Buddhism and the Four Noble Truths

Well ladies and gentlemen, hopefully you have a better handle on classical Indian history and culture. Key to this understanding, of course, is a real understanding of Buddhist teachings. Buddhism, as we discussed today, did not originate in East Asia, but in India during the sixth century B.C.E. The Buddha (originally Siddartha Gautama, but later "the enlightened one") must have been a compelling teacher because he soon attracted devoted followers. A huge surge forward for Buddhism is when the Mauryan Indian Emperor Ashoka apparently converted to Buddhism and encouraged the spread of the faith throughout his empire. Like Christianity some 500 years later, Buddhism especially appealed to the lower classes. Largely this is because the Buddha himself rejected the idea of varnas, rituals, and the power of the brahmins. In so many ways, this belief system emerged in reaction to the traditional Indian belief system. I would like for you to read the words of Buddhism himself (translated into English of course) in order to get a greater understanding of his teachings. Would I would like you to read are his Four Noble Truths, the core of the Buddha's first sermon afer his enlightenment. Although Buddhism continued to evolve following the death of the founder, Buddhists nonetheless regard the Four Noble Truths as the touchstone of their faith. Please read his words carefully after clicking on the following link (The Four Noble Truths). The full text will come up for you, but YOU ONLY NEED TO READ PAGES 368-374 (don't worry, it's short). You can either read it right off the screen (just type in 368 in the page spot) or you can download the whole thing to your computer, whatever is more convenient for you (google books is an awesome application!). After reading that short passage, I'd like to get your reactions. First of all, according to the Four Noble Truths, what is the great problem that humans face? How do you feel about that? Is there a solution to this problem in the Four Noble Truths? If so, what is it? According to the Four Noble Truths, what does it mean to be a good person? What is the attitude toward human emotions in the Four Noble Truths? Is there a particular kind of social structure or set of gender relationships implied in the Four Noble Truths? Now let's also begin comparing this text to the important Hindu text, The Bhagavad Gita, that you already read in the post below (right?). How migh the ideas represented by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita have contributed to the waning of Buddhism in India? Let's make another comparison! How do the teachings in the Four Noble Truths compare with those of Confucius? What similarities and and what differences do you see? Do the four Noble Truths provide clues to the reasons why Buddhism spread so widely in East Asia but didn't really gel in India in the end? Your thoughts...

"To Fight in a Rigteous War": Varna and Moral Duty in India

Good afternoon (or evening)! I hope you all are enjoying your weekend. I thoroughly enjoyed the past week with you all and our consideration of major issues in Classical China. This week we will be switching gears in order to understand a nearby, yet very different society (and in order to prepare for our first major essay coming on Friday), India. As I mentioned Friday, understanding India is a bit more complicated than understanding China, so this makes reading original primary source documents of the time period absolutely essential. As with the other societies of the ancient and classical worlds, the topic of religion is a valuable area for discussion when analyzing India. It is especially necessary to have this discussion regarding India because of how intertwined religion is with the social system there historically. In fact, very early on, religion is used to explain the origins of a four-part division of social classes called varnas (a Sanskrit word meaning "color." In the 1500s, when the Portuguese arrived in India, they referred to this system as "caste"). This is explained in the Rig Veda's "Hymn to Purusha." In it, the Brahmins (or priestly class), who composed and recited the hymn, claimed a position of supremacy over the other three classses: the Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors), Vaisyas (merchants, artisans, and peasants), and Sudras (slaves and servants). Although both the Kshatriyas and Brahmins jockeyed for leadership over many centuries, in large part due to this text, the Brahmins won out. If you have not read this text yet, it is very important to do so. You can find it on page 98 of your textbook or by simply clicking here. How was this religious text used to justify the caste system? Over time, a fifth category was added, made up of all those who were engaged in occupations defined as "unclean." This class actually stood outside the system of varnas, and therefore these people were known as "untouchables."
The Brahmins taught that each varna had its own sacred or moral duty (dharma) to perform. An example of this would be that the dharma, or sacred duty, of the warriors was to fight. A vivid illustration of the dharma of the warriors can be found in the most famous literary text from early India, the Bhagavad Gita (Song of the Lord). The Bhagavad Gita is a portion of a much longer India classic, the Mahabharata, the epic tale of a war between two branches of the same family in the distant past. In its present form the Bhagavad Gita dates from the second century B.C.E. The central theme of the Bhagavad Gita is the dialogue between the warrior Arjuna, who is on the eve of a great battle, and his chariot driver Krishna, who is actually the Hindu god Vishnu. Because the Bhagavad Gita gives us unparalleled insight into the mindset of what will later become Hindu culture, and because Indian history and culture is a bit complicated if you're learning it for the first time, it is absolutely essential that you all take the time to read and discuss a couple of short passages from this text that capture the essence of the conversation between Arjuna and Krishna. Please click on the following link (The Bhagavad Gita) in order to read a couple of short passages from the most readable translation I could find online of the Bhagavad Gita. YOU ONLY HAVE TO READ CHAPTER 1, VERSES 21-47, AND CHAPTER 2, VERSES 1-37. After reading those passages, I would like for you all to discuss any or all of the following discussion points: Why is Arjuna reluctant to fight? What reasons does Krishna give for urging Arjuna into battle? What clues regarding gender relations (THIS IS SO IMPORTANT) in India do you see in these passages? Do you see evidence of how masculinity and femininity were defined? How does this compare to China? How did the Bhagavad Gita REINFORCE the system of varnas (this is a key question here)? What hope, if any, do the words of Krishna hold out to the lowest elements of Hindu society? After reading quite a bit from your text regarding Buddhism this weekend, how do you think a Buddhist would respond to Arjuna's ethical dilemma? Finally, how does the advice from Krishna compare with the thinking of Confucius? What does this comparison suggest about how concepts of male "virtue" differed in classical India and China? This is especially important to think about considering we have a major essay to write comparing India and China on Friday. Also, it may be good to begin considering how the beliefs put forth in the Bhagavad Gita are similar and different to the beliefs in other religions more well known to westerners like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. What do you think? Your thoughts then...

The Role of the Woman in Classical China?

Sadly, we are beginning to already see a decline in women's rights on the world scene as we enter the classical period of world history. Through the writings of Confucius, we begin to get an early idea of the place of the woman in Chinese society specifically (especially when we consider Confucius' Five Key Relationships). However, it is oftentimes of more benefit, when considering a woman's place in any society, to go to the women as the ultimate source. Fortunately, we have one such source when consider the role of women in Classical China--Pan Chao. Oftentimes referred to as China's "foremost woman scholar," she served unofficially as imperial historian to Emperor Ho (89-105 CE) while acting as an instructor in history, classical writing, astronomy, and mathematics to the Empress Teng and her ladies-in-waiting. Her success in overcoming contemporary restraints on women was due to an exceptional education, which she attributed to her scholarly parents. As a historian, moralist, and royal servant, Pan Chao wrote numerous literary works, including narrative poems, commemorative verses, eulogies, and her famous Lessons for Women. This brief educational treatise, written expressly for women and the first of its kind in world history, offers interesting insights into the Chinese perceptions of the ideal woman as well as first-century Chinese customs. It contains advice in matters of customs and manners for girls in her family so that they might not "humiliate both your ancestors and your clan" (REMEMBER: filial piety). Pan Chao's manual was the most successful and durable advice book for women in Chinese history, helping to support a firmly patriarchal gender system. Click on the following link to read excerpts from Pan Chao's fascinating Lessons For Women. When you finish reading her essay, I would like to get your thoughts on a few things. First of all, how does Pan Chao define womanhood and women's roles? How do these definitions relate to other aspects of Chinese society such as Confucianism? Let's not stop there though, there is so much depth and richness in this particular document that we must give it the thorough discussion it deserves! After reading the document, what would you say Pan Chao consders the principal duty of a husband to be? What about the duty of the wife? How and why are they complemaentary parts of the natural order of the universe (did you detect any daoist thought in her explanation?)? It's interesting that in the essay, Pan Chao claims to be inherently unintelligent. Does she mean it? Furthermore, why do you think she makes such statements? Why does Pan Chao advocate that women be educated? Do her stated reasons strike you as her true motives? Finally, what was it about Lessons For Women, in your opinion, that caused it to be so highly regarded by Confucian scholars over the following centuries? Can is there anything about Pan Chao's background story that can serve as an inspiration to the modern woman of 2008? I am eager to hear your thoughts on any or all of these topics for discussion, but please make sure you do READ THE DOCUMENT FIRST. This is a very important piece of history to take a look at. Unfortunately, women have been written out of history over the centuries. Fortunately though, you're with a guy this year that sees women's history as extremely important. If we truly believe that we must look at history from several points of view, and if we truly are serious about several diverse interpretations of history, we must include the history of women's roles in all societies in our studies. The only way to truly understand such a history is to go to women first as the ultimate source. That's why I want to discuss this very unique document. Your thoughts then...

Why Read About When You Could GO TO PERU?

Ladies and gentlemen, in addition to the trip to China that we're planning, we're also trying to feel out interest for a trip to Peru in early June. If this part of the world interests you more than Asia, take the time to check the detailed itinerary for this trip by clicking on the link below...

Peru 2009 Trip Itinerary

Again, if you have any questions on price, feel free to email me. See you in Peru!

Why Read About China When You Could GO TO CHINA?

Ok folks, so you have already heard me talk a bit about the China trip this week that I would like to see take place in early- to mid-July. What I would like to do now is give you the full itinerary for the trip so that you can see for yourself what a great experience this will be. Simply click on the link below for further details on the trip. See you in China!

China Trip Itinerary 2009

As far as pricing is concerned, feel free to email me for further information.

Confucianism, Daoism, or Legalism? What Philosophy Brings True and Lasting Order to Society?

Ladies and gents, welcome to China week! The Era of Warring States, this period of chaos at the end of the Zhou period in Chinese history, led many Chinese thinkers to reconsider basic questions of social and political order. Remember, new ideas are often born out of turmoil. History teaches us that human beings are at their most innovative when their worst nightmares become everyday realities. Out of this period in Chinese history, three very different schools of thought emerge. The goal was the same (an orderly society through emphasis on living a good life, obedience to the state, and harmony). The roads to that goal, however, were quite different. I would like you to read all three of the passages that I have links to below. Each passage will provide clear evidence of the methods and thought processes of each philosophy. Please click and on each link, and read each passage (ALSO, IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO PRINT OUT THESE PASSAGES AND BRING THEM TO CLASS TOMORROW)...

The Philosophy of Confucius

The Tao Te Ching <---just read chapter 3 and 8

Han Fei, A Legalist Writer

After analyzing all three documents now, what do you think the positive and negative aspects of each philosophy are on government and social life? Is the Confrucian or Legalist approach best? Is the Legalist approach necessary in the early stages of political development? What do you think? Your thoughts...

How Has Your Worldview Been Influenced So Far?

Ladies and gentlemen, so far it has been a pleasure working with you! Can you believe it? We have already covered roughly 7000 yrs of history in just 6 days! Ok, so now we are going to slow things down considerably, starting with the classical era and specifically classical China tomorrow. So what have you taken from this class so far? Is the story behind the Neolithic Revolution(s) and the early civilizations in the Nile-Indus Corridor (Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Harappa), the Huang He Valley (Shang China), and the Americas (Olmecs, Chavin Cult [an early civilization in that emerged in the Andes that we didn't have the opportunity to discuss. just know that their emphasis on religion and their temple will leave their mark on more complex civilizations to follow later {i.e. the Incas}]) merely just ancient history? Are there lessons to be learned from our ancient forefathers? If so, what lessons? How is this class perhaps different than what you were expecting coming in? Are there any examples of things that maybe you have always taken for granted that we have analyzed closer that now provides deeper meaning to your life? Essentially, how is this class already re-shaping your worldview? Remember folks, history is not the study of the dead, history is the study of life. Your thoughts then...

What Sets the Stage for Human Development? Is There a Commonality in the Human Experience?

Something that we must discuss is in what ways the Mesopotamians and Egyptians were similar and in what ways they were different. Are there common trends that exist between the two? Is this simply because they were linked together through trade or because there is a real commonality in the human experience? Can something like geography influence not only the lives of humans on earth, but also their worldview and their view of the gods and an afterworld? Something good to think about is how geographical conditions might have influenced the development of our own society here in the United States. In what ways has the isolation and agricultural bounty of the United States left Americans optimistic? Now that we know a little bit about the geographies of Mesopotamia and Egypt it is relatively simple for us to draw conclusions about how these early societies might have viewed themselves. What conclusions can we come to? How does the interaction of geography and climate with human society affect development? Is geography and climate still affecting our development right now at this very point in time? Hmm... interesting. Are we beginning to see the environment as a major historical actor? Your thoughts...

What Is the Real Cause of Change: Connection and Cultural Diffusion or Independent Invention?

Now that we are looking at the first instance of globalization at work in the Nile-Indus Corridor, it makes me think about the idea of cultural diffusion (or, more simply, one society influencing another). A good topic to consider in the days ahead is how societies influence each other. It’s a topic that comes up often throughout world history: it might be the Greeks influencing the Romans who in turn influenced the Europeans who in turn influenced the Americans; it could be Buddhism spreading from India to China to Korea to Japan; or it could be Mayan concepts spreading throughout Mesoamerica. The cultural, political, and religious influences of the Mesopotamians are profound. Sometimes the relationship is indistinct. Did the Egyptians pick up the idea of writing from the Mesopotamians? What was the connection between the Mesopotamians and the Harappan society in India? What are the roots of monotheism, and how did this revolutionary concept survive and influence other religions? Essentially, what is the stronger force of change? Do societies change because of the influence of their neighbors? Or is and even stronger source of change plain necessity that leads to independent invention (ex/ military innovations because of outside threats, technological innovations because of the environment. REMEMBER: SOCIETY IS MOST INNOVATIVE AT ITS MOST CHAOTIC)? What do you think? By the way, great first week! I can't wait to introduce my son, China, to you guys next week!

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race?

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion that I had with all of my classes today regarding the problems with the term civilization. I know that inner/outer circle puts you on the spot a bit, but you'll get used to it over time. The first one is always the hardest, and you guys did EXCELLENT today. So... what do you feel is the worst mistake in the history of the human race? It's interesting that Jared Diamond (writer of the bestseller Guns, Germs, and Steel) wrote an article with that very title, and in it he says that this "worst mistake" was the decision to begin settled agriculture (aka, farming). In fact, in the very first paragraph he states the following:

"...recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence."

Wow, strong words. How does he qualify this statement? Really, we've always been taught, as Diamond points out, that the decision to farm was a positive decision because "since crops can be stored, and since it takes less time to pick food from a garden than to find it in the wild, agriculture gave us free time that hunter-gatherer never had." Granted, it is very difficult to prove that life got better or got worse for humans as a result of farming since the transition began roughly about 10,000 years ago. So how can we come to an educated conclusion? Well, why not look at hunter-gather societies that remain in existence today. For example, the people of the Kalahari desert of sub-Saharan Africa remain hunter-gathers. As Diamond points out, "it turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania [hardly the 40+ hour work week of our society]."

Additionally, there is an emerging field of science called paleopathology (essentially the study of stone age diseases), and in a lot of cases, these scientists give us insight into the world before farming because they have almost as much material to study as a pathologist today. These scientists have actually concluded that agriculture was bad for health and for three reasons...

1) "hunter-gathers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition."

2) "because of the dependence on a limited number of crops, farmers ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed"

3) "the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infections diseases... Epidemics couldn't take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearance of large cities."

Interesting! Have you ever taken the time to consider any of this? What else emerged in humanity as a result of farming? As Diamond next points out, "farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food... they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses." Powerful logic indeed!

Additionally, Diamond argues that as a result of farming, inequality between the sexes emerges. In reality, he has a point because there is no available evidence of women being treated as below men until agricultural societies emerge. Diamond suggests this may have occured because, "freed from the need to transport their babies during a nomadic existence, and under pressure to produce more hands to till the fields, farming women tended to have more frequent pregnancies than their hunter-gatherer counterparts- with consequent drains on their health." We talk more about this emerging inequality between the sexes in the next couple of weeks. Then there is the issue of farming allowing for more free time. Can this be proven? It can't actually. In fact, modern hunter gathers have at least as much free time as farmers. Finally, as Diamond mentions, "with the advent of agriculture the elite became better off, but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the [idea] that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls." His answer is very simple: "Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life." How does it support more people? (1) "Because a field planted entirely in edible crops lets one feed far more mouths than a forest with scattered edible plants." (2) "Because nomadic hunter-gatheres have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide [the killing of infants] and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it's old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don't have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years." So Diamond's basic conclusion is simply that what looked like possibly a good thing produced a much worse quality of life. However, once we dove in, there was no way out.

Diamond therefore ends his article this way: "Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny. Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we're still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it's unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visisted from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 pm we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture's glittering facade, and that have so far eluded us?"

I'm not asking you to adopt Jared Diamond's point of view fully. What I would like you to do is look at a point of view that stands in stark contrast to what you have probably always been taught. Think critically about the matter therefore. I'm not telling you what to think, but I am telling you TO THINK. So what do you think? Was farming truly the worst mistake in the history of the human race? Your thoughts please...

For My Fourth Period Class (and anyone else that needs tomorrow's assignment clarified)...

Still trying to get used to the new bell schedule so I apologize for not finishing on time. Tomorrow I would like to first of all give you my ten minute overview of the origins of the term civilization. Afterwards, we will break out into our inner/outer circle discussion. Let me try to clarify the directions. When you walk into class tomorrow, the room will be divided into 2 circles. One circle will make a ring around the other. Your assignment for tonight is to read the two articles that I gave you and create and bring to class FIVE questions AND answers for EACH article (THAT IS A TOTAL OF TEN QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT). The questions that you create should not be yes or no questions. On the back of the cover sheet of the packet I gave you, you will find a chart describing the 6 categories of questions. ONLY TWO of your questions should be knowledge questions. The rest of your questions should be high-level questions designed to stimulate discussion. When you come in with your TEN questions and answers, you will receive 35 points. If you are sitting in the inner circle for the first half of class, you will lead the discussion over one of the articles for the first half. Someone will throw out the first question, someone will answer that question, and then that same person will throw out the question, and we will continue in that fashion. If you participate (and you must) you will receive 30 points. The students on the outer circle are not allowed to talk. Instead, they will be taking notes on their reaction to the discussion. About halfway through the discussion, we'll switch sides (aka the outer circle will come in, and the inner circle will go out). At the end of class, you'll turn in your notes (it should be at least a page) for the final 35 points for a total of 100 for the assignment. You see, this class is easy! Please email me if you need further clarification. Otherwise, see you tomorrow!

For Those of You That Did Not Get the Summer Assignment...

For those of you that did not get the summer assignment, you can pull the alternate assignment off of the following website... http://sites.google.com/a/northgwinnett.com/apworldhistory/

Good First Day!

It was a pleasure meeting all of you today. I'm looking forward to a great year. Although the blog will be our method of communication when it comes to class discussions, feel free to email at any time if you have an issue regarding a homework assignment, an upcoming test or essay, etc. My preferred email address is rmprill@gmail.com. Additionally, you all received calenders today in hard copy form. All of your reading assignments will be on the calender. If you lose the calender, or if you simply prefer it in electronic form, here is the link to the website with it on it (which also includes your syllabus and a weblink for the textbook's website)... http://sites.google.com/a/northgwinnett.com/apworldhistory/. Finally, if you have not yet done so, please post a comment regarding the film you viewed over the summer TODAY.

cheers!

One Quick Favor...

WHEN YOU POST, PLEASE DO NOT POST AS ANONYMOUS AND PLEASE DO NOT USE SCREEN NAMES OR ANY OTHER FAKE NAMES. PLEASE HAVE YOUR FULL NAME ON YOUR POST SO THAT I CAN CREDIT YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTS IN THE FUTURE. THANKS!

Thanks For Coming Out to Super Thursday!

Thanks to all that came out tonight! Everything seemed to go smoothly, and, as always, I apologize for the long line. It was almost like standing in line for a ride at Six Flags, except you saw me at the end of the line and I interrogated you about movies and The Human Web. AP World requires quite a bit of work (the class is seriously intense) and motivation, and I could see that many of you have the right attitude, even on first impression. The important thing is to not fall behind because catching up is difficult. This blog is going to be a major component of the class this year. Let me tell you a little bit about the purpose. Every year I find myself disillusioned about not being able to have all of the discussions that I want to have in class on various topics because there simply isn't the time in class. This blog will be the perfect outlet to continue those discussions in an open, yet always professional and scholarly, forum. Additionally, I have so many students that are brilliant but are afraid to speak up in class due to shyness or other reasons. While our communication in the actual classroom environment will always and forever remain our first priority, the blog is a good opportunity for all to freely express themselves. I firmly believe that we are here to learn from each other, and so with this format, you will not only see my thoughts, but the thoughts of your fellow collegues. Finally, I really believe in the idea of community, especially between myself and my 120 students any given year. Look at this blog as our community sounding board. I will remind you all of important dates on here, but more importantly, this is where we will continue respectful debates and discussions from the class that day. Participation is part of your grade in this class, and my expectation is for you to be an open participator in class and post to the blog at least twice a week (you are free to post as much as you want, but at least twice a week) in order to receive full credit for participation. Parents may be a bit apprensive about this format for this year, so let me set your mind at ease. All comments that are posted on this blog are posted at MY discretion. I am the censor, and any inappropriate or disrespectful posts of any kind will never make it onto the blog. All posts are sent to my email first, and once I approve the comment, then it will be posted to the blog. To maintain the integrity of this site however, comments will only be censored if they are inappropriate, not if they present a point of view that is different from the majority. Part of the beauty of this class is to come to an understanding of a vast variety of points of view. All comments, as long as they are appropriate and respectful, are valid and important. Finally, this is not a publically advertised blog. In other words, you can't google AP world history and this blog will come up on a search. Therefore, this blog is just for us and this class. I will look forward to reading your discussion on the films you have watched (if you don't see the film you watched on this page, just click on the link at the bottom that says "older posts"). I also, of course, am very much looking forward to Monday morning. Happy blogging!

Cry Freedom: Thought Provoking Look into Apartheid-Era South Africa? or, Melodramatic Formulaic Hollywood Creation?

I always have to remind myself that the Richard Attenborough that directed Gandhi back in 1982 is the same Attenborough that directed the film Cry Freedom in 1987. Although both fine films, they are so much different. Cry Freedom is certainly not the 3 hour plus epic that Gandhi is, and therefore is not presented on such a grand scale. It also is not the masterpiece that Gandhi is, but there is still much to enjoy about this Apartheid-era epic story. The viewer may at first be fooled into thinking that this is the Steve Biko story starring a rather young Denzel Washington. Instead, what it becomes is the Donald Woods story, starring Kevin Kline, where a journalist (Woods) finds his life and the life of his family in danger because of his investigation into the death of Steve Biko. This I actually found a bit disappointing. When the focus of attention is on Washington's masterful handling of Steve Biko, the film soars. After Biko's death, however, it really begins to feel formulaic. It's not as bad as Lifetime Movie of the Week material, but it still just begins to feel a bit color by number for me. I enjoyed the film, don't get me wrong, but the strongest half is certainly the first half. The real power of this film is the consideration of the context in which this film was made. One must remember that in 1987, the apartheid system in South Africa was still in force (amidst growing opposition, but still in force). Why is it important to consider the context in which of a film, or really any type of documentation, was created? How does context add to our depth of understanding? If Cry Freedom was made in, say 1996, post-Apartheid, would the film be as powerful? Would it have the same bite? Does the fact that it was made in 1987 create an extra layer of depth? If you enjoyed this film, and the subject of apartheid in South Africa in general, more films are unfortunately difficult to find. Decent films critical of South African policies during the period are almost non-existent. However, similar ideas are presented in Philip Noyce's Rabbit Proof Fence, a film dealing with Australian policies of segregation (that is rarely ever addressed). Additionally, if you find South Africa interesting in general, there have been a number of quality films released recently dealing with post-Apartheid issues. Of all of those films, the major standout is Darrell Roodt's Yesterday.

Nicholas and Alexandra: Captivating Look into Late Romanov Era? or, Dreary Pointless Costume Drama?

For whatever reason, every year there are a few of my students that are utterly intrigued with the Romanovs, Russian history, and especially this unlikely little story, the last days of the Russian monarchy. Fact is truly stranger than fiction. How can you honestly make up a guy like Rasputin? In any case, if you like long methodical costume dramas, you probably found that you liked Franklin J. Schaffner's 1971 film Nicholas and Alexandra. Quite frankly, the costumes are beautiful, the set design is wonderfully authentic, and the story is of course very intriguing. That being said the film is not perfect. There are some inaccuracies, but there are some money scenes too. I especially enjoyed Janet Suzman as Alexandra, and the subtlety that she brought to the character. I found Tom Baker to be a bit over the top as Rasputin, but I mean, we're talking about Rasputin here (is it just me or does Rasputin strangely resemble the 90s heavy metal star Rob Zombie?). I have always wanted to see him portrayed on film, and I probably would have handled him differently, but then again I'm not a director. Plus, yankee doodle playing as an attempt on his life is being made, that's just priceless. The thing that I enjoy most about the film is seeing the iconic figures of the period meander in and out of the film, figures such as Lenin, Trotsky, etc. And just when you feel that the film doesn't have enough bite, well, there is the final scene. The film does offer a bit of perspective as well. Because the United States played opposite the Soviet Union during the Cold War, communism has been and, in many cases, remains a dirty word in this country. Seeing things from the Russian point of view, under the burdensome regime of the czar, why did many see communism as a valid alternative to the existing system of absolutism? What was the appeal of communism to those following? Did Lenin misrepresent the realities of what he wanted to bring to Russia? Did Trotsky have a more moderate solution to Russia's problems? Did a completely different solution exist altogether? If so, would it have been practical in dealing with the realities of the time period? Why did Kerensky's provisional government completely fail before Lenin took over? If you are interested in this period of Russian history, a film that offers a very unique point of view is Warren Beatty's 1980 classic Reds. He plays a real life American journalist that was actually in Russia reporting Lenin's takeover of the system there. All things considered, this is a very interesting chapter of world history to say the least.

Lawrence of Arabia: Brilliantly Complex Character Study? or, Long, Convoluted, Historically Inaccurate Epic?

David Lean's 1962 masterpiece Lawrence of Arabia is truly a masterpiece. Any film list that you will ever read will generally put this one in the top ten of all time. From the vast epic scope, to the beautifully sweeping score, to the iconic shots of Peter O'Toole as T.E. Lawrence himself, this film is one of a kind, the type of film that is made only once every couple of decades. David Lean has made many fine films, but this, in my opinion, is his master work. I must also point to the fact that Peter O'Toole's performance is truly one for the ages (can you believe he did not win the Oscar that year? The winner was Gregory Peck for To Kill a Mockingbird, also a fine performance, but lets be serious. In fact, although nominated many times [8 to be exact], O'Toole has never won an Oscar). Mr. O'Toole handles the role with unparalleled grace, substance, and candor. Watching his portrayal of Lawrence brings the entire nature of man into question. This man, a man who appears to be decent and honest in every way, once placed into a high position of leadership, begins to transform into a man driven by ambition and desire for more power. The adage that power corrupts takes place right before the viewer's eyes. There are some scenes in films that, for the lack of a better term, are simply magic. In one such scene, the dialogue is as follows:

T.E. Lawrence: I killed two people. One was... yesterday? He was just a boy and I led him into quicksand. The other was... well, before Aqaba. I had to execute him with my pistol, and there was something about it that I didn't like.

General Allenby: That's to be expected.

T.E. Lawrence: No, something else.

General Allenby: Well, then let it be a lesson.

T.E. Lawrence: No... something else.

General Allenby: What then?

T.E. Lawrence: I enjoyed it.

Magic! The transformation of this character, the very complexity of this character, makes this film one of the most fascinating and haunting character studies of all time, one full of complexity and contridictions. That being said, is this a completely historically accurate portrayal of T.E. Lawrence? No! In fact, Peter O'Toole's T.E. Lawrence differs in many ways from the real man. Does that take away from the film's credibility? Does a legendary performance make an inaccurate portrayal forgivable? This once again brings into question why Hollywood chooses to rewrite history in most of the films in produces. In a film this elegant, however, can we forgive the inaccuracies? If that is so, is there an inherent double-standard present in the film community, where we readily applaud a great film that contains inaccuracies, yet we are so quick to jeer a bad film that contains just as many inaccuracies and pummel said film for those inaccuracies? One historic issue that the film does properly address is the issue of Britain's broken promise of political independence for the Arab world in exchange for their support against the Ottoman Empire in World War I, and the chaos that follows. How do you suppose the history of the 20th century may have been different if the British did grant the Arab world the full independence promised? If you did in fact enjoy David Lean's epic style, you may consider viewing his 1957 film Bridge on the River Kwai (which, just for the record, is one of my all time favorites, it's so gripping, especially during the last hour or so), the 1965 classic Dr. Zhivago, or the more recent 1984 film A Passage to India.

All Quiet on the Western Front: Superb Lesson in Point of View? or, Outdated Irrelevant War Film?

Lewis Milestone’s All Quiet on the Western Front has been hailed by critics and moviegoers alike as one of the greatest early war films ever made. Before this 1930 film hit the big screen, it was (and remains) a lauded novel by Erich Maria Remarque written amidst the disillusionment of the post-World War I period. There is never a huge number of students that watch this film due to its age, but those that do dare to dive in are rewarded by a brooding, timeless film that contemplates the realities of war. There are a few things that, in my opinion, make this 1930 Best Picture winner quite unique. First of all, there are no big name movie stars to be seen. Even in the 1930s, most audiences did not readily recognize the actors. Why was this deliberately done? Can well-known movie stars be distracting when considering such serious material? Another thing that is unique about this film is the musical score. There is none! Why would this be? So many war epics, from the earliest days of film to the most recent, are generally accompanied by these sweeping instrumental scores. Why does Milestone completely avoid this in his direction? The most major merit of this film is the perspective that it provides. Most war stories are told from the point of view of the nationality of the writer. In the case of All Quiet on the Western Front, however, all of the main characters that are focused on are German. How can an approach like this be effective? All too often in Hollywood's war films, the opposition is made out to be a group of faceless villains, completely devoid of feelings. The reality however, is so much the opposite. Humans are humans, and humans have similar reasons for going to war. Perhaps they have been brainwashed of the evil of the opposition, they have been taught to hate, or perhaps they simply see it as their patriotic duty to bravely serve one's country. Regardless of the reasons, be they noble or otherwise, humans all fight in war for similar reasons, both sides. What this film beautifully illustrates is that every soldier on a battlefield, regardless of the side, has baggage, has feelings, has a family or a wife or a girlfriend or someone they desperately miss and can't wait to see again. How does war effect men? That is the question posed by this film. What I would like to discuss more here is the merit of alternate points of view when it comes to any matter regarding history. Why is simply one point of view ineffective in the study of history? What point of view have most in the western world studied history from over the past several decades and centuries? If you have found this discussion and this film to be intriguing, you may want to consider viewing Clint Eastwood's most recent films Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima. What Mr. Eastwood does with these two films is remarkable-- he takes the exact same event, the Battle of Iwo Jima, but tells it from an American point of view in Flags of Our Fathers and from a Japanese point of view in Letters From Iwo Jima. I will particularly look forward to furthering this discussion in the days and weeks ahead.

Asoka: Entertaining Historical Epic? or, Not Another Bollywood Movie?

Santosh Sivan's Asoka is a film that continues to receive mixed reviews from my students every year. On the one hand, many find it quite entertaining. If this was your first Bollywood film, you may have found the style to be bit suprising-- like an American musical with an extra dose of adrenaline. I had a student in the past write that she didn't feel the film was historically accurate because she didn't think that people in India broke out into song and dance out of nowhere. Point #1- this student had not come to an appreciation of the Bollywood style. Point #2- don't you think the world would be a much more pleasant and enjoyable place if everyone did? Actually, I do break into song and dance on occasion in the hallways at North. It's actually quite theraputic. In terms of historical value, my students generally feel empty at the end of this film, one student even commenting that she felt like she knew even less about Asoka after the film than before. I must concur with these comments. While I found the film to be rather entertaining, the story of Asoka is so misrepresented that I feel that they should have just changed the name of Asoka and the rest of the main characters and just presented a traditional love story. This would have been better than masquerading the film as one of any historical relevance or educational value. This brings up a fairly interesting discussion point however. While I care little about discussing the actual film being called into question, the question remains: Why does Hollywood (or in this case Bollywood) constantly choose to alter historic events for the purposes of entertainment? Is being misled even entertaining? Does this even matter if the entertainment value is high? If, as the saying goes, fact is stranger than fiction, wouldn't films be more entertaining if they did maintain the fullest degree possible of historical integrity? When it comes to a film as historically inaccurate as Asoka, I think that this is an appropriate conversation to be had. If you did enjoy the Bollywood style of filmmaking, yet long for something more historically credible, I would recommend that you view Ashutosh Gowariker's Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India, a long but thoroughly enjoyable film.