The 3rd Annual Whapey Awards

Ok folks, now that season 1 is officially over, it's time for awards season. The Whapeys (World History AP Awards) are our version of the Emmys (and a Prill family tradition) that takes place at the end of every television season. 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. This year, for the first time, all voting will be done online. 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 NOON ON FRIDAY. We'll tally the votes, and the winner will be announced this weekend. If any of you are in need of volunteer hours and would like to come in after school on Friday to tally votes, I'll be happy to have you. That would be a great help. Happy voting. Here are the categories for season 1...





Best Government (Classical):
Best Government (Early River Valleys):
Most Influential Society:
Most Influential Person:
Best Leader:
Worst Leader:
Best Conflict:
Best Social System:
Most Influential Belief System:
Best Economic System:
Best Invention:
Worst Invention:
Best Cultural Contribution:
Best Film Set During Season 1:

DBQ Questions?

If you all have any questions regarding DBQs, please feel free to post them here, and I'll be sure to respond. I have my summer trip meeting tonight at 7, so I may not be around from between 7 and 9. Cheers!

MEETING REMINDER

Ladies and gentlemen, this is just to remind everyone that is planning to travel with us to either China or Peru that the first meeting will be tomorrow, Tuesday, at 7pm in the Media Center. If you are not able to make that one then the make-up will be on Saturday at 10am in the Media Center as well. If you are definitely planning on traveling the best thing you could do is sign up for the trip at the meeting. All you need is $95 to lock you in. The only payments that will be accepted will be CHECK, DEBIT CARD, or CREDIT CARD. PLEASE NO CASH! Hope to see you all there!

Global Contacts During the Late Classical Period: Beware of the Nomads!

Well ladies and gentlemen, happy Saturday! The season 1 finale is behind us already, and I hope you all enjoyed it. If I promise disaster, you better believe it's coming! I for one am exhausted, those finales take a lot out of me, but of course I enjoyed every minute of it. A surprise ending for you all? Yes, in the season premiere the settled societies struck first, but the nomads strike back and bring it all to an end for the finale! Folks, the reality of the situation is, no matter how much traditional world history teachers want to ignore it, that one of the most important developments in world history during the first millennium B.C.E. was the rise of the pastoral nomads in central Asia. From 300 B.C.E. onward, successive groups of horse riders dominated the wide swath of grasslands stretching from Mongolia in the east to the Ukraine in the west along the fiftieth degree of latitude. For nearly two millennia, the success or failure of rulers in China, India, Persia, and later Russia often depended on their ability to mobilize effective defenses against--or trade with--the nomadic horse riders.

The first of the great nomadic confederations or "states" in central Asia was created around 200 B.C.E. by the people known to the Chinese as the Xiongnu (or the Hsiung-nu, as it's spelled in the documents you will read. Remember, Chinese doesn't transliterate cleanly into English, hence the alternate spellings). The Hsiung-nu, whose home was the plains of present-day Inner Mongolia, were herders and hunters who occasionally engaged in trade with Chinese merchants. However, in times of hardship on the prairie the Hsiung-nu raided the silos of Chinese peasants to obtain supplies of newly harvested grain.

For the Hsiung-nu, the unification of China in 221 B.C.E. by Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi was an ominous development. Soon after establishing his rule, the First Emperor had walls built along the northern frontier of China. (Much later these separate walls were joined together to form the Great Wall). The Chinese walls were built to fence out the nomads and, equally important to the First Emperor, to fence in the potential Chinese allies of the nomads.

As the Chinese walls went up, the Hsiung-nu began to unite their traditionally conflict-prone neighbors on the grasslands into a formidable military force. For the next 250 years, until the Hsiung-nu confederation unraveled in the first century of the Common Era, the emperors of the Han dynasty were compelled to devote considerable attention to relations with the Hsiung-nu. Indeed, relations with the nomadic successors of the Hsiung-nu remained a major priority for Chinese emperors until after 1700 C.E.

Because the Hsiung-nu did not have a system of writing, and therefore left no records for historians to examine, our richest sources of documentary evidence about them come from the writings of ancient Chinese historians (hmm...). The document I would like you to read dealing with the rise of the Hsiung-nu comes from the work of the greatest of the early Chinese historians Ssu-ma Ch'ien (Sima Qian) [the Herodotus of China]. A table of Chinese "gifts" of silk to the Hsiung-nu, which comes from a book by a present-day historian, follows the excerpts from Sima Qian. Please click on the following link (Records of the Grand Historian of China) to read these documents.

Because the nomads indeed STOLE THE SHOW in the season 1 finale, we really need to have a discussion on these documents. Please folks, DO NOT SKIMP ON YOUR RESPONSES! Try to completely address my discussion questions as much as possible. How do these documents help us to understand the Hsiung-nu and their contacts with the Chinese? What are Sima Qian's most important points about the Hsiung-nu? What does he observe about the Hsiung-nu economy, their political system, their social classes, and their religion? According to Sima Qian, what seems to explain the rise of Mo-tun as the Hsiung-nu Shan-yü? How does the account of Mo-tun's rise to power add to our understanding of the culture and political institutions of the Hsiung-nu? What are the main points in the letters exchanged between Mo-tun and Emperor Wen. Do Mo-tun and Emperor Wen agree on the reasons for the conflict between the Hsiung-nu and the Chinese? What do the two letters reveal about the level of political thinking among the Hsiung-nu and the Chinese? Do you see elements of Confucian thinking in the letter from Emperor Wen? In the letter from Mo-tun? How do you explain this? What "gifts" do Emperor Wen and Mo-tun exchange? Does the exchange seem equal to you? What other terms besides "gift-giving" might be used to describe this exchange? What does the trend in Chinese silk sent to the Hsiung-nu, as indicated by the table, suggest about Chinese perceptions of the nomads? What does the same trend suggest about the importance of the silk industry in China? Hmm... did silk mean literal survival? Hmm... interesting. Why do you think Sima Qian devoted so much attention to the Hsiung-nu? How do you think he obtained information about the nomads? Why might we expect that a Chinese historian's account of the Hsiung-nu might be biased? Do you detect any bias in Sima Qian? Is it even possible to write "objective" history? Your thoughts? THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT AND RICH TEXT AT THE END OF SEASON 1. PLEASE DO NOT AVOID READING AND POSTING ON THIS ONE. (1) THE DISCUSSION OF BIAS IS AN IMPORTANT WARM-UP FOR YOUR NEXT ESSAY NEXT WEEK, (2) THESE DOCUMENTS ARE FULL OF FORESHADOWING FOR SEASON 2, (3) IT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA TO INCLUDE SOME OF THESE THOUGHTS IN OUR INNER/OUTER CIRCLE DISCUSSION ON MONDAY AS HALF OF THE CLASS WILL ALSO BE READING THIS DOCUMENT FOR OUR DISCUSSION. Now, your thoughts...

[I'm off for the High Museum to enjoy some Persian language film! If you were also planning on attending tonight's screening, I'll see you down there. Otherwise, see you Monday!]

Monday's Inner/Outer Circle: Why Do Societies Collapse?

Ok ladies and gentlemen, if you noted the calender adjustment, you know that there is an inner/outer circle discussion scheduled for Monday. The theme is: Why Do Societies Collapse? The rules of the activity remain the same. Remember, ten questions will be needed when you come in, complete with your answers. Also remember that only two of those questions can be basic knowledge questions, the rest must be higher level thinking questions. Because the documents are lengnthy enough, you only need to read one, and come up with 10 questions for that one document.

If your last name begins with A-M, please click on the following link (Records of the Grand Historian of China), and be prepared to discuss this document written by Sima Qian around the turn of the first century B.C.E. on Monday. [THIS IS A CHANGE! THE OTHER ARTICLE I PUT UP WAS A MISTAKE! I HOPE YOU GOT THIS CHANGE ON TIME].

If your last name begins with N-Z, please click on the following link (General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West) and be prepared to discuss this document written by Edward Gibbon between 1776 and 1788 on Monday.

My suggestion would be to print these documents out and bring them to class with you on Monday. Cheers!

Global Contacts During the Late Classical Period: Precious Commodities and Cultural Interchange

Ladies and gents, happy season 1 finale eve! That being said, let me inform you quickly of a change to the schedule. Tomorrow will be the season 1 finale, therefore, no inner/outer circle discussion. This instead will be held on Monday. No reading for a reading quiz on Monday then, just be prepared for the inner/outer circle discussion. Now, as we begin to bring season 1 to a close, disaster looms in the distance. Before the complete collapse of the system, though, our attention is focused in on the intergration of the Eurasian world into the Old World Web. The key to the end of this time period is INTEGRATION THROUGH TRADE. During the Han dynasty (206 B.C.E.-220 C.E.), Chinese emperors began to send large amounts of silk--for both diplomatic and commercial reasons--to the nomads of central Asia. Within a short time, some of this silk found its way, by means of a type of relay trade, to the overland trade routes running west to Rome. Historians refer to these routes collectively as the Silk Road. By 100 C.E. the land routes linking China to Rome also had a maritime counterpart. Seaborne commerce flourished between Rome and India via the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. Farther east, shipping routes connected Indian ports with harbors in Southeast Asia and on the coast of China.

A great Afro-Eurasian commercial network had now come into being. Silk from China (the only country which produced it until after 500 C.E.), pepper and jewels from India, and incense from Arabia were sent to the Mediterranean region on well-traveled routes which terminated in Roman ports such as Alexandria, Tyre, and Ephesus. In exchange for these precious commodities, the Romans, although reluctantly, sent large amounts of silver, bronze, and gold eastward to destinations in Asia. Again though, this is not, and should not be the reason why we study trade so closely because since the long-distance trade of the classical period was mainly in luxuries rather than in articles of daily use, its overall economic impact was probably limited. Most present-day historians think that the Rome-India-China trade was significant primarily because of its role in promoting the spread of religions, styles of art, technologies, and epidemic diseases. That's the real point!

Sculptural styles that developed in many parts of Asia during the first millenium C.E. are an especially striking case of the process of cultural lending and borrowing. Many of the earliest Indian representations of the Buddha, dating from early in the Common Era, are sculptures that show the Buddha wearing a Greco-Roman style toga like the one in the picture above (WILD!!!). Moreover, present-day museums in Pakistan, India, central Asia, northern China, and Japan display numerous examples of other types of sculpture dating from the first millennium which clearly show the influence of Greco-Roman models. It is this kind of evidence that has led scholars to conclude that the significance of the Silk Road was not economic but rather primary cultural (and biological if we take into account the spread of diseases along the trade routes).

In various ways, the passages that I would like you to read now illustrate the existence of East-West contacts during the early centuries of the Common Era. Two characteristics of the documents should be kept in mind as you read them though. The excerpts are fragmentary because, so far as historians know, there is no single narrative of a journey from Rome to China or vice versa from the classical period. In addition, the readings are heavily weighted toward the Roman end of the trade network because documentation from Asian sources is either nonexistent or extremely fragmentary. In order to read these documents please click on the following link (Eurasian Trade Documents).

Please think about and discuss the following when you have finished reading: How do we know that the Romans wore silk? How did the Romans obtain this fabric according the the first document? What evidence is there in the passages by Strabo and Pliny the Elder that Indians were traveling to Rome and Romans were traveling to India? What were the reasons for these journeys? What evidence is there in the passages from Pliny to suggest that the Romans placed a high value on incense? How does Pliny's description of the trade in incense help to explain its high cost? How was incense used by the Romans? I would like you to also compare Pliny's report on incense with his report on pepper. Does pepper even grow on trees? How do you explain this confusion with Pliny? What were Pliny's likely sources of information about the cultivation of incense and pepper? When Fa-hsien decided to return to China, how did he travel? What does his mode of travel (and the difficulties that he encountered during his journey) suggest about trade between India and China? To what extent does Fa-hsien seem to subscribe to the Four Noble Truths? Finally, and this is a biggie, what evidence do you see in these documents of connections between trade and religion (this is a big topic in season 2)? Your thoughts...

A Closer Look at Christianity in the Roman World

Ok, so we've reached the point in the year where we have introduced the final major belief system to emerge during season 1--Christianity. Only one more major belief system to emerge (Islam), and that will be in season 2. At any rate, now that we have brought Christianity into the mix, let's take a closer look into how it was generally received in its birthplace, the Roman Empire. In reality, Roman authorities were generally tolerant of the diverse deities and religious practices of the empire's subjects and tried to foster loyalty to the empire by merging these gods and goddesses into the Roman pantheon. Normally, all that Romans required was that the various cults and their devotees not threaten public order or morality and that each religion help guarantee the gods' continued favor toward the state. However, as far as many Romans were concerned, Christianity WAS a threat to the state and civil order because of its uncompromising monotheism and its followers' extreme sense of exclusivity. Although Jews shared those characteristics, Judaism enjoyed the status of being the legally recognized religion of one of Rome's subject people. Once Christianity separated itself from the Jewish synagogues, it lost whatever protection it had enjoyed by reason of its Judaic heritage.

Although we possess no official state pronouncement concerning Christianity before the second century CE, it appears that the first imperial persecution of Christians took place in Rome under Emperor Nero around the year 64. Under Nero, following a massive fire that devastated the city, Christians became targets of attack, because they were "hated for their abominations." Because of these "abominations," Christianity became a prohibited cult, and adherence to it was technically a capital offense. Along with the occasional flare-ups of persecution came writings in defense of the Christian belief system. One such writing I would like you to read is by Tertullian. He was the first great Christian writer to use Latin, rather than Greek, as his chosen means of communication. His passionate, quotable, and sarcastic writings in defense of his own rigorous vision of Christianity played a major role in forming a Western, or Latin, Christian culture. Born the pagan son of an army centurion, Tertullian initially enjoyed a brilliant career as a legal advocate and jurist. Around the year 195, he converted to Christianity and soon thereafter embarked on a new career as one of Christianity's strongest advocates. Only around two years after his conversion (197 CE), he composed one of his most famous works, the Apologia. The word means "defense," and in this work Tertullian, the lawyer turned Christian apologist, defended Christian practices and beliefs before the court of public opinion. Addressed to the empire's governors, the Apologia develops the argument that persecution of Christians is inconsistent with the principles of Roman law, morality, and reason. It is a stunning document, and I would like you to read excerpts from it by clicking on the following link (Apologia).

After you have read the document, I'd like for you to think about and discuss a few things: What were some of the heinous crimes Christians were accused of? Why do you think these particular charges were leveled against them? What does Tertullian think of the legality, internal inconsistency, and justice of Emperor Trajan's policy regarding Christians? What specific points does he make in his analysis of the policy? According to Tertullian, why are Christians hated, and how rationally based is that hatred? In your opinion, who would a reasonable, moderate pagan (non-Christian Roman) answer Tertullian's points? Your thoughts...

Principles of Roman Political Virtue

Well folks, we are getting very close to the end of an entire system of things. As the center of power shifts in the Mediterranean world toward Rome, we edge closer to the end- the season 1 finale (Friday folks!). There is no doubt that the Roman Republic and early Empire produced many vigorous statesmen, including leaders of the famous Senate, and many discussions of basic political principles. Although some leaders seized power by military force or by manipulating support, others were selected because they seemed to exemplify sound political virtues. Unlike Athenians, who in their democratic period chose many officials by lot, most Roman republican leaders were elected by the Senate or the popular assembly, and this prompted frequent discussions of what qualities a good statesman should possess. Correspondingly, when political life in the Republic became more contentious and unstable, ultimately giving way to the formation of the Empire, and again later when the Empire itself began to function badly, many observers blamed a deterioration of leadership quality rather than any larger problems.

The passage that I would like you to read was written by a Greek politician and writer, Plutarch (whom you've read already hopefully) during the early stages of the Empire (specifically during the early part of the pax romana period) when republican values continued to be widely touted even though institutions were changing. Entitled Precepts of Statecraft, this document was designed to relate examples of success and failure for the training of a Greek aristocrat, Menemachus. Plutarch belonged to a wealthy family in the Greek city of Chaerona. He was fascinated with Roman political affairs, because the Romans had ruled his region for some time. He compiled a host of biographies of Roman emperors and other political figures, advised the emperor Trajan, and ultimately became both a citizen of Rome and an ambassador. Plutarch's method, using historical example to illustrate and deriving basic lessons in political behavior, included abundant references to past figures such as Pericles (whom Plutarch admired) or the popular but ultimately assassinated Roman reformers, the Gracchus brothers (whom Plutarch judged unwise for disrupting the late Republic).

Plutarch's summary of Mediterranean political values at the height of the Roman period obviously deserves comparison with earlier statements from leaders of Greek city-states and with political philosophers in other classical civilizations, such as Confucius. Please click on the following link (Precepts of Statecraft) to read excerpts from Plutarch's Precepts of Statecraft.

Once you have read the passage, I would like for you to think about and discuss the following: What are the main qualities a good leader should aspire to, according to Plutarch? What are the main functions of a good leader and a good state? Why would Plutarch have been so attracted to Roman--which was, to him, foreign--rule, in your opinion? Why was Plutarch relatively uninterested in the specific structure of a state? In your opinion, was this a potential weakness in his political approach? How do his principles for leadership compare with those earlier implied by Pericles? What would Plutarch have thought of attempts to form a democracy? What are the similarities and differences between Plutarch's concept of leadership and that of Confucius? Which approach was most useful for forming an effective bureaucracy? Finally, how do Plutarch's political principles and his goals for the state compare with more modern formations?

Also folks, I've been thinking (I know, dangerous!), as I look at the Roman Empire that will come into being during the reign of Caesar Augustus, I can't help but notice some clear similarites between the Roman Empire and the Han Empire in China (both of which existed around the same time). The two empires were arguably the most powerful and influential states in their respective parts of the world. Both states, in different ways, instilled tremendous loyalty in their subjects. Neither state was inspired by a passionate religious fervor. Both empires made use of philosophical foundations. What lessons could the modern state planner learn from the Chinese and Romans in your opinion? Also, I can't help but continue comparing Rome to the United States. Was the Pax Romana different from the Pax Americana in your opinion? As you saw in Plutarch's document, and as you will see in American documents later, both the Romans and the early Americans placed tremendous emphasis on the question of character. What were the foundations of these different definitions of character? What did they have in common? Interestingly, during the empire the Romans eventually began to fear that they had strayed from their simple values. Plutarch’s examination of Marcus Cato, in his Lives, displays a romantic longing for a perceived simpler and purer time. Did the Roman character change? Is this happening, or has this already happened, in the United States? Has the American character changed? Is character key to a successful state? Your thoughts... (I know this was a long post, but so much to think about here)...

Coming to a Museum Near You...

Ladies and gents, I just want to give you a heads up on an event coming to the High Museum in Midtown muy pronto! I have heard a few people talk about this already, so lets just get it out there. MY SON IS COMING TO VISIT ME IN ATLANTA! Yes folks you heard correctly, the High will have a new exhibit coming on November 16th focusing on my boy, Qin Shihuangdi, China's First Emperor. If you want to see more info on this upcoming exhibit, click on the following link (China's First Emperor). Hope you all can make it! It would be great to fill the High with our students that first weekend. By the way, the High is one of the best things Atlanta has to offer. As a student, you can actually be a member for $35, and then you can go in and out all the time. Something to think about...

A Look Mediterranean Social and Family Structure Through Aristotle

Well folks, we've looked carefully at social and gender relations in China and India recently, but I'm an equal opportunity critic (as we all should be) so now it's time to shift our attention to the Mediterranean region. Surprisingly to many, Aristotle's writings give some of the best insights into Greek and later Roman society. In the documents that I would like you to read, Aristotle describes some widely accepted Greek principles of social organization that also came to be current in Rome. He is obviously intent on justifying a social hierarchy, so while reading, ask yourself: How does he divide functions of society? Why does he prefer that manual labor (at least in agriculture) be done by slaves? The idea of hierarchy for Aristotle also extends to the family, with clear divisions between men and women. Now that we've been across Eurasia, were these ideas unusual in classical civilizations? Does Aristotle's definition of the purposes of family organization differ from those in China and India? Of course, social definitions existed in all the classical civilizations. As you're reading his words, also ask yourself how the kinds of divisions Aristotle describes are comparable to social structures elsewhere in the classical world (for example, India's caste system). As you will also see in the following documents, Aristotle was a strong defender of most Athenian political principles, including a degree of democracy as the Athenians defined it. As you are reading his political thoughts, ask yourself: How do his arguments for social and family hierarchy relate to Greek politics?

First, I would like you to read a selection from Aristotle's The Politics by clicking on the following link (The Politics) [you only have to read pages 419-420].

Second, I would like you to read a selection from Aristotle's Economics by clicking on the following link (Economics) [you only have to read page 1, section 3 - page 4, section 5].

After reading both documents, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: Why does Aristotle find slavery necessary? How does the discussion of slavery or the use of foreigners mesh with Athenian political values? Would Aristotle and Pericles have argued about these issues in your opinion? Are Aristotle's gender values patriarchal? How do they compare with the gender system of Sparta, described earlier by Lycurgus? How do Greek gender values compare with those of classical India and China? Were they more or less severe in your opinion? How do Aristotle's view on social inequality compare with Confucian and Hindu views? What are the key similarities? How do all these social theories compare with characteristic modern discussions on the reasons and justifications for social inequality? Your thoughts...

Experience Persian Language Film Now!

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm glad that you many of you have responded positively to what you have learned regarding the Persians so far. Believe me, we'll be discussing Persia and modern Iran quite a bit this year. I believe in all of my classes I at least mentioned that Iranian film is some of the most exciting film being created currently. Directors like Abbas Kiarostami, Jafar Panahi, and Majid Majidi have been some of the most creative brains in modern cinema, in terms of the originality of their stories and the beauty of their craft. By opening up your mind to Iranian film, you will be opening up yourself to a whole new world. I highly recommend you check out masterpieces like Taste of Cherry, The Wind Will Carry Us, Children of Heaven, or even the recent Offside, with it's theme of the role of women in a male dominated modern Iran through looking at football (soccer) events in that country. All of these films can be rented off of Netflix or Blockbuster Online. However, in addition to that, I would like to make you all aware of an exciting film series going on currently at the High Museum in Midtown. This month, the series Iranian Film Today is featuring some of the most exciting and challenging films to come out of Iran in recent months. Almost every Friday and Saturday night this month an Iranian film will be screened, and students will be admitted for only $6 with your student ID. To read more about this series click on the following link (Iranian Film Today). I hope those of you that are interested are able to make it to at least one film this month. I plan on going to next Saturday's screening. An easy and more environmentally friendly way of getting there would be to drive down to the Doraville MARTA station and ride the train to Arts Center Station. The museum will be right there when you exit the station. Again, I hope some of you can make it and enjoy a night on the town.

Comparing Greek Political Traditions

¡Hola mi gente! I hope everyone is having a good weekend so far. Our discussion of the classical period will continue throughout all of next week, and as with all the classical civilizations, the culture that developed along Europe's Mediterranean shores produced important political institutions and principles. The key political form, in Greece and later in republican Rome, was the city-state. Within its bounds, the portion of the population with political rights was supposed to participate actively in the affairs of state, to which it owed loyalty and service. Within this context, however, a variety of political structures arose. Some evolved toward democracy (though with many residents excluded from rights, i.e. women, slaves, and foreigners). In this, Athens led the way, providing not only participant assemblies but also considerable support for individual freedom and legal rights. Other Greek city-states, however, stressed the power of government. Sparta, which would finally clash with Athens in the Peloponnesian War, set up a rigid militaristic regime designed to transform each male or female citizen into an absolute servant of the government. When Athens and Sparta warred at the end of the fifth century B.C.E., the conflict involved not only power, but also two clashing views of political life.

The Spartan system, described in the writings of Plutarch, was set up by the lawmaker Lycurgus after 650 B.C.E., in large part to keep a vast slave (helot) population under control. I would like you to read some excerpts of the writings of Plutarch, specifically excerpts from his biography of Lycurgus, by clicking on the following link (Lycurgus by Plutarch).

In contrast to the Spartan system, the Athenian ideal was articulated by its great leader Pericles during the fifth century B.C.E., the early stages of the Peloponnesian War, as part of a famous funeral oration that appears in the history by Thucydides. Please click on the following link (Pericles' Funeral Oration) to read this funeral oration.

The two selections no doubt allow a clear comparison between the ideas of the two city-states. It is important to realize that most articulate Greeks (including both Thucydides and Plutarch) preferred Spartan values. Why might this be so in your opinion? Are there any shared features beneath the obvious contrasts of Athens and Sparta? What resulted, in classical Greece itself and in the later Greek heritage, from such sharply differentiated systems within a common culture? Also, after reading the two documents, I would like you all to think about, and discuss, the following: What was the nature of family regulation in Sparta? What were the reasons for it? How does Pericles define the nature and purpose of the Athenian state? What were the differences between Athenian and Spartan systems of military recruitment and motivation for service? Were there any similarities between Spartan and Athenian values and goals. Were Sparta and Athens forerunners of contemporary government systems, or would this be a misleading assessment? Does Pericles remind you of any modern day politicians? For my money, every time I read his funeral oration, it just seems so modern to me. What do you think? Does Sparta remind you of any 20th century governments? Finally, how do Athenian political principles compare with Confucian ideals and goals? Why was Confucianism ultimately more successful? Your thoughts...

The Persians: Heroes or Villains?

The answer to the above question really depends on who you ask. When you think about what you know about the Persians, perhaps the word toleration doesn't come to mind. The reality, though, is that the major signature of the Persian Empire under the Achaemenids was just that-- TOLERANCE. In fact, the idea of tolerance was the main part of the ruling philosophy of Persian kings Cyrus and Darius. Unfortunately, for far too long, historians have struggled with a negative view of the Persians left over from the European and American fascination with the Greeks. In this light, events such as the Persian Wars took on the form of epic battles between the “good” Greeks and the “evil” Persians without any sense that in many ways the Persians were far more tolerant and enlightened rulers than the Greeks. In fact, even recently, with the Hollywood film 300, a film that is unapologetically bad in every way imaginable, a film that is just one in a long line of misguided, inaccurate Hollywood filth in which calling it a disgusting piece of trash would be putting it lightly, the Persians are portrayed as villainous, faceless creatures while the Greeks are treated as noble heroes. In reality, the Greek's habit of equating foreigners with barbarians stands in stark contrast to the cosmopolitan, tolerant nature of the Persians. This is not to say, of course, that the world would be a better place if the Persians had won the Persian Wars (far too much of later history is dependent on Greek contributions), but it’s important to create and maintain a more balanced view of world history. So the big question then is, whose history are we really learning? The point of view of the writer of the history will greatly influence what you take as fact, for better or for worse. This is why looking at DIVERSE INTERPRETATIONS of history is so necessary. Really, a look at the Persians through different points of view is an excellent example of why history is not merely a collection of facts to be memorized. The question of historical influences is an important thing to discuss at this point in the course therefore. Passages from Herodotus' Histories are important passages to explore when it comes to understanding the Persians from a western point of view. Herodotus has often been described as the "father of Western history writing," but he has also been described as "the father of lies." The focus of most of Herodotus' Histories was on Greece's recent Persian Wars. Herodotus feared the Persians, but somewhere deep inside he must have admired them when one considers his seeming obsession with them. I would like for you to read an example of Herodotus' description of the Persians by reading his description of Persian emperor Cambyses by clicking on the following link (Herodotus' Histories) [you only have to read sections 37-38 on pages 185-186]. How does Herodotus portray the Persians in this passage? Could his background perhaps have something to do with this?

Alternatively, the Jewish community in Persia generally held the Persians in high regard. After all, it was the Persians that freed the Jews from a several decade long captivity in Babylon. It was also the Persians that made it possible for the Jews to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem that had been previously destroyed by the Babylonians. In fact, in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament) of the Bible, the Persians are portrayed as saviors, as heroes if you will. For example, in the book of Isaiah, please click on the following link (Isaiah 44:28-45:1) to read how Persian king Cyrus is described. How was this different from the Greek view of the Persians? Additionally, it is Cyrus himself that his given the credit in Jewish history for commissioning the rebuilding of the temple. In the Bible book of Ezra this is mentioned several times. Please click on the following link (Ezra 1:1-8) to read evidence of this.


Is it any wonder then, that the Jewish community praised the Persians, while the Greeks, who were literally at war against Persia for around 150 years, villainized them? So the question must be asked then: How do we know the things we know about history? What role have historians played in creating the current worldview? Notice how opinions of the same exact societies can sometimes be diametrically opposed. Are historical interpretations really just subjective? Can history in fact CHANGE? Does it really matter whose history we read??? Your thoughts...

A New Russian World Order?

I know this has little to do with what we are talking about right now in class, but we have from time to time addressed the evolving of Russia, especially in regards to the situation with Georgia. Some have feared the possibility of a Cold War II, while others fear a return to the Imperial Russia of the 19th century. Judging from this latest report from Russian President Medvedev, Russia seems to be returning to it's old roots. In this report, he outlines 5 major goals of the Russian Federation that definitely deserves taking a look at. You can read the article that dropped on the BBC on this by clicking here. This will definitely be a conversation we'll continue to have throughout the year as we watch Russia (another one of my passions) emerge and develop. Feel free to chime in if you feel like chatting about current foreign policy issues...

Making History One Day at a Time...

Well AP World scholars, I hope you all enjoyed a truly historic week last week. On Thursday evening, Barack Obama became the first African-American to accept a presidential nomination from a major political party in American history. On Friday morning, Sarah Palin became the first woman to become a vice presidential running mate in the Republican party. In addition to that, Thursday evening, for the first time in NGHS AP World history, we had a study session (and a very productive one at that) in the blog-o-sphere. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, these are truly exciting and historic times! As you all know, the first unit test for us is scheduled for Wednesday, so I hope to have yet another online study session for that as well. Log in at your convenience, ask questions, I'll answer them, and read and see the answers to the questions of others. All of you should have a study guide that you picked up on Friday after your essay. If you forgot to pick one up, you can click here to download it. My suggestion is to work on it this long weekend and come in on Tuesday with questions, and of course this blog is now open for any questions you may have now as well. Again, please post any questions you have to the blog and I will reply so that everyone can benefit. Remember, if you have a question, chances are half the class has the same question you do, so don't feel shy about asking. This blog worked fabulously in helping you all prepare for your essay on Friday, so let's keep this going. Also folks, for your surfing enjoyment, I have also included some new links to websites of global interest on the side for you to check out. Please ladies and gentlemen, make sure you are keeping up with the news. On a national level, keep an eye on the Republican National Convention this week, and really the campaigns of both parties as we inch closer to what promises to be a historic November 2008, one that your children will be studying in their history classes (that's a guarantee!). Also, keep an eye on Hurricane Gustav as at prepares to menace the gulf coast and as the people of New Orleans flee their city yet again (just a week after the 3rd anniversary of Katrina). Also, on a global level, this drama with Russia and the aftermath of its invasion of Georgia, with strong words coming from the British this weekend, so continue to follow that too as history continues to unfold in that region of the world as well. Finally, if you are wondering about progress reports and your grade in the class, I'll send those home on Tuesday as I am working on completing the grading of your summer movie assignments and Human Web exams to give you the most accurate grade possible. If you're waiting on my mass email with more info on the China or Peru trips, you'll have to wait until Tuesday because I forgot all your email addresses that you submitted to me on my desk. Well, enjoy the rest of this long weekend, study well, and see you all Tuesday! Now, your questions [EDIT: I WILL BE AWAY FROM MY COMPUTER FROM 7PM TO 10PM TODAY (TUESDAY), HOWEVER, I WILL KEEP THE BLOG OPEN AND TAKE THE MODERATOR DOWN SO YOU CAN ASK EACH OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE I'M NOT AROUND. JUST BE RESPONSIBLE ABOUT NOT PUTTING ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY INAPPROPRIATE UP]...

How Lisa Simpson Writes an Essay

A collegue of mine passed this on this to me, and I thought it would be a fantastic way to sort of model the THOUGHT PROCESS of writing a historical essay. No, you're not writing about ancient Egypt tomorrow, but I would like you to read how Lisa Simpson thinks about what she is going to write tomorrow after receiving the assignment (like you guys will be doing tonight). I especially like the way Lisa is thinking about the EXAMPLES she will be using. Anytime she thinks of something very typical and formulaic she always thinks about how she can bring some extra analysis and originality to her essay. Also, notice how Lisa is constantly thinking about how she can go above and beyond the bare minimum requirements (remember Randy Jackson on American Idol folks-- "I'm looking for the yo, I'm looking for the wow dog!"). Just so you know, any time Lisa mentions Duiker she is referring to her textbook, that's the author. In your case, you're probably looking at Bentley a little bit tonight (that's the author of your book. Just for the record college students always refer to their textbooks by the name of the author). Also, Lisa several times says that she is going to look back at her "reader" for historical evidence. In college, most history classes require that you buy not only a textbook, but also a reader (in some classes the reader is your ONLY text). The reader is a book with nothing but primary documents and brief explanations. In your case, you do not have a reader per se, but notice all the primary documents I have been feeding you on this blog. It may be wise to be printing these out and putting them in your notebook for quick reference. Lisa Simpson seems to understand very well that her essay will be much more powerful and effective if she is including historical evidence from primary documents she's read. It may be a good idea tonight to review all of the documents i've posted regarding China and India so far, and people's comments on them to help you plan your essay for tomorrow. At any rate, I've talked enough here, so enjoy reading Lisa' thought process, I think you will find it helpful in helping you plan your essay for tomorrow. Feel free to talk about it on here and brainstorm ideas on the blog amongst yourselves. Remember there's no competition between each other in this class. We're all in this together. We all meet together on this blog to help each other and stregnthen each other's skills and understanding. We are not a me first class, we're all about WE FIRST here! All the best on your essay tomorrow (remember, we're comparing SOCIAL [that includes women!] and POLITICAL issues in classical China and India [SEVENTH PERIOD I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TELL YOU BECAUSE OF THE FIRE DRILL BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS). Enjoy reading by clicking this link ---> Lisa Simpson Studies for Her World Civilizations Exam.

Another Look at Gender Relations: India

Ok, ladies and gentleman, as our first major task of the year, your comparison essay between Classical China and India, draws ever closer (remember: Friday) let's continue drawing those comparisons between the two societies. If you have noticed, I have given you plenty of ammo both in class and on this blog to help you out with these comparisons. In fact folks, primary document sources are your best ammo when it comes to historical writing (what do you think Dr. Bentley largely relied on to write his textbook?). Notice that in my last several posts, not only have I provided you with primary document information, but after reading each document I'm trying to get you to compare what you read from India to what you have already read in China. Citing such comparisons in your upcoming essay would make for a powerful piece of writing! Remember, we're not just learning history here, we're learning how to be historians. Alright then, here is one last comparison that I'm going to throw out there for you all through looking at primary documents (and it's a fun one!)-- women's status in society. I would like you to look at 3 different documents suggest that the principle of female subordination had truly become a central element in South Asian life during the Classical Period.

First, I would like you to examine a few songs from the Therigatha, a collection of more than 500 songs originally composed by Buddhist nuns who were contemporaries of the Buddha. Scholars think that the songs in the Therigatha were first put into writing in the first century B.C.E. Please click on the following link (the Therigatha) to look at some excerpts from this text (you only have to read pgs. 68-70. it's very short!).

Second, I would like for you to consider some of the Laws of Manu, an influential philosophical-legal treatise dating from the beginning of the Common Era. The anonymous authors of the Laws of Manu were brahmins whose purpose in writing the book was, in part, to outline prescribed modes of behavior. Please read some excerpts by clicking on the following link (Laws of Manu) that focus on gender relations.

Finally, I would like you to take a second look at the Mahabharata, the classic Indian epic (you already saw a portion of it when you looked at the Bhagavad Gita), which was transformed from oral tradition into writing during the late first millennium B.C.E. (so likely some time before the first two passages that you read). The portion I would like you to read is called "Savatri and the God of Death," one of the most popular episodes in the Mahabharata. Please click on the following link (Savatri and the God of Death) to read it. You only have to read pages 28-33 (again it's short, one page is just a picture).

Cool, so after you have read these, I would like you to consider the following: What were some of the main themes in the songs by the Buddhist nuns? How do the songs illustrate points in the Four Noble Truths? What clues to the character of gender relations do you see in the songs? How do the Laws of Manu define womanhood and manhood? What is your reaction to the laws you read? Do you think that the fact the laws were outlined by bhramins has any effect on the content of the laws? How do men and women relate to one another in the story of Savatri? How does Savatri relate to Yama, the "lord of death?" Are Savatri's actions consistent with the Laws of Manu? Based on your reading of the documents in this chapter, what generalizations, however tentative, seem reasonable regarding gender relations in India during the Classical period? Compare the Laws of Manu with Hammurabi's Code (you have to reach back a couple of weeks for this). What similarities and differences do you detect? After reading these documents and after having read Pan Chao's Lessons for Women what comparisons and contrasts can we draw between women's status in China and women's status in India??? Your thoughts...

Understanding State, Society, and the Economy of Classical India Through The Arthashastra

Ok folks, so far this week we have been discussing some clear social and religious differences between India and China, and I have enjoyed our discussions regarding those difference with you all. Keep the questions coming! I love it! However, now that we are beginning to look at more political issues, there are some very clear similarities that are beginning to emerge. Just like the Qin dynasty, the first to unify China, the Maurya dyansty will be the first to unify most of India. Interestingly, they follow very similar paths as a result. What are some of the characteristics that Qin Shihuangdi and Chandragupta Maurya have in common? Are such characteristics regarding force necessary for initial unification? Also, I find it very interesting that we see trends in turning away from violence slightly in both societies. Just like the Qin paved the way for a more tolerant (not completely, but more so) Han dynasty, Chandragupta Maurya essentially seems to have paved the way for a more tolerant kingdom under his grandson Ashoka. Hmm... interesting. My question is this: Does violence pave the way for tolerance in the course of political development? What do you think??? It's also during this time period that we see societies become extraordinarily creative in the development of political thinking. In China the Confucians and the Legalists formulated the ideas that haved shaped political thinking in East Asia for the past 2000 years. In Greece--where the term "politics" was invented in the first place--Plato, Aristotle, and other thinkers developed ideas of lasting importance for Europeans and for people in other parts of the world. Innovative thinking about political issues was also part of the process that led to the establishment of the Maurya Empire in India. During the reign of Emperor Chandragupta Maurya a major work of political thinking, the Arthashastra (literally "treatise on material gain) was written in India. Essentially a series of policy recommendations, the Arthashastra has been traditionally attributed to Kautilya, Chandragupta's key advisor. By reading this work we can learn much about political thinking and political circumstances in India during the late first millennium B.C.E. In additon, the Arthashastra contains a great deal of valuable information about economic and social realities in India. Please read the following excerpts from the following link (The Arthashastra), and then I would like for you to consider a few things. First of all, according to the Arthashastra, what policies should a ruler adopt in order to be succssful? What does the advice to employ spies and to devote considerable attention to personal security suggest about political conditions in India during the Mauryan dynasty? What do you learn from these passages about the Indian economy? According to the Arthashastra, what should be the foreign policy (in other words, the relationship between one country and its neighbors) goals of a ruler, and what steps should be taken to realize those goals? How might the attempts by Indian political leaders to establish strong and enduring states have been assisted or held back by the values represented by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (a previous post)? How do the golas suggested in the Arthashastra compare with those in Buddhism? How does the Arthashastra compare with Chinese Legalism? Did the Indian ideas and Chinese ideas emerge in a similar context? Finally, why do you personally feel there was so much important political thinking during the Classical period in China, India, Persia, and Greece? Your thoughts please...

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...