Capitalism’s Prophet- Adam Smith

Surprisingly few biographical details are known about Adam Smith, the economist famed for his devastating critique of mercantilism in The Wealth of Nations. Born in 1723 in a small Scottish fishing village and receiving his university education at Glasgow and Oxford, between 1751 and 1763 he held chairs in logic and moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. The publication of his Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759 ensured his literary and philosophical reputation. In 1763, he became the tutor of an English aristocrat’s son and lived for three years in France, where he met many prominent French intellectuals. From 1767 to 1776 he lived in semiretirement in Scotland and finished The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. In 1778 he became commissioner of customs in Scotland and died in Edinburgh in 1790.

The Wealth of Nations went through five English editions and was published in several European translations in the eighteenth century. Its importance lies in its general approach to economics, which brought systematic analysis to wages, labor, trade, population, rents, and money supply, and in its unrelenting assault on mercantilism. Unlike mercantilists like Colbert, who believed that wealth and overall economic activity were essentially fixed, Smith believed in economic growth, which could best be achieved not through regulation but through free competition among individuals and nations. You can read excerpts from The Wealth of Nations by clicking here.

When you are finished reading the document, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: Smith denies that nation’s wealth consists of the amount of gold and silver it controls. What arguments does he present to defend his position, and what are their implications for trade policy? Smith proposes that each individual, by pursuing his or her own self-interest, promotes the general welfare of society. What examples of this paradox does he provide? What implications does this paradox have for government policy? What groups in society would you expect to be most enthusiastic about Smith’s ideas? Why? What groups might be expected to oppose them? Your thoughts…

An Affirmation of Human Progress

Throughout history, most human beings have valued tradition and resisted change. Reform of governments and religious institutions was deemed possible, but it typically did not mean going forward to institute something new but going back to recapture features of a lost golden age. Thinkers who studied the past and contemplated the future concluded that the human condition had always been more or less the same, or that history ran in cycles, or that it was the story of gradual decline from a mythological state of perfection. Only in the West in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did intellectuals and much of the general populace come to believe that the past was a burden and that human beings could bring about changes in their condition that were beneficial, not destructive. In a word, people began to believe in progress.

The West’s belief in progress can be traced back to the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, when many thinkers became convinced that well-intentioned human beings could employ reason to erase at least some of the cruelties, superstitions, and prejudices that had diminished the human condition in the past. By the end of the eighteenth century some went further and developed a theory of progress that saw humanity ascending from ignorance and darkness to a utopian future. The most famous prophet of progress was the Marquis de Condorcet, a mathematician, philosopher, and education reformer. He supported the French Revolution but, like many moderates, fell afoul of the radical Jacobins and was forced to go into hiding in July 1793. It was then he wrote his Sketch of the Progress of the Human Mind, which traces human progress in ten stages from the dawn of history to the French Revolution and beyond. Having completed his work in March 1794, he emerged from hiding, was arrested immediately, and was found dead the next morning of unknown causes.

The excerpts from Sketch of the Progress of the Human Mind that I would like you to read (you can by clicking here here) come from “The Ninth Epoch,” in which he discusses developments from the mid-seventeenth century to the beginning of the French Revolution, and “The Tenth Epoch,” in which he describes the future.

After you have read those excerpts, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: What factors, according to Condorcet, have impeded progress in the past? According to Condorcet, scientific achievement was the outstanding feature of humanity’s “ninth stage.” In what ways did science in this era change human thinking and affect human society? Condorcet is not proud of the Europeans’ record in dealing with the peoples of Asia, Africa, and the Americas. What groups does he blame for the Europeans’ unenlightened behavior in these regions? Why is Condorcet confident that Europeans will modify their behavior in Asia and Africa? What will be the result? Does Condorcet show any interest in preserving the customs and beliefs of the Asians and Africans? What in Condorcet’s view caused the oppression of women in the past? Why does he reject such oppression, and what positive results in his view will result from ending it? What role will technology play in humanity’s tenth stage? Your thoughts…

The Season 4 Preview: The Long 19th Century (1750-1914)

Get ready and get set for the wildest ride yet that starts on Thursday! The framework for world history from the late 18th to the early 20th centuries will be increasing shaped by growing European power. This power will be based on previous gains in international trade and key colonies planted in India, Indonesia, and elsewhere. It will be increased by European population growth and by a more explicit imperialist spirit, eager to seek new gains and conquests in the wider world. It will be greatly furthered by Europe’s growing industrial strength. Industrialization, beginning in the late 18th century, will generate new goods to sell, new modes of international transportation that will facilitate wider market contacts, and new and more lethal weaponry that will enhance Europe’s military advantage. Yet Season Four will by no means be shaped by European activities alone. Most societies will be able to resist European penetration to at least some degree, and several will undertake active reform programs designed to enhance independence and the preservation of important values. Latin America will free itself from direct European control early in the 19th century, although its economic subordination in many ways will intensify. The development of new institutions and social patterns in the United States, Canada, and Australia, although they will reflect Western European strength, will add another important source of complexity to modern world history. Finally, the emergence of various kinds of nationalisms and other cultural responses, in many otherwise different societies, will reflect the capacity to define distinctive identities combined with the pressing need to innovate. By 1900, reform developments, independence movements, and nationalism will begin to limit Western European hegemony, although the full reaction won’t begin to take shape until Season 5. Buckle your seatbelts and get ready for the wildest, most twisted ride yet. Get ready to start Season Four with a BANG on Thursday!

"We Are Ready To Lead"- Barack Obama Takes the Oath of Office Becoming the 44th President of the United States

Well it's official ladies and gentlemen, a new chapter in American (and World) History begins, the Obama presidency. As always, the inauguration was the smooth transition of power that we've always come to expect in this country. The crowd, however, was much larger than usual, and it is projected that that the inauguration has drawn the largest television audience in television history (knocking the final episode of MASH out of first place). I was glad to be a part of it with all of you today! President Obama's inaugural address hit all the right notes, in my opinion. It really came across as the right words chosen at the right time. Of course, tomorrow, the real work begins. I look forward to following the first 100 days with you guys. In the meantime, enjoy the inaugural address one more time below. If you didn't get a chance to see or hear it, take the time to give it a look above. It's one of the better inaugural addresses you'll see. Finally, take the time to check out the new White House website. It has an entirely new design, complete with a blog and policy proposals and visions. It appears that the new executive is truly willing to listen to America.

Season 3 Whapey Awards Announced! Japan Emerges as a Last Minute Surprise Winner!

Ladies and gentlemen, you voted (well half of you... come on folks, there no excuse for such low voter turnout) and the winners are interesting. Congratulations to Tokugawa Japan for their big win as a result of their performance in the season finale. Incidentally, they only won the one award, but it was the top prize. At any rate, here are your winners...

Best Government: Tokugawa Japan

Most Influential Society: Europe

Most Influential Person: Peter the Great

Best Leader: Akbar

Most Influential Belief System: Christianity

Best Economic System: Mercantilism

Best Social System: Mughal India under Akbar

Best Conflict: Battle of Chaldiran

Best Labor System: none (?) [I guess you all felt there were no good ones in Season 3?]

Worst Labor System: Slavery

Worst Leader: Ivan the Terrible

Most Influential Writer: Martin Luther

Best Invention: Guns

Worst Invention: Guns (hmm... it was the best of inventions, it was the worst of inventions)

Best Cultural Contribution: Europe's Renaissance

Best Film Set During Season 3: The Mission

Congratulations to all of the winners. And now... get ready for the Season 4 Premiere on THURSDAY!

Questions on the Unit 10 Exam?

If you have any questions regarding the test for tomorrow, speak now or forever hold your peace...

President George W. Bush Bids Farewell to the Nation After 8 Years

Last night, President George Walker Bush bid farewell to the American people in the traditional presidential farewell address. It has been an interesting eight years indeed. The Bush years and the Bush legacy will be one debated for decades to come, a presidency that will likely be remembered most as the time period of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the war on terror being fought on two fronts- Afghanistan and Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the global financial crisis. His final address to the nation consisted of reflections on his accomplishments, subtly addressing some of his critics, and warning of the dangers of international terrorism. You can read more about his farewell speech by clicking here. Additionally, you can watch an interesting reflection on the Bush presidency courtesy of the BBC by clicking on the following links (Part I and Part II). Below you can see his farewell address. So now we finish one chapter of American history and begin a new one. See you all on Inauguration Day...

Change Over Time Essay #1 Discussion Board

If you have any questions or tips for your fellow colleagues, here's the spot to do it. Enjoy...

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Slumdog Millionaire" Come Out of Round 11 With 11 BAFTA Nominations Each Going into the Final Round

This morning, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) announced their nominees for the best of 2008. To put it simply, the BAFTA Awards are bascially the British version of the Oscar Awards here on the other side of the pond. In reality, many AMPAS members (the organization that awards the Oscar) are also BAFTA members, so these nominations are a decent indicator of where Oscar nominations may land next week. Our brothers on the other side of the pond tend to have somewhat similar tastes, although there are always some diverging points (for example, Tilda Swinton won't be nominated for an Oscar here this year, but they love their Tilda in the U.K.). At any rate, the big news from this morning's nominations is of course the continued domination of Slumdog Millionaire as it garnered 11 nominations, including nods for Dev Patel (for LEAD actor, thank you BAFTA, I don't know why some are insisting he's supporting, the film is his story) and Freida Pinto, who are truly the heart and soul of the brilliantly written and directed film. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was also nominated for 11 awards, but this is more expected considering the technical achievements of the film. The other big winners were The Dark Knight with 9 nominations (although the only major was Best Supporting Actor for Heath Ledger, the rest were all technical nods), and Clint Eastwood's Changeling actually did surprisingly well with 8 nominations, yet missing a Best Picture nomination. At any rate, all of the nominations can be found below...

BEST FILM
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall, Ceán Chaffin
FROST/NIXON – Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard
MILK – Dan Jinks, Bruce Cohen
THE READER – Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Donna Gigliotti, Redmond Morris
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Christian Colson

OUTSTANDING BRITISH FILM
HUNGER – Laura Hastings-Smith, Robin Gutch, Steve McQueen, Enda Walsh
IN BRUGES – Graham Broadbent, Pete Czernin, Martin McDonagh
MAMMA MIA! – Judy Craymer, Gary Goetzman, Phyllida Lloyd, Catherine Johnson
MAN ON WIRE – Simon Chinn, James Marsh
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Christian Colson, Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy

THE CARL FOREMAN AWARD
for Special Achievement by a British Director, Writer or Producer for their First Feature Film
SIMON CHINN (Producer) – Man On Wire
JUDY CRAYMER (Producer) – Mamma Mia!
GARTH JENNINGS (Writer) – Son of Rambow
STEVE McQUEEN (Director/Writer) – Hunger
SOLON PAPADOPOULOS, ROY BOULTER (Producers) – Of Time And The City

DIRECTOR
CHANGELING – Clint Eastwood
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – David Fincher
FROST/NIXON – Ron Howard
THE READER – Stephen Daldry
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Danny Boyle

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
BURN AFTER READING – Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
CHANGELING – J. Michael Straczynski
I’VE LOVED YOU SO LONG – Philippe Claudel
IN BRUGES – Martin McDonagh
MILK – Dustin Lance Black

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Eric Roth
FROST/NIXON – Peter Morgan
THE READER – David Hare
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD – Justin Haythe
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Simon Beaufoy

FILM NOT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX – Bernard Eichinger, Uli Edel
GOMORRAH – Domenico Procacci, Matteo Garrone
I'VE LOVED YOU SO LONG – Yves Marmion, Philippe Claudel
PERSEPOLIS – Marc-Antoine Robert, Xavier Rigault, Marjane Satrapi, Vincent Parannaud
WALTZ WITH BASHIR – Serge Lalou, Gerhard Meixner, Yael Nahl Ieli, Ari Folman

ANIMATED FILM
PERSEPOLIS – Marjane Satrapi, Vincent Parannaud
WALL•E – Andrew Stanton
WALTZ WITH BASHIR – Ari Folman

LEADING ACTOR
FRANK LANGELLA – Frost/Nixon
DEV PATEL – Slumdog Millionaire
SEAN PENN – Milk
BRAD PITT – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
MICKEY ROURKE – The Wrestler

LEADING ACTRESS
ANGELINA JOLIE – Changeling
KRISTIN SCOTT THOMAS – I’ve Loved You So Long
MERYL STREEP – Doubt
KATE WINSLET – The Reader
KATE WINSLET – Revolutionary Road

SUPPORTING ACTOR
ROBERT DOWNEY JR. – Tropic Thunder
BRENDAN GLEESON – In Bruges
PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN – Doubt
HEATH LEDGER – The Dark Knight
BRAD PITT – Burn After Reading

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
AMY ADAMS – Doubt
PENÉLOPE CRUZ – Vicky Cristina Barcelona
FREIDA PINTO – Slumdog Millionaire
TILDA SWINTON – Burn After Reading
MARISA TOMEI – The Wrestler

MUSIC
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Alexandre Desplat
THE DARK KNIGHT – Hans Zimmer, James Newton Howard
MAMMA MIA! – Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – A. R. Rahman
WALL•E – Thomas Newman

CINEMATOGRAPHY
CHANGELING – Tom Stern
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Claudio Miranda
THE DARK KNIGHT – Wally Pfister
THE READER – Chris Menges, Roger Deakins
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Anthony Dod Mantle

EDITING
CHANGELING – Joel Cox, Gary D. Roach
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall
THE DARK KNIGHT – Lee Smith
FROST/NIXON – Mike Hill, Dan Hanley
IN BRUGES – Jon Gregory
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Chris Dickens

PRODUCTION DESIGN
CHANGELING – James J. Murakami, Gary Fettis
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo
THE DARK KNIGHT – Nathan Crowley, Peter Lando
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD – Kristi Zea, Debra Schutt
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE – Mark Digby, Michelle Day

COSTUME DESIGN
CHANGELING – Deborah Hopper
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Jacqueline West
THE DARK KNIGHT – Lindy Hemming
THE DUCHESS – Michael O'Connor
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD – Albert Wolsky

SOUND
CHANGELING – Walt Martin, Alan Robert Murray, John Reitz, Gregg Rudloff
THE DARK KNIGHT – Lora Hirschberg, Richard King, Ed Novick, Gary Rizzo
QUANTUM OF SOLACE – Jimmy Boyle, Eddy Joseph, Chris Munro, Mike Prestwood Smith, Mark Taylor
SLUMDOG MILLIONARE – Glenn Freemantle, Resul Pookutty, Richard Pryke, Tom Sayers, Ian Tapp
WALL•E – Ben Burtt, Tom Myers, Michael Semanick, Matthew Wood

SPECIAL VISUAL EFFECTS
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Eric Barba, Craig Barron, – Nathan McGuinness, Edson Williams
THE DARK KNIGHT – Chris Corbould, Nick Davis, Paul Franklin, Tim Webber
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL – Pablo Helman
IRON MAN – Shane Patrick Mahan, John Nelson, Ben Snow
QUANTUM OF SOLACE – Chris Corbould, Kevin Tod Haug

MAKE UP & HAIR
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON – Jean Black, Colleen Callaghan
THE DARK KNIGHT – Peter Robb-King
THE DUCHESS – Daniel Phillips, Jan Archibald
FROST/NIXON – Edouard Henriques, Kim Santantonio
MILK – Steven E. Anderson, Michael White

SHORT ANIMATION
CODSWALLOP – Greg McLeod, Myles McLeod
VARMINTS – Sue Goffe, Marc Craste
WALLACE AND GROMIT: A MATTER OF LOAF AND DEATH – Steve Pegram, Nick Park, Bob Baker

SHORT FILM
KINGSLAND #1 THE DREAMER – Kate Ogborn, Tony Grisoni
LOVE YOU MORE – Adrian Sturges, Sam Taylor-Wood, Patrick Marber
RALPH – Olivier Kaempfer, Alex Winckler
SEPTEMBER – Stewart le Maréchal, Esther May Campbell
VOYAGES D’AFFAIRES (THE BUSINESS TRIP) – Celine Quideau, Sean Ellis

So there you have it folks. Slumdog Millionaire domination and love will continue, and expect this to be a big night for Kate Winslet as well when the awards are announced. Up next: the granddaddy of them all, the whole reason why we follow awards race, the one award you need to win to be forever be put in the history books, the OSCAR. Oscar nominations will be announced next week, Thursday, January 22nd, 5:30 am PST!

The Season 3 Whapey Awards!

Ok folks, now that season 3 is officially over, it's time for awards season. Once again, this is our opportunity to award the "best" in world history at the end of a season. This is also a great opportunity to reflect critically on content learned. The categories for voting will be listed below, and all you have to do, is nominate your selection in a comment post. Voting closes at 11:59pm ON MONDAY. We'll tally the votes, and the winner will be announced Tuesday, January 20. If any of you are in need of volunteer hours and would like to come in after school or during 6th lunch on Tuesday to tally votes, I'll be happy to have you. That would be a great help. Happy voting. Here are the categories for season 3...

[NOTE: DO NOT COPY AND PASTE OTHER VOTERS' BALLOTS. YOU MAY ONLY COPY AND PASTE THIS ONE TO FILL IN. VOTE INDEPENDENTLY!]

Best Government:

Most Influential Society:

Most Influential Person:

Best Leader:

Worst Leader:

Best Conflict:

Best Social System:

Most Influential Belief System:

Best Economic System:

Best Labor System:

Worst Labor System:

Best Invention:

Worst Invention:

Most Influential Writer:

Best Cultural Contribution:

Best Film Set During Season 3 Nominees:

--Amistad

--Gabbeh

--Last of the Mohicans

--A Man for all Seasons

--The Mission

--The Seven Samurai

The Seclusion of Japan

The tables certainly turned in the Season 3 finale didn't they? For close to a century Japan was a European success story in Asia. Portuguese traders and missionaries began visiting Japan regularly in the 1540s, and the Spanish, Dutch, and English soon followed. The Japanese were fascinated by European goods such as eyeglasses and clocks and were quick to appreciate the military potential of European firearms and artillery. Some even adopted European dress. Daimyo on the island of Kyushu in southwestern Japan competed for European trade by tolerating the presence of Catholic missionaries and in a few cases converting to Christianity themselves. Oda Nobunaga, the military leader who unified approximately half of Japan in the 1570s and 1580s, encouraged Catholic missionary activity to weaken his rivals, the powerful and wealthy Buddhist monasteries. His tolerance of missionary activity led to numerous conversions in the district of Kyoto, Japan’s capital city. By the early seventeenth century approximately 500,000 Japanese had become Christians.

By then, however, anti-European sentiment was growing. Nobunaga’s successor, Hideyoshi, became suspicious of Europeans after the Spaniards conquered the Philippines, and he began to question the loyalty of daimyo who had become Christians. In 1597, he ordered the crucifixion of nine Catholic missionaries and seventeen Japanese converts. The early Tokugawa shoguns, in their single-minded pursuit of stability and order, also feared the subversive potential of Christianity. They sought to obliterate it, while at the same time limiting commercial contacts with China, Southeast Asia, and Europe.

Japan’s isolation policy was fully implemented by Tokugawa Iemitsu, Ieyasu’s grandson and shogun from 1623 to 1651. His edicts largely closed Japan to all foreigners and prevented his subjects from leaving Japan. The document that I would like you to read (you can by clicking here), the most famous of Iemitsu’s exclusions edicts, is directed to the two commissioners of Nagasaki, a port city in southern Japan and an early center of Christianity.

When you are finished reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What steps are to be taken to suppress Christianity? How are commercial dealings with foreigners to be handled before they are ended altogether? In what ways did the edict affect the shogun’s Japanese subjects? Does trade or Christianity seem to have been the greater threat to Japan according to the edict? Your thoughts…

Early Modern Japan- The Tokugawa Period

From 1600 to 1868, Japan was under the rule of the Tokugawa shoguns, a dynasty of military leaders. The new regime was founded by Tokugawa Ieyasu, a member of the new class of landowning warriors called daimyo. Tokugawa triumphed over his key rivals at the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600 and then pressured the emperor, who was effectively powerless but was the official head of state, to appoint him as shogun (supreme military leader). During the following half-century, Tokugawa and his first two successors as shogun established the main features of the new system of rule.

From their immense palace complex at Edo (present-day Tokyo), which Tokugawa Ieyasu established as the Tokugawa capital, the shoguns issued a steady stream of decrees designed to control the conduct of their subjects in the most thorough way. In order to make the system of controls effective, the shoguns adopted a policy of isolating Japan from foreign influences. They suppressed Christianity—which had spread widely in southern Japan since the 1550s—and also expelled European merchants, banned most overseas commerce, and prohibited Japanese who were living abroad from returning home. To obtain some knowledge of developments abroad, the shoguns allowed trade with China to continue and also permitted an annual visit to Nagasaki harbor by Dutch merchants. The overall effect of the policies of the policies of the shoguns was to isolate Japan from the wider world for about 250 years.

Within Japan, the shoguns balanced their harsh system of rules with a measure of genuine autonomy for the 250 or so daimyo whose large rice-producing domains (estates) were scattered throughout the Japanese countryside. The daimyo were feudal lords whose domains resembled small states. Each of the domains was strictly administered by thousands of sword-bearing samurai officials for whom, given the Tokugawa system, literacy and numeracy rather than military prowess were increasingly important.

The system of shared authority between the shoguns and the daimyo rested squarely on the strong backs of the Japanese peasants. The peasants produced all the rice, soybeans, cotton, hemp, and silk consumed in Japan during the Tokugawa period. About one-third of the peasants lived on lands directly administered by the shoguns. The rest of the cultivators resided on the domains of the daimyo.

Despite the policy of isolation and the extraordinarily strict laws to which the population was subjected, there was much vibrancy in Japanese economic, social, and cultural life during the Tokugawa period. Commerce flourished in rice, sake, soy sauce, silk, cotton, and tea. A prosperous merchant class developed, especially in the cities of Edo, Osaka, and Kyoto, all of which became major population centers by 1750. Performances of colorful kabuki plays before huge crowds of urban commoners and the production of beautiful woodblock prints of leading actors and geisha courtesans signaled the emergence of a lively popular culture. Schools that taught at least the basics of literacy were widespread. Indeed, recent research suggests that by 1800, literacy and certain aspects of material life in Japan (diet, housing, clothing, and standards of hygiene) were quite high by world standards.

I would like you to read a few documents (you can read them by clicking here) regarding shogun and daimyo policies during Tokugawa period Japan. How do the documents illustrate policies of the shoguns and the daimyo, and also hint at some of the dynamism in early modern Japan? How do the “laws for the warrior class” illustrate Tokugawa’s political goals? What problems was he trying to solve? What were his solutions? Was he a Confucian? What aspects of the peasants’ lives did the daimyo seek to control? How did they try to accomplish this? What do the documents suggest about the economic lives of the peasants? About gender relations? What specific goals did the shoguns have regarding the Buddhist temples? What do the regulations for temples suggest about the importance of Buddhism in Japan? Do you see any evidence of peasant protest in these documents? How does Matsui’s book provide us with evidence of the spread of commerce during the Tokugawa period? According to Matsui, why did merchant enterprises fail? What did Matsui think were the characteristics of a good merchant? Was Matsui a Confucian? Was he a Buddhist? Were his ideas compatible with the thinking of the shoguns and the daimyo? How might Matsui’s ideas compare with those of a merchant in England in 1700? What similarities and differences do you see between the Tokugawa shoguns and other rulers of the early modern period? Your thoughts…

Symptoms of Ming Decline

Governing China had always been a formidable task. Expenditures had to be kept in line with revenues; borders needed to be defended; bridges, roads, and dams had to be maintained; countless daily decisions were required of the emperor and his top officials. In the late sixteenth century governing China became even harder. Mongol military pressure grew in the north, pirates continued to raid southern coastal cities, and in the 1590s the Japanese invaded China’s ally, Korea. Peasant discontent boiled over into peasant rebellion as rural misery deepened as a result of a series of poor harvests, worsening banditry, and rising taxes, made even more burdensome by fluctuations in the value of silver currency. From the 1580s onward, however, emperors ignored or were distracted from dealing with both their mundane tasks and their extraordinary new challenges. They paid a price for their indifference. Rebellion overwhelmed the government and brought about the fall of the Ming in 1644.

The document that I would like you to read (you can by clicking here), a memorial (memorandum) directed to the Xizong emperor by a high official Yang Lien, highlights another problem of the late Ming government, namely the venomous conflict between court eunuchs and Confucian scholar-officials. Eunuchs, castrated males whose theoretical purpose was to manage the day-to-day business of the imperial palace, assumed a greater importance in government when the Wanli emperor secluded himself in the palace and eunuchs became the only intermediary between the emperor and his officials. Eunuch influence was opposed by Confucian officials, especially elite members of the Donglin Society, a group of scholar officials and former officeholders connected with the Donglin Academy at Wusih on the lower Yangzi River.

The conflict between court eunuchs and the scholar-officials came to a head in the 1620s when the eunuch Wei Zhongxian rose to power during the reign of Emperor Xizong. Wei, who had served as a butler for the emperor’s mother and was a close friend of the emperor’s former wet nurse, with the backing of spies and small eunuch army in the palace, purged his enemies, levied new taxes, and flouted rules and procedures.

In 1624, Yang Lien, a member of the Donglin Society, took the bold step of denouncing Wei in a memorandum to the emperor. He was carrying out his duties as a member of the Board of Censors, a branch of the administration that served as the “eyes and ears” of the emperor by investigating officials’ conduct, hearing subjects’ complaints, and reporting problems to the emperor. Emperor Xizong ignored the memorandum, and in 1625 Yang was accused of treason, tortured, and executed on orders of Wei. Wei fell from power in 1627 when the new emperor Chongzhen exiled him to Anhui province, where Wei hanged himself rather than face an official inquiry. But the Ming government had suffered another wound, and in less than two decades would no longer exist.

When you are finished reading the memorandum, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: According to Yang, what motivated him to write this memorandum to the emperor? This excerpt contains only a few of Wei’s twenty-four alleged “crimes.” How many of them can you find in the excerpt? What is it about Wei’s actions that particularly violate the Confucian sensibilities of Yang? What does the memorandum reveal about the basis of Wei’s authority and political strength? What does the memorandum tell us about the qualities of the Emperor Ming Xizong? Your thoughts…

Catholic-Confucian Tension in Late Ming China

Wherever they went in Asia, the Portuguese sought more than commercial profit. They also sought to convert nonbelievers to Christianity, and to do so they enlisted the help of the Society of Jesus, or Jesuits, a new religious order founded by the Spaniard Ignatius Loyola in the 1540s. The greatest prize for European missionaries was China, where the Portuguese arrived in 1514, and after a series of misunderstandings and conflicts, were granted permission to build a permanent settlement and carry on trade in Macao, approximately thirty miles south of the major port city of Guangzhou. Macao also became the base from which the Jesuits planned and managed their missionary work in China.

Hindered by thin funding and the Chinese refusal to allow Catholic priests on the mainland, the Jesuits’ missionary efforts made little progress until 1582, when officials allowed the Jesuits to establish a residence in Zhaoqing, a city some sixty miles west of Guangzhou. This was also the year in which a thirty-one-year-old Italian Jesuit, Matteo Ricci, fresh from training in Rome and Goa, took up residence in Zhaoqing. Under Ricci’s leadership, the Jesuits developed a missionary strategy that differed from their tactics elsewhere, where they had preached Christianity directly to the common people. In China, the Jesuits targeted intellectuals, officials, and ultimately, members of the imperial court, whom they sought to impress by learning Chinese, adopting Chinese dress, giving gifts of clocks and other mechanical instruments, and displaying their scientific and mathematical erudition. By the early 1600s, approximately two dozen Jesuit priests were active in China, with residences in several cities including the capital, Beijing, where in 1601 on the strength of his knowledge of astronomy and mathematics, Ricci was invited to establish a residence by the Wanli emperor himself. Here Ricci remained until his death in 1610, by which time the Jesuits had converted several thousand Chinese, including some members of the imperial family.

In addition to winning converts, the Jesuits also made enemies, and they could never be sure if permission granted by one official to establish a residence in a city would be withdrawn by that official’s successor. An example of the difficulties they faced is the episode that took place in Nanchang in 1607, when local magistrates sought to close the Jesuit residence. The course of events is recorded in Ricci’s journal, which a Jesuit colleague edited and published shortly after Ricci’s death (you can read excerpts from it by clicking here). In Ricci’s account of the Nanchang incident, we can see some of the cultural barriers and attitudes that made the Jesuits’ efforts to accommodate Christianity to Chinese civilization so difficult.

After you have read excerpts from Ricci’s journal, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What aspects of Christianity most offended the Confucians who brought charges against Jesuits? The Jesuits’ association with Father Ricci seems to have favored them in the conflict with the Nanchang Confucians. Why? What was there about Ricci that gave his Jesuit colleagues an aura of legitimacy? Why did Ricci view the outcome of the dispute as a Christian victory? How do you think the Nanchang Confucians viewed the outcome of the dispute? Why? Your thoughts…

Confucianism and Popular Protest in China

The ideas of Confucius, the 6th century B.C.E. philosopher, have been a central feature of Chinese culture for a very long time. As early as the Han dynasty, Chinese emperors promoted the study of Confucianism and made mastery of Confucian texts one means of obtaining an official appointment. By the time of the Song dynasty, every candidate for a position in the imperial administration, the dream job for every young male in China, needed to spend many years preparing for rigorous civil service examinations based on the teachings of Confucius. There was no other way to become an official.

The conquest of China by the Mongols, who ruled China from 1279 to 1368, was a setback for Confucianism. But the restoration of native rule by the Ming emperors starting in 1368 marked the beginning of a revival of Confucian teachings. To promote effective governance, social order, and political stability throughout their realm, the emperors during the Ming and Qing dynasties expanded the examination system and sponsored the wide diffusion of Confucian teachings.

The documents that I would like you to read (you can read them all by clicking here) provide three different perspectives on Confucianism in early modern China. In the first document, dating from the late Ming period, Confucian ideas are illustrated in a set of instructions issued by the leaders of a lineage group in southern China. Lineage groups, also known as clans or common-descent groups, were alliances of extended families who joined together for mutual support. The members of lineages met regularly to celebrate the memory of their ancestors and to manage their common interests, which often included the joint ownership of land. Lineages were important social institutions in China from the Ming period onward, especially in the south.

Documents two and three provide additional vantage points on Confucianism. In the second one, a Ming scholar named Shen Zan describes a popular uprising in the southern city of Suzhou in 1601 that began following the imposition of a new tax on silk. The events in Suzhou remind us that, despite the Confucian emphasis on obedience to authority, there was nonetheless a lively Chinese tradition of popular protest. In the final document, we encounter one of the most famous expressions of Confucian teaching in early modern China. Seeking to consolidate the power of the newly established Qing dynasty, Emperor Kangxi issued a brief set of Confucian maxims or slogans. In subsequent decades they were displayed throughout China in the rough equivalent of roadside billboards and were regularly read aloud by officials at public meetings and on ceremonial occasions.

How do these documents help us to identify key Confucian teachings and assess their importance in early modern China? According to the lineage instructions, what are the attributes of someone with “good character?” What roles are prescribed in the instructions for parents, young people, and women? What procedures did the lineage have for enforcing the prescriptions? What do we learn from the lineage instructions about the importance of ritual and ancestor worship in Chinese culture? What do the instructions reveal about the early modern Chinese economy? What can you infer about the likely age, sex, and social class of the author of the instructions? What did the uprising in Suzhou have to do with Confucianism? How would you characterize the relationship between the protesters and Confucianism? How do Emperor Kangxi’s maxims compare with the lineage instructions? Do you see any differences? Taking the documents together: in what ways did China change in the early modern period? What major continuities persisted? In what ways did Confucianism promote or discourage the development of a modern industrial society? How does Confucianism compare with Islam and Christianity in this regard? What explains the strength of Confucian teachings among present day Chinese? Are social hierarchies inevitable in large-scale societies? Your thoughts…

Slumdog Millionaire was a Freight Train that Could Not Be Stopped at the Golden Globe Awards Going 4 for 4! Jaiho!!!

You know how in some years there emerges a film that is too big too ignore? This year is one of those years, and Slumdog Millionaire is that film. Congratulations Danny Boyle for your beautiful labor of love. I am truly thrilled that this film is being recognized and that it has its supporters. As an AP World History teacher, I'm especially thrilled to see that Slumdog Millionaire is getting so much acclaim because it truly does address some major themes of Indian history during the late part of Season 5. The other big news from tonight, aside from the Slumdog Millionaire sweep, was Kate Winslet's double win for The Reader and Revolutionary Road. What a big night for Ms. Winslet! Congratulations to one of the greatest working actresses that has never won an Oscar or a Globe, despite numerous nominations. Now the Best Actress race becomes the most interesting of all, with Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, and Kate Winslet all in heated competition that will go down to the opening of the envelope. After her gracious speech(es) tonight, I wonder if the Academy will finally be ready to award Ms. Winslet. Only time will tell. Below are tonight's winners...

Best Picture (Drama)- Slumdog Millionaire

Best Picture (Comedy/Musical)- Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Best Director- Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire

Best Screenplay- Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire

Best Foreign Language Film- Waltz with Bashir

Best Animated Feature Film- Wall-E

Best Actor (Drama)- Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

Best Actress (Drama)- Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road

Best Actor (Comedy/Musical)- Colin Farrell, In Bruges

Best Actress (Comedy/Musical)- Sally Hawkins, Happy-Go-Lucky

Best Supporting Actor- Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

Best Supporting Actress- Kate Winslet, The Reader

Best Original Score- A. R. Rahman, Slumdog Millionaire

Best Original Song- Bruce Springsteen, "The Wrestler" from The Wrestler

A final congrats to the late Heath Ledger once again (give him an Oscar please!) and the veteran writer and director Woody Allen for being recognized for his best work in years, Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Finally, congrats to Colin Farrell and Mickey Rourke for their awards for their brilliant performances, as both of these men have been historically under-appreciated (or completely out of work in the case of Mickey Rourke). Up next: the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) announces its nominations on Thursday morning. That is the final precursor before Oscar nominations.

Get Ready: THE SEASON 3 FINALE IS TUESDAY!

It's coming folks... the Season 3 Finale just 2 days away! Get ready to be shocked, wowed, awed and amazed! Whapey Awards Season 3 voting will open up on Wedneday. Don't forget to vote. Times are changing in the world, so make sure you are here for the entire finale!

A Muslim’s Description of Hindu Beliefs and Practices

As Akbar, Mughal ruler from 1556 to 1605, expanded and strengthened his empire, at his side was Abul Fazl, his close friend and advisor from 1579 until his assassination in 1602. Abul Fazl is best known as the author of the Akbarnama, a long laudatory history of Akbar’s reign full of information about the emperor’s personality and exploits. At the time of Abul Fazl’s assassination, instigated by Akbar’s son and future emperor Jahangir, his history had covered only the first forty-six years of Akbar’s life, but that was enough to ensure his work’s standing as one of the masterpieces of Mughal literature.

One reason for the lengthiness of the Akbarnama is that in addition to chronicling Akbar’s life, it contains numerous descriptions of Indian society such as the document on Hinduism that I would like you to read. Abul Fazl, who shared the tolerant religious views of the emperor, was interested in presenting Hinduism favorably to his Islamic readers, many of whom opposed the religious freedom Akbar offered his Hindu subjects. Even more disturbing to many Muslims was Akbar’s genuine interest not just in Hinduism but also Christianity, Jainism, and Zoroastrianism, all of which he drew upon to found a new religious cult, Din Illahi, or Divine Faith. Abul Fazl sought to lessen the concerns of orthodox Muslims that Hindus were guilty of the two greatest sins against the majesty and oneness of God—idolatry and polytheism. He also explained the religious basis of the Hindu caste system, the rigid hierarchies of which were far removed from the Muslim belief in the equality of all believers before Allah. You can read excerpts from the Akbarnama by clicking here.

When you have finished reading the document, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: How does Abul Fazl counter the charge that Hindus are polytheists? Do you find his arguments convincing? Why? How does Abul Fazl address the charge that Hindus are idol worshipers? In what ways do caste and karma provide Hindus a moral understanding of the universe? What do the dharmas of the castes reveal about Hindu social values? Where do women fit into the structure of the ladder of reincarnation? What does this suggest about their status in Hindu society? Abul Fazl is attempting to make Hinduism more acceptable to Muslims, but this does not necessarily invalidate what he writes. If you accept what he says as basically true, what conclusions can you reach about the ways Hindus perceive and relate to Divine Reality? Your thoughts…

Babur and the Establishment of Mughal Rule in India

In 1000 C.E., Muslim nomads from the region of present-day Afghanistan began to conduct raids against the predominantly Hindu princes and peasants of India. Gradually, the central Asian nomads were able to gain control over much of northern India and to establish a capital at Delhi. From 1206 to 1526, the Islamic sultans in Delhi struggled, with intermittent success, against both rival Muslim and native Hindu military leaders to make their rule effective.

Around 1500, a powerful new Muslim military leader of Turkish and Mongol descent, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur, emerged on the arid plains northwest of India. Babur captured Kabul, made this city his capital, and then began a series of raids on the Muslim and Hindu warlords south of Khyber Pass. After winning a major victory at Panipat in 1526, he captured Delhi and took charge of much of northern India.

Babur’s seizure of Delhi was a major turning point in the history of India. Although he died only a few years later, his brief period of rule was the beginning of the Mughal Dynasty (1526-1858). The Mughal emperors brought political unity to most of the Indian subcontinent for the first time since the fall of the Gupta Empire a thousand years earlier. From the reign of Babur’s grandson Akbar to that of Aurangzeb, the Mughal emperors were among the greatest rulers of the early modern world. The splendid palaces, fortresses, and tombs they built in Delhi, Agra (the home of the Taj Mahal), Fatehpur Sikri, and Lahore testify to their vast wealth and enormous power.

Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, was a fierce warrior who also loved Persian poetry and elaborate gardens. He seems to have spent much of his life on horseback, but nonetheless found the time to write a fascinating account of his own life. His memoir, known as the Baburnama (which you can read excerpts from by clicking here) is remarkably revealing about personal matters and provides scholars with valuable information regarding the process of state-building in 16th-century South Asia. In the selections from the Baburnama, we can follow Babur and his soldiers as they enter India for the first time in 1505, win the Battle of Panipat, and begin the process of establishing the new regime.

After you have read the document excerpts, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What was Babur’s first reaction to India? What measures did he take to prepare for the Battle of Panipat? How did he compare his army with that of Sultan Ibrahim? How did he explain his victory at Panipat? In Babur’s judgment, which was more important, his own preparations for the battle or God’s “grace and generosity?” What measures did Babur take to consolidate his power and establish a new regime after his victory at Panipat? What weapons seem to have been most important to Babur? Where did he obtain them? To what extent did Babur’s Muslim beliefs shape his actions? Did he disregard some Muslim tenets? Did he think of himself as leading a jihad? Why did he invade India? How did Babur’s army compare with that of his contemporary, Suleiman, the Ottoman sultan? Finally, in what ways were the political systems in the Ottoman Empire, Mughal India, and the Russian Empire similar and different? Your thoughts…

A Carmelite Friar’s View of Shah Abbas I

When Shah Abbas I ascended the Safavid throne in 1587 after the forced abdication of his father, he inherited an empire on the brink of disintegration. He faced a rebellion from Turkoman tribal leaders and invasions by the Ottomans from the west and the Uzbeks from the east. Within fifteen years he crushed the rebels and routed the Uzbeks and Ottomans. Subsequently, Abbas defeated the Mughals in 1621, taking Kandahar, seized the Persian Gulf island of Bahrain in 1622, and with English help expelled the Portuguese from their trading post at Ormuz in the same year. In addition to his military exploits, Abbas encouraged foreign and domestic trade, lent his support to manufacturing enterprises, and presided over a glorious era in Persian culture!

Part of Abbas’ strategy to make Persia strong and prosperous was the cultivation of useful contacts with foreigners, especially Europeans. Two English brothers, Anthony and Robert Sherley, helped the shah enlarge and modernize his army and used their contacts to increase Persian trade with the English and Dutch. Abbas also sought alliances with European states against his enemy, the Ottomans. To that end he sent two embassies to Europe in 1599 and 1608 and tolerated the activities of Catholic missionaries, who were encouraged to think he might convert.

Such was the background for the negotiations between the envoys of Abbas I and Pope Clement VIII in 1600 that led to the dispatch of three Carmelite friars to Isfahan in 1604 to explore opportunities for missionary work. After an arduous journey through Poland and Russia, the three friars reached Isfahan in 1605 and remained in Persia six months. One of the three, Father Paul Simon of Jesus Mary, a Genoese who became a Carmelite friar in 1595, traveled extensively during his visit. After a hair-raising return journey on foot through Ottoman territory, Father Simon presented a report on Persia to the new pope, Paul V. Paul then dispatched Father Simon to Spain to discuss with King Philip III the complaints of Abbas I concerning the activities of Portuguese merchants in Ormuz, an important port city in the shah’s territory, which the Portuguese (now subjects of the King of Spain) had controlled since 1507. Until his death in 1643, Father Simon held a number of administrative posts within his order. Please click here to read excerpts from Father Paul Simon’s report to Pope Paul V on Shah Abbas I (you'll have to scroll down a little bit).

After you have read the document, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: What sort of impression does Abbas attempt to make on his subjects? What strategies does he use to make this impression? What methods has Abbas used to suppress the powerful descendants of the Kizilbash who helped Ismail I establish the Safavid state (referred to by Father Simon as “the old nobles of Persia”)? What impresses Father Simon about Abbas’ army? How do his comments and observations resemble Busbecq’s characterization of Suleiman’s troops? On the basis of Father Simon’s account, what conclusions can be drawn about Abbas’ religious views? What factors seem to have shaped Abbas’ policies toward the European Christians? Despite the impressive strength of the Safavid Empire under Abbas, it quickly declined after his death. What underlying weaknesses do you see in the empire during Abbas’ rule? Your thoughts…

Sunni-Shia Conflict in the Early Sixteenth Century

The following letter (that you can read by clicking here), written by the Ottoman sultan Selim I to the founder of the Persian Safavid Empire, Ismail I, is an example of the enduring bitterness between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Selim, who in the Ottoman tradition was a Sunni, was deeply disturbed by the emergence of a Shia state in Persia under Ismail. Ismail, believed by his followers to have descended from Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law, had many supporters among the Turks of eastern Anatolia and had aided Selim’s brother and rival, Ahmed, in the succession conflict following Sultan Bayezid’s death in 1512. When Ismail invaded eastern Ottoman territory in 1513, war seemed inevitable. Nonetheless, Selim wrote the following letter to Ismail in early 1514 threatening to destroy him militarily unless he embraced Sunni Islam and relinquished his conquests. Ismail did neither, and later in the year, Selim’s armies defeated Ismail’s forces at the Battle of Chaldiran, on the border of the two empires. Despite this loss, Persia remained under Ismail’s control and thus committed to Shiism. The Battle of Chaldiran was only the first act in a long and bitter struggle between the two Islamic empires.

After reading Selim’s letter, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: Even though Selim’s letter is designed to malign Shiism, not define Islam, it contains many references to essential Muslim beliefs. Which ones can you find? What does Selim’s letter reveal about the differences between Sunnis and Shias? How does Selim perceive himself within the Islamic world? Selim must have realized that the deeply religious Ismail was unlikely to abandon Shiism. Why might he have written the letter, despite the likelihood that its appeal would fall on deaf ears? Your thoughts…

Slumdog Millionaire Wins Big With 5 Awards at the Critics Choice Awards. Jaiho!

Well folks, in the first televised awards show of the year, the Critics Choice Awards (given by the Broadcast Film Critics Association), Slumdog Millionaire won big making it the clear front-runner now for Oscar's coveted Best Picture prize. Sometimes this particular awards show can be a bit drab, but I found it to be an unusually enjoyable evening with some interesting surprises along the way, including Kate Winslet's win for Best Supporting Actress in The Reader and the tie for Best Actress between Meryl Streep for Doubt and Anne Hathaway for Rachel Getting Married. It's difficult to say who's the front-runner in that category now, as I've found that category the hardest to predict all year. Finally, congratulations to the wonderfully talented, yet now deceased, Heath Ledger for his well deserved post-humanous award for The Dark Knight. Ultimately, congratulations to Danny Boyle and the entire cast and crew of Slumdog Millionaire for this achievement. There is still quite a road to Oscar still left though, so buckle up your seat belts ladies and gentlemen, we've got a race! In the meantime, below were all of tonight's winners.

Best Picture- Slumdog Millionaire

Best Director- Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire

Best Writer- Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire

Best Foreign Language Film- Waltz with Bashir

Best Animated Feature- Wall-E

Best Actor- Sean Penn, Milk

Best Actress- TIE! Meryl Streep, Doubt and Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married

Best Supporting Actor- Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

Best Supporting Actress- Kate Winslet, The Reader

Best Acting Ensemble- Milk

Best Documentary Feature- Man on Wire

Best Composer- A.R. Rahman, Slumdog Millionaire

Best Song- "The Wrestler," Bruce Springsteen from The Wrestler

Best Comedy- Tropic Thunder

Best Action Movie- The Dark Knight

Best Young Actor/Actress- Dev Patel, Slumdog Millionaire

Best Picture Made for Television- John Adams

Up next: The Golden Globes will air live on Sunday evening. This is a biggie folks, so stay tuned! You can click here to see the nominees again.

Round 10 is Now Complete with DGA Nominations: And Here. We. Go.

The Directors Guild of America voted today for their nominees for the best directed film of 2008. I was hoping to see a surprise just for fun, but it was the five expected nominees. So here it is folks, the following nominees will probably be your five Best Picture nominees as well at the Oscars:

David Fincher, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”

Christopher Nolan, “The Dark Knight”

Ron Howard, “Frost/Nixon”

Gus Van Sant, “Milk”

Danny Boyle, “Slumdog Millionaire”

Of course, there will always be surprises on nominations morning for the Oscars (that's Thursday, January 22 at 5:30am PST by the way), but it really looks like the aforementioned films will be the five Best Picture nominees. The surprises will come in other categories. One never knows though, everyone was counting out Atonement at this point last year too, and it ended up on the Academy's shortlist last year. In fact, it garnered 8 nominations overall. I don't know if that's going to happen this year though. Revolutionary Road may be this year's Atonement, but I wouldn't count on it. I am of course throwing my full support behind Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, so let the awards start piling up!

Up next: The Critics Choice awards are tonight on VH1. You've already seen their nominees (if you want to be reminded of them, you can click here to see what they were), but tonight the awards are to be given out. Let's see of Slumdog Millionaire takes the top prize.

Suleiman the Lawgiver and Ottoman Military Power

In 1300, the Ottoman Turks were one of many groups of Muslim warriors living on the frontier of the Byzantine Empire in western Anatolia. As the power of the Byzantine emperors weakened, the Ottoman gazis (warriors fighting on behalf of Islam) began to conquer nearby regions. During the 1350s, Turkish armies crossed the Dardanelles (or Hellespont), the narrow straight separating Anatolia from the Balkan Peninsula, and began to establish their power in southeast Europe. By 1400, the Ottomans controlled most of the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks’ most dramatic victory came in 1453. In the spring of that year, they broke through the massive walls surrounding Constantinople—the capital of the Byzantine Empire and the center of Orthodox Christianity—and captured the city (now known as Istanbul). It had taken only 150 years for the former frontier gazis to establish one of the most powerful empires in the world.

Ottoman power continued to expand for about another century or so following the capture of Constantinople. For much of this period, the Turkish state was led by Suleiman, the greatest of the Turkish sultans, who reigned from 1520 to 1556 and was known to his subjects as Kanuni, the “Lawgiver.” Under Suleiman’s leadership, the Ottoman system of governance reached a high level of efficiency and the Ottoman army and navy continued to be formidable fighting forces.

Ottoman strength rested, in part, on a form of slavery. Christian children in the Balkans were regularly conscripted by the Turks, a practice known to the Turks as the devshirme (collection), and taken to Constantinople, where they were trained to be palace officials, governmental administrators, or members of the elite Janissary corps in the army. This distinctive way of “recruiting” effective administrators and soldiers was already flourishing when Suleiman came to power and continued to work well for a couple of generations after his death.

The two documents that I would like you to read (you can read both of them by clicking here) provide us with clues to the reasons for the success of the Ottomans during the reign of Suleiman. In the first document, Suleiman describes his power in an inscription from a citadel built by the Turks at Bender in the northern Balkans in 1538. The second document is a series of excerpts from letters written by Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, the ambassador from the Holy Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire from 1554 to 1562. During Busbecq’s time as ambassador to Constantinople, there was much concern among Europeans about the military power of the Ottomans. In 1529, the Turks had surrounded Vienna, the capital of the Holy Roman Empire, and nearly captured it. The memory of this near-disaster, and the continuing military threat posed by the Turks, form part of the subtext of Busbecq’s letters.

When you are finished reading the documents, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What does Suleiman reveal about his religious convictions in the inscription? How does Suleiman describe the extent of his power? According to Busbecq, in what ways did the Ottomans attempt to ensure the effectiveness of their army? In what ways did the Turkish army combine the use of new technologies with very old approaches to warfare? What does Busbecq observe about the openness of the Turks to borrowing from other cultures? What technologies that were important to the Europeans did the Turks choose not to borrow? Why? What is Busbecq’s reaction to devshirme? Do you detect any bias in Busbecq’s observations? Are there hints of exaggeration in Busbecq’s letters? Why might he have wanted to overplay Ottoman military strength? How did slavery in the Ottoman Empire compare with slavery in other parts of the world, for example, the Americas and Africa? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using travelers’ reports like that of Busbecq as sources of historical evidence? Your thoughts…

The Probable 5 Best Picture Nominees Become More Clear with the WGA Nominations in Round 9

Well folks, the Writers Guild of America announced their nominees for the best screenplay of 2008 today. Of course, there are two categories, one for adapted and one for original screenplay. This year, there are probably more eligible original screenplays to choose from out there. The following are this year's nominees:

Best Adapted Screenplay
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Eric Roth; screen story by Eric Roth and Robin Swicord; based on the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald)

“The Dark Knight” (Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan; screen story by Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer; based on characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics; Batman created by Bob Kane)

“Doubt” (John Patrick Shanley; based on his stage play)

“Frost/Nixon” (Peter Morgan; based on his stage play)

“Slumdog Millionaire” (Simon Beaufoy; based on the novel “Q and A” by Vikas Swarup)

Best Original Screenplay
“Burn After Reading” (Ethan Coen, Joel Coen)

“Milk” (Dustin Lance Black)

“Vicky Cristina Barcelona” (Woody Allen)

“The Visitor” (Thomas McCarthy)

“The Wrestler” (Robert Siegel)

The lesson of the nominees? The Dark Knight is seriously for real. I've been saying that it would have to get a WGA nomination to prove to me that it had a very serious chance at an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, and it did. The other expected films all made it as well. I would say that at this point, although I could be wrong, Revolutionary Road and The Reader are going to probably have to settle for a couple acting nominations, because I think both films are dead in the Best Picture race now. It is nice to see the love for The Wrestler here, which still has a shot perhaps. I am also very glad to see (and I say this every time I see it on one of these lists) Thomas McCarthy's The Visitor get a mention. This truly is one of my favorite films of the year. It's very well written, and it does have a heart without being too soft. It came out back in January of 2008, so it's good to see that this tiny independent film is still being remember as one of the year's best. If you don't know much about the film, you can click here to check out the details on it on the official website.

Up next: The final major guild announces their nominees tomorrow: The Directors Guild of America!

Pugachev's Peasant Revolt

Conditions for Russian peasants worsened steadily during the 18th century. Landlords increased their efforts to exploit peasant labor, particularly to take advantage of opportunities to export grain to Western Europe. Government decrees stepped up landlord rights to discipline and punish their serfs, even to kill them or exile them to Siberia.

Peasant discontent increased in this context. In 1773, a major revolt broke out under the leadership of Emel’ian Pugachev, a Don Cossack and former Russian soldier. (Cossacks were a minority group of ex-peasants who began to form military bands on Russia’s frontiers in the 15th century. The government used many of them for fighting, but also attempted to bring them under greater control). The Pugachev rising was one of the great episodes in Russian history, rousing support from many groups before being crushed by Catherine the Great’s forces. Pugachev was arrested and beheaded, and his head publicly displayed to demonstrate the folly of revolt.

The following documents that I would like you to read (that you can read by clicking here) come first from the “decrees” of Pugachev himself, in 1773-1774. Pugachev adopted an old protest tradition by saying that he was the legitimate tsar, Peter III. His decrees appealed not just to peasants but to a variety of aggrieved groups. It is important to sort out the various grievances he was trying to capture, to get a picture of the strains that had opened up in early modern Russian society. A second set of documents involves reports by Pugachev’s officials.

A third document comes from a serf who was being interrogated by government officials about the uprising. The serf, Vasilii Chernov, renounced his belief in Pugachev as tsar only under extreme torture.

A fourth set of documents emanates from government officials commenting on the uprising. And finally, a fifth document is a decree by Catherine after the rising had been suppressed.

Peasant protest dropped after this great rising, but it would increase once more in the 19th century, as the peasant problem became one of the fundamental issues in Russian society. This set of documents that I would like you to read allows analysis of peasant and other grievances, and also raises the question of what kind of sources to believe in a protest situation—the sources from protest leaders, from the government, or from other quarters (this is very timely considering the various opinions and points of view regarding the current conflict between Israel and Hamas). What, in your opinion, did ordinary protesters believe and want?

After you have read these documents, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What were the main grievances Pugachev tried to represent and exploit? What was the relationship of this protest to Peter the Great’s reforms? Why did many protesters accept Pugachev’s claims that he was the legitimate tsar? What was the purpose of these claims, and what do they suggest about peasant political attitudes? Who were the main targets in this revolt? How did the government portray the revolt? Was the government picture persuasive? How do you think ordinary peasants would react to the revolt and its suppression? As a historian, given this kind of evidence, how would you interpret the Pugachev rising? Why did peasant unrest increase in early modern Russia? What other parts of the world had peasant conditions broadly similar to those in Russia in this period? Your thoughts…

Gaza, We Have a Problem: Casualties Mount in a Major Crisis

It's absolutely clear that the last big news story of 2008 is already the first big news story of 2009. We are now in the 12th straight day of Israeli attacks on Gaza, and instead of dying down, the violence is actually escalating. This is a crisis, and we have seen several before it in this same region. This is merely a continuation of a long saga that flared up in 1948 (and one could certainly make an argument that it's been going on long before that). By the latter part of Season 5, you will have a crystal clear understanding of this major news story. Until then, you can always rely on the BBC to provide excellent background information on major events, including this current crisis. You can delve deep into understanding this crisis by clicking here. Today, things are seriously spiraling out of control. As of today, it has been reported that up to 600 Palestinians have been killed since the attacks began, and of course the largest number of those are innocent civilians. Earlier today, at least 30 people were killed and 55 injured when Israeli artillery shells landed outside a United Nations-run school in Gaza, killing several children. As the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has already stated, this has become a "full-blown humanitarian crisis." Israel's goal is to take Hamas (a group labeled by Israel, the U.S., and the E.U. as a terrorist group, yet is seen by others as freedom fighters) out of the Gaza Strip once and for all. However, the civilian death-toll has been incredibly troublesome as a result. To read the latest on the attack that hit the UN-run school this morning, click here.

Peter the Great Reforms Russia

Peter the Great ruled Russia as tsar from 1682 until 1725. A huge man, Peter pushed his government in many new directions. He brutally repressed protest, executing certain army mutineers personally. He moved vigorously in war, winning new territory in the Baltic region, where he located a new westward-looking capital he modestly called St. Petersburg (actually named after St. Peter though, not the tsar himself). With its military success, Russia was on its way to becoming a major European. It was already a growing empire in Central Asia.

Peter was also eager to update Russia’s administration and economy, which he saw as essential for military purposes and to establish Russian prestige and position in the wider European arena. His measures were both symbolic and real: He enforced Western-style dress on his boyars (the nobles) and required them to cut off their Mongol-style beards. He developed a major iron industry to serve as a basis for armaments production and to avoid Russian dependence on the West in this crucial sector.

The following documents I would like you to read (you can read them all by clicking here) show a number of Peter’s initiatives to reform Russia and bring it in line with Western patterns. In these reforms, Peter sets up an administrative council to improve the direction of the state bureaucracy and expand its functions. He works to improve education, particularly of the nobility, and to facilitate manufacturing as well. These reforms, in sum, give a good picture of the directions in which the tsar was pushing his vast empire.

Peter’s reforms also suggest important links with authoritarian political trends in Russia, including a willingness to regiment ordinary workers and peasants. While other European rulers at this time, such as Louis XIV in France, were claiming new powers in the name of military goals, Peter seemed unusually free to order his nobility about and command their service. He was not interested in aspects of Western politics such as parliaments that stressed restraints on the monarch. Not surprisingly, then, Peter’s vision of a Westernized Russia proved highly selective, as he found certain aspects of the Russian tradition eminently useful. Peter’s reforms must be interpreted in terms of how much they changed, but also in terms of their confirmation of distinctive features of the Russian state and society.

Peter the Great clearly illustrates a reform process from the top down. How do you think Russians at various levels would have reacted? From what you can judge by these documents, was Peter moving Russia in a useful direction? What were the main purposes of Peter’s reforms? What relationship between tsar and nobility did the reforms suggest? What kind of economy was Peter seeking to build? For what reasons? How did Peter’s moves relate to changes occurring in Western European politics and culture around 1700? What major trends did Peter ignore? Did Peter’s reforms make Russian society more or less like that of Western Europe at the time? In what ways did Russian reactions to the West differ from those of other parts of the world in the early modern period, and why? Your thoughts…

"The Dark Knight" is Strengthened by a PGA Nomination in Round 8

Welcome back everybody! Today a major professional guild, the Producers Guild of America (PGA) announced their nominees for Best Picture of 2008. No huge shockers are to be found here, but this is certainly a helpful shot in the arm for Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. The film really needed this nod to remain a serious bet for an Oscar nod, so it's still in the running for sure. Sam Mendes' Revolutionary Road remains in trouble, but so did Atonement last year, and in the end it earned 8 Oscar nominations including Best Picture. Here are the nominees of the PGA...

Motion Picture

“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”

“The Dark Knight”

“Frost/Nixon”

“Milk”

“Slumdog Millionaire”

Animated

“Bolt”

“Kung Fu Panda”

“WALL-E”

Documentary

“Man on Wire”

“Trouble the Water”

“Standard Operating Procedure”

So where are we now? A couple of weeks ago, David Carr from the New York Times said that, in his opinion, the race is down to seven films. Here's how he explained it...

Slumdog Millionaire - exceptionally good storytelling, beautiful cinematography, characters to care about, great directing - would transform the domestic Oscars into the international Oscars, has crossover appeal.

Milk - timely, moving, well directed and written - would erase the bad taste of the Brokeback snub.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - epic, transformative, moving - would be in line with traditional Oscar but would welcome Fincher into the club. Box office would made the difference.

Frost/Nixon - suspenseful, complex, entertaining - again, would be a traditional choice for Best Pic.

The Dark Knight - comic book film but a sweeping epic nonetheless. One of the most entertaining films of the year - timely, dark, highly entertaining and has made more money than any of these will make combined.

Doubt - riveting, funny, moving - with a brilliant cast - The actors choice. But is that enough?

Wall-E - one of the best films of the year - has everything a Best Pic needs except live action.

Up next: Writers Guild of America will be announced in Wednesday in order to honor the best screenplays of 2008.

"Waltz with Bashir" and "Happy-Go-Lucky" Make a Mark in Round 7 of Awards Season

Well folks, now that the holidays are behind us and we're back to business as usual tomorrow (YEAH!!!), the awards race, the road to Oscar, is back in full swing! Yesterday, the National Society of Film Critics announced their winners. The NSFC is the last critics group to release their awards for the year. They tend to be a bit more high-brow than other critics groups, and therefore, their picks can come as a bit of a surprise to many. That being said, sometimes they'll go with the flow (as they did last year when they gave P.T. Anderson's masterpiece There Will Be Blood a ton of awards including Best Picture). This year, the NSFC is back to their old tricks by awarding Ari Folman's animated documentary Waltz with Bashir Best Picture. If you haven't heard of the film, it is certainly a different, yet refreshing, concept. This is an Israeli film, so it's in the Hebrew language. Additionally, it's a documentary but also a cartoon. Again, perhaps this may be a tough sell to mainstream audiences in the United States, but it really is a brilliantly realized concept. Here is a brief synopsis of the film:

One night at a bar, an old friend tells director Ari about a recurring nightmare in which he is chased by 26 vicious dogs. Every night, the same number of beasts. The two men conclude that there's a connection to their Israeli Army mission in the first Lebanon War of the early eighties. Ari is surprised that he can't remember a thing anymore about that period of his life. Intrigued by this riddle, he decides to meet and interview old friends and comrades around the world. He needs to discover the truth about that time and about himself. As Ari delves deeper and deeper into the mystery, his memory begins to creep up in surreal images.

Interesting... I looks like it perhaps may be the Persepolis of 2008. In any case, this certainly has some connections to Season 5, so it's exciting to see it take home the award to make this race even more interesting. It will not likely be nominated for Best Picture, but it stands a great chance of a Best Foriegn Feature Film and Best Animated Feature Film nomination at the Oscars. Wall-E remains the favorite in the latter category, but Waltz with Bashir will likely also be nominated, forcing two films of little significance (I'm speaking of Kung-Fu Panda and Bolt) to duke it out for the final spot. I will also add that Mike Leigh's Happy-Go-Lucky did very well, making a Sally Hawkins nomination for Best Actress, and maybe even a screenplay nod, look more likely. Here's how everything hashed out...

BEST PICTURE
1. Waltz with Bashir, directed by Ari Folman (26)
2. Happy-Go-Lucky (20)
3. WALL-E (20)

BEST NON-FICTION FILM
1. Man on Wire, directed by James Marsh (55)
2. Trouble the Water (34)
3. Encounters at the End of the World (26)

BEST DIRECTOR
1. Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky (36)
2. Gus Van Sant, Milk & Paranoid Park (20)
3. Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire (16)

BEST ACTOR
1. Sean Penn, Milk (87)
2. Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler (40)
3. Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino (38)

BEST ACTRESS
1. Sally Hawkins, Happy-Go-Lucky (65)
2. Melissa Leo, Frozen River (33)
3. Michelle Williams, Wendy and Lucy (31)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
1. Eddie Marsan, Happy-Go-Lucky (41)
2. Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight (35)
3. Josh Brolin, Milk (29)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
1. Hanna Schygulla, The Edge of Heaven (29)
2. Viola Davis, Doubt (29, on fewer ballots)
3. Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona (24)

BEST SCREENPLAY
1. Happy-Go-Lucky, by Mike Leigh (29)
2. A Christmas Tale (24)
3. Synecdoche, New York (17)

So again, the NSFC doesn't disappoint in delivering a different list of choices. Next up: The Producers Guild of America announces their nominations tomorrow. This is a biggie, so stay tuned.