelling] wanted President Bush to apologize for not making action against the economic crisis, where he has tried throughout his career to put legislation through the government to amend the system, but those pieces of legislation haven't gone thought the Democratic house[which has the lowest approval rating of any house EVER! but no one notices that]
I'm getting a little off topic, I think we as an American society have become too sedentary. The terrorist attacks that have been going on since the Clinton administration should have woken us up, but no, we still pay no attention to anything anymore, we only care about the new I-phone, not the total collapse of the global economy.........
The way he described the nomads(1st genration) is like that they were much more responsible and more focused on their reason for existance unlike the urban dwellers(2nd&3rd generation). According to him, the urban dwellers were not doing what they were supposed to do and growing their addiction to luxury. And he is also saying that the 1st generation were more connected(?), sharing the powers and glory unlike the 2nd and 3rd where the people were more selfish and corrupt, one person holding on to power. The growth in wealth undermined the later generations because people enjoyed their luxurious lives and got lazy. This text is talking about how and why Umayyand and Abbasid Empires and how they fell. The Umayyads had too much booty and were forgetting their duties, slipping in to laziness. Abbasids were the same; but in addition, they also had a ruler who was relying on the Persians, weakening his power and control, Harun al-Rashid. I do not recall any other civilizations that fell because of too much booty, but i can relate our current world to this theory. For example, U.S. is experiencing a decline in its economy after learning a tough lesson by the name of Great Depression. Americans started from scratch when the depression ended; all toughened up and careful just like the 1st generation. Like the 2nd generation, after WWII, America headed toward the top, landing on high peak by the 80-90's; however, Americans started to gain luxury and started to get lazy. Now in the 21st century, like the 3rd generation, America have to much wealth, and now its wealth is effecting everything going on in the country like the financial crisis. I think Khaldun was trying to inform the readers to learn from the mistakes and fix the problem, but obviously, that is not happening and that is not going to happen because nobody will reject growing wealth and too much booty until something does not go as intended because of the wealth. Money is the leading cause of a decline in a dynasty; it will be very hard to overcome that becuase everyone sees money and luxury as a good thing until it starts to backfire.
Khaldun views nomads as heroic and filled with spirit as they set up an empire. They have a natural loyalty to one another and share among themselves. They are passionate and determined.
As time goes on he states, they become sedentary and wealthy. They no longer have to work as "hard" to achieve wealth. It is "given" to them. The people start to look out for themselves and forget about their nomadic values, communal benevolence, and tradititions. I put "hard" in quotations as the passage describes the work which the common people do work constantly to keep things going, while a select upper benefits. I instantly thought of American offices and the intense pressure put on Japanese students. They are not working "Primatively" and spiritually, but are working because they have to, the society has them locked into an "inescapable" system, and they are controlled by "the man".
We see this in the Arabian dynasties first in the Umyaad, where the military Arabic aristocrats have much of the wealth and benefit. The Abbasids felt the Umyaads were losing their roots, and overthrow them. Yet here man chooses, as he often does, the path of selfishness once again.
I do not however agree with the 120 year limit. There were many dynasties such as the Han that lasted longer.
The United States is in between generations 2 and 3 I believe, with generation 1 consisting of the American Revolution. We have not lost our roots completely, yet we are losing connection as time goes on. We are very wealthy and ignore a lot of things. We would rather watch a comedy than a history, heavily thematic, or educational film.
It is very optimistic to think that any government will last forever, therefore I say that the curse is unescapable, for where there is birth there must be death...
This passage really shows us that Ibn Khaldun believed that although being a nomad may not be as comfortable, the society lasts longer and is more stable than the 3rd genereation of people that are so tied into luxuries they do bothing to help themselves and are just lazy. He also refers to the fact that the luxuries in turn undermine the state in the long run, weakening it and tearing it down. We can see this in teh Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties that both started out as nomadic groups (generation 1) and fell due to the luxuries encompassed in generation 3. In all the civilizations we've viewed, I'd say this process does not work well because although the people like the innovation, it just brings their society to an end. I think this theory can be applied to all societies today because as it is apparent here in America, we are getting lazier and not having to do as much because of all the technological advances and though they may seem good at the time they turn out to be terrible.
Ibn Khaldun basically further explained what you said in class mr prill . Once a family starts a dynasty, they set up a strong and a kind of nobody-messes-with-us attitude throughout the people, and the people submit to them . The 2nd generation is when it becomes to fall apart slowly . they lose their roots and become more focused on their wealth and comfort and sort of let the power rest with their followers and eunachs . by the third generation, the actual leader has barely no power and can easily be overthrown. thats why the dynasty ends. yet the people are unaware of how weak the leader actaully is . they think just because he holds the title that its okay.
its a lot like america today , except for the president's flaws are more noticeable . most people are so uneducated about the government that they just dont bother paying attention to it until the time comes when they need to vote. and then when they need to vote they only get little pieces of a bigger story to go off of and then the society gets wrapped up in confusion .
I think Ibn Khaldun's three generation theory relates a lot to America. If you look at the time when our country was first being formed and for about 100 years after, there are many good leaders and people who wanted to help everyone instead of just themselves. Then as another 100 years went by less and less people were concerned with everyone and more concerned with themselves. Now it seems like the only thing many people care about is indulging themselves with luxury.
In Ibn Khaldun's document he is stating his powerful view of dynasties. He describes the dynastic cycle in terms of generations. The first generation is the nomadic peoples. They stick together and are usually respected by other dynasties. But after the first generation it seems to all go downhill from there. In the second generation is where the problems start to occur. The nomads have now become settled and are starting to become a real powerhouse. But they may start accumulating to much wealth and start to stray away from their nomadic values. This leads to the third generation in which the dynasty has now strayed away so far from its nomadic lifestyle that it begins to crumble. And finally the dynasty will fall apart. I do not think that any government can avoid "the curse of the Khaldun." Because no government to date has ever escaped this it cannot be done.
I think that all countries do go through these 3 generations, but somtimes have setbacks. For instance, they might begin to become lazy in government and people, but then realize that they are making a mistake and correct it.
I also think that the US in at the end of stage 2. I think this because when the government bought out AIG, they were showing that they cared enough to not put our country into another economical depression. that means we aren't quite to the lazy point.
when he talks about the three generations, it seems so much like the mandate of heaven in the fact that there are stages. The first generation seems to be perfect, with a group like structure, of nomads, and not much wealth. THe second generation gets worse as wealth increases. The third generation is getting even more wealth and luxery that they aren't able to take care of themselves, and it causes for the end.
to khaldun, it is normal for this to happen and its the way of life. if we look into it the U.S fits into the 3 generations scheme perfectly. I can't tell what stage we're at, but i feel like a 2.
i totally agree with the ibn. it's amazing he captured the idea of how empires rise and fall in only a page and a quarter.
wow, that rule really does apply to just all of the country's we've studied, so I see why it's so important. So I guess the goal of country's is sort of make the 2nd generation last for as long as possible since thats when a country is to be at it's "peak".
Ibn Khaldun seems to think that the nomads are actually better than the settled, because they care for the group and share in their triumphs, while the settled are very selfish and only work for themselves. I am not saying that this applies to everyone, but in general that appears to be the trend. I believe that every society, no matter how well run it appears to be, it will always have problems, which will snowball into the collapse of its society. The best that societies can do is prolong the best parts as long as they can. I believe that the United States is at the end of the 2nd generation, because they appear not to have completely drowned themselves in wealth and power. We will just have to wait and see. I believe that the purpose of this document is to inform societies that all good things must come to an end. Just look at Persia. It seemed to have an awesome setup and was quite successful, until one person was able to ruin it all.
The dynasties usually begin to fall because of the luxuries that they have. They get to comfortable and they forget how hard life used to be. The government today strongly represents this. The US is getting too comfortable and we can slowly begin to see the decline in our "empire." I believe we are step 3 but who knows if we just began or if we are near an end.
Ibn Khaldun views the nomads as a very tight knit group of people. They all work together in order to survive and constantly help each other out. As urban life begins there is still a sense of the close society but it begins to deteriorate as the nomads begin to settle. His thoughts of the dynastic cycle can relate strongly to the Ummayad and Abbasid empires, both began as mere nomadic tribes who began to take over the land and settle, then as time when on they began to gain more and more wealth and had more luxuries which made them forget or look over the important things that were happening in their societies which lead to their collapse. I think that some governments might be able to escape this cycle if they were to learn from the past and not become so wrapped up in wealth and luxury and keep a strong balance between that and everything else that is going on in and around their society.
He described the first generation of the nomads as being very sharp, feared, and having these skills preserved among themselves. They greatly focused more on their lives than the third and fourth generation urban dwellers. Urban dwellers are more lazy. The nomads seemed to keep their societies more stable as well. I beleive that Khaldun was trying to make the readers see & learn from the mistakes created and fix the issues that come up. Also, 'booty' is the main problem of the dynastys, are the more of it that comes up, the more chaos is created.
I think that what he is saying applies a lot to where this country is headed now--we are well into the third generation, and as has happened with each other empire before us, we will fall. we have gone from colonists sent from england to build and fight for this country, we spent a little while building the world superpower, and now here we are, a country up to it's neck in debt inside and out that it cannot control, it's people focused on luxery and television, who change the channel when they don't like what they see, which is generally what they see on the news every day. with a mentality like that, where we simply ignore and avoid are numerous problems, how can we but be a ticking time bomb for destruction of ourselves?
this is basically how it is with dynastys... the empire is built, goes on for awhile and then there is revolt and overthrown
Ibn Khaldun's political theory makes a lot of sense. But its pretty scary cause the fact that its kinda what America is going through. We had our wealth and our luxeries, but BAM! WE're in debt because of our carelessness. Hopefully.... Khaldun's theory would be wrong and our empire wont collapse.
-Kevin Shin
So in the third generation everything falls apart because the government becomes ineffective. We say that religion has nothing to do with ruling kingdoms and stuff, but didn't the Islamic empire fall apart when the rulers stopped caring about religion because they were drowning in luxury? It also says we loose sense as being a whole in the third generation, that we care only for ourselves. But wouldn't one group make more enemies than just one person? Such as tribal clans and stuff?
Okay this might no sense at all but when I was reading the document by Ibn Khaldun i was wondering what was the:
1 generation: bedouins?
2 generation:Ummayads?
and 3 generation:Abassid??
In Arabic empire
o wait! now that im thinking on it...were the mongols the last generation?
I think the mongols are the start of the next generation 1, and the end to the 3rd generation.
I think America is in the third stage. If we go into another Great Depression (I believe we will), we will be vulnerable to attack. If our military leaders and president are in the same vicinity at any time, our nation's defenses could be destroyed with a single bomb, but that's geting a little off subject. I think the country is heading downhill, and that we are well into the third stage.
mr prill, is the the one where u told us we should print this out? well i mean the link to ibn khaldun's theory? i clicked on the link, but it takes me to a websit where it just has the picture of the book cover, and some other stuff.. how do i just pring out page 138 or something?
I think that America is in its 3rd state. Scary to say but if you reflect of all thats happening...everything comes back to the idea of too much booty right now. this process or cycle or the generations will always happen. all civilizations in the past had this cycle and im pretty sure it is continuous to this day
hmm... i dunno miss moon, it was up last week. i may have to find a different link.
the link is now fixed. the site i was directing you to took the book off. i've given you just a simple word document instead.
I think that the three generation theory can be very evident in past empires, but in more recent times, may not be as correct. For the United States, we got our Independence in 1776, and by Ibn Khaldun's theory, we should have neared our collapse around 1890s to 1900s, since the cycle, as he states, last around 120 years. we have flourished and kept from collapse for more than 100 years more than the three generation theory should allow. More recently, we have experienced an economical collapse, but i personally do not think that we could possibly collapse. His prospect how earlier societies collapsed, is quite close to what actually happened, so maybe his theory should change as time goes on.
i think that ibn khaldun is completly right. i think that the us is in the begining of the 3rd gerneration or the end of the 2nd gereration.
I think the three generation theory is correct. Societies get ton accustomed to luxury. Slavery increases and so does revolts. There becomes a bigger gap between the poor and wealthy. The third generation ends with the destruction of the society.
Post a Comment