Film Awards Season Kicks Off Today and Slumdog Millionaire Takes an Early Lead

Ladies and gentlemen you will soon find that I am a film nut. I am especially fascinated with the idea of film awards, and I always have been as long as I can remember. I remember the first Oscar ceremony I ever watched was in 1991 when Silence of the Lambs won best picture, and ever since then I was intrigued by what constituted "best picture" and why awards giving bodies like the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the organization that awards the Oscar) prefer certain films over others. I truly believe that film is one of the most powerful art mediums. In so many ways, I look at film as looking into a mirror and seeing a reflection of our society at any given time. Take for example the popular films of this year, films like Wall-E, that is really in so many ways is an attack on mass consumerism, and to those that could care less about mankind's continuing destruction of our beautiful earthly home, it indeed is a stern warning. I also think of what was probably the most popular year so far, The Dark Knight, perhaps the darkest film yet from the bat franchise. It is a film that is a call for justice in dark and uncertain times and that explores conflicting emotions inside us all. Awards, especially the Oscars, in my opinion, really give the viewer a look into what the public psyche is at any given time. As you observe the films that are nominated for awards and that win awards, it gives you a sense of what concerns society and what society values at that particular point in history. Take for example the films of the 1940s that took home the big prize, especially during the early-40s, films like Casablanca, Mrs. Miniver, and The Best Years of Our Lives. All of these films were dark indeed, really capturing the feeling of the World War II era in America and around the world. At any rate, this year looks like it will be offering up challenging and thought provoking films down to the very final week of the year. Awards season actually officially kicks off when the National Board of Review announces their winners, and that day is today. This year's winner, and now front runner, is Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire. This is a film that I have actually been anticipating for a while, and I am very happy to see the enthusiastic reviews it has already been getting. The following is Fox Searchlight's summary of what the film is about, for those of you that are hearing about it for the first time...

"The story of Jamal Malik (Patel), an 18 year-old orphan from the slums of Mumbai, who is about to experience the biggest day of his life. With the whole nation watching, he is just one question away from winning a staggering 20 million rupees on India's "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" But when the show breaks for the night, police arrest him on suspicion of cheating; how could a street kid know so much? Desperate to prove his innocence, Jamal tells the story of his life in the slum where he and his brother grew up, of their adventures together on the road, of vicious encounters with local gangs, and of Latika (Pinto), the girl he loved and lost. Each chapter of his story reveals the key to the answer to one of the game show's questions. Each chapter of Jamal's increasingly layered story reveals where he learned the answers to the show's seemingly impossible quizzes. But one question remains a mystery: what is this young man with no apparent desire for riches really doing on the game show? When the new day dawns and Jamal returns to answer the final question, the Inspector and sixty million viewers are about to find out. At the heart of its exuberant storytelling lies the intriguing question of how anyone comes to know the things they know about life and love."

Ladies and gentlemen, the story sounds like one for the ages, and I'm so excited to see a non-Bollywood, serious, thoughtful film taking place in Mumbai, which incidentally is the scene of the latest heinous act of terrorism. The film actually opens in Midtown Atlanta tomorrow at the Tara. Along with Slumdog Millionaire, some other films that I am eagerly anticipating are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Doubt, and I would say that Frost/Nixon is my most anticipated film of the year because (1) Frank Langella is one of my favorite actors, and unfortunately so few people are familiar with his masterful work on-screen, and (2) I am ready to see any quality film that takes place during the Cold War era, and this one has been getting stunning reviews from those that have seen it pre-release. Below are the other winners from today's announcement...

• Best Film: SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

• Best Director: DAVID FINCHER, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

• Best Actor: CLINT EASTWOOD, Gran Torino

• Best Actress: ANNE HATHAWAY, Rachel Getting Married

• Best Supporting Actor: JOSH BROLIN, Milk

• Best Supporting Actress: PENELOPE CRUZ, Vicky Cristina Barcelona

• Best Foreign Language Film: MONGOL

• Best Documentary: MAN ON WIRE

• Best Animated Feature: WALL-E

• Best Ensemble Cast: DOUBT
• Breakthrough Performance by an Actor: DEV PATEL, Slumdog Millionaire

• Breakthrough Performance by an Actress: VIOLA DAVIS, Doubt

• Best Directorial Debut: COURTNEY HUNT, Frozen River

• Best Original Screenplay: NICK SCHENK, Gran Torino

• Best Adapted Screenplay: SIMON BEAUFOY, Slumdog Millionaire and ERIC ROTH, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

• Spotlight Award: MELISSA LEO, Frozen River and RICHARD JENKINS, The Visitor

• The BVLGARI Award for NBR Freedom of Expression: TRUMBO

• Top Ten Films (aside from the winner):(In alphabetical order)

BURN AFTER READING

CHANGELING

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON

THE DARK KNIGHT

DEFIANCE

FROST/NIXON

GRAN TORINO

MILK

WALL-E

THE WRESTLER

• Top Five Foreign Language Films :(In alphabetical order)

EDGE OF HEAVEN

LET THE RIGHT ONE IN

ROMAN DE GUERREA

SECRET

WALTZ WITH BASHIR

• Top Five Documentary Films(In alphabetical order)

AMERICAN TEEN

THE BETRAYAL (NERAKHOON)

DEAR ZACHARY

ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD

ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED

Top 10 Independent Films of 2008:(In alphabetical order)
FROZEN RIVER
IN BRUGES
IN SEARCH OF A MIDNIGHT KISS
MR. FOE
RACHEL GETTING MARRIED
SNOW ANGELS
SON OF RAMBOW
WENDY AND LUCY
VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA
THE VISITOR

Just for the record, I am very happy to see that the National Board of Review awarded Mongol Best Foreign Language Film, even if the Whappeys did not this year (meh!). Be sure that I will be following the awards race very closely on the blog through the Oscars, and I look forward to following it with all of you. Next up: Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards on Tuesday, December 9!

Versailles!

The picture to the left shows Louis XIV's grand 17th-century palace at Versailles. It displays the sheer opulence of this absolute monarchy, in what was Europe's richest and most populous and influential nation. It also shows the renewed hold of a classical style, seen to be most prestigious for public beatings. What else did it suggest?

Architecture is sometimes thought to be the most socially and historically revealing of all the arts because it depends most heavily on public support; it is harder for architects, particularly dealing with public buildings, to be as idiosyncratic as painters or poets may be.

You can click on the artist depiction of Versailles to make it larger. As you look at it closely, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What kinds of intentions on the part of Louis and his advisers does this building represent? How can Versailles be interpreted as a statement of absolute monarchy in addition to its obvious showiness? What are the relationships to nature and to spatial arrangement? What would the palace represent to an ordinary French person? To an aristocrat? Your thoughts...

New Tensions in the Western Political Tradition: Absolutism and Parliament

A leading historian-sociologist, Charles Tilly, has argued that one of the few great changes in early modern Western history was the strengthening of the state under national monarchs. Without question, many European governments in the 17th century completed tasks of seizing basic political powers from the feudal nobility, developing a strong bureaucracy, and expanding the functions of the central government. New or revived ideals of government power accompanied this shift. In the first document I would like you to read, Bishop Bossuet expounds the doctrine of a strong king--essential to keep order among unruly subjects, father to his people, owed respect and obedience by everyone. The result, Bossuet argued, would be far from arbitrary rule and would work to the greater benefit of the subjects--but there was no question about who was in command. Bossuet was writing in the period of Louis XIV, the model for the absolute monarch not only in France but across Europe.

Older ideals of limited government did not die, however. They revived in 17th-century England at the same time that France was constructing its new absolute monarchy. English civil war led to the execution of one king. In 1688, renewed unrest brought a strong statement of the rights of the parliament and of individual liberties, as King James II was forced to flee, replaced by Dutch ruler William of Orange. The so-called "Glorious Revolution" brought an unprecedented statement on the limits of royal power, as England moved from feudal practices toward parliamentary monarchy.

The diverse changes in the Western political tradition proved durable. Government functions expanded, though less in England than elsewhere until the 20th century. Even when kings were toppled, the state continued to wield new powers--as in revolutionary France after 1789. But the idea of limiting government through individual rights and controlling it through elected bodies remained an important Western emphasis, later copied in some other parts of the world. Some historians have argued that it was the flexibility of the Western political tradition, in contrast, say, to the purer Russian or Chinese emphasis on the state, that has fostered the development and, at times, the distinctive vigor of Western society.

The two documents I would like you to read (you can read both of them by clicking here) invite comparison. Were those who sought to limit the state in times of unrest--as in 17th century England--talking the same language, or did goals and methods shift? How did the constitutional parliamentary ideal differ from the absolutist standards of Bossuet? Has the West managed successfully to reconcile its two modern political traditions? After reading the two documents, I would also like you to consider and discuss the following: How does Bossuet define the powers of monarchy? How does he argue that these powers are essential? Why did this kind of monarchy become known as "absolute"? What were the key features of the parliamentary monarchy" established in principle in Great Britain during 1688 and 1689? What general rights were accorded to all Englishmen by the Bill of Rights? What freedoms were not granted at all? What were the key differences between absolute and parliamentary monarchies? What caused two such different patterns to emerge? In world history terms, which form of monarchy was more unusual? Your thoughts...

Protestantism and Women

The rise of Protestantism inevitably affected discussion of women's roles. By arguing against the special sanctity of celibacy and religious orders, Protestant leaders, beginning with Luther, focused new attention on marriage. At the same time, Protestantism also encouraged a belief in the capacity of individuals to nurture their own contacts with God and the Bible, without elaborate intermediate apparatus from church and priests. This belief might apply to women as well as men. In sum: New debate about women's roles emerged as part of religious ferment, and this extended well into the 17th century.

There were other factors involved. Throughout Western Europe, new arguments were developing about economic roles. The rise of commerce was accompanied by greater gender differentiations, and women who had once held positions in trade and craft manufacture were now often attacked. Women's labor remained essential, but their range of activities narrowed. At the same time, growing prosperity led to more complex household activities, such as more formal evening meals, in which women could take a lead role. Here was another situation in which complex trade-offs occurred.

The following documents that I would like you to read relate directly to the implications of Protestantism, coming from 16th and 17th century England. Protestantism generated ringing reassertions of male authority, derived among other things from close reading of parts of the Bible. But it also generated more radical sects that took quite a different view, and individual women built on this religious ferment to venture some political claims as well.

In recent decades, historians have paid increasing attention to the impact of Protestantism on the family and on women. They have come to realize that some important new issues were emerging, particularly in terms of the imagery and actual roles of women in the family.

The implications of this debate were varied. In many Protestant families, men assumed new moral authority, responsible among other things for guiding family Bible reading. But there was also new attention to the importance of happiness in marriage, which could lead to greater appreciation of women's roles at least domestically. The idea of some political claims, though it led to no immediate change, set the context for renewed discussion of political rights beginning in the late 18th century.

The first two documents that I would like you to read show the gender-conservative side of Protestantism, with a statement by the Scottish Calvinist leader, John Knox (you can read it by clicking here; the last paragraph of pg. 13 all the way through the end of the first paragraph on page 15), and a 17th century marriage text by a Protestant minister, William Gouge (you can read it by clicking here; just read part 5, pgs. 192-193). The more radical side is expressed by George Fox, an English Quaker leader (you can read it by clicking here, just read part CCXCI, pgs 39-41). Quakers argued that women could be priests, and organized women's meetings widely in 1671. The last document I'd like you to read shows how Protestantism could lead to political claims, as 17th century women asserted their rights to a voice before the English parliament in seeking the release of husbands who had been arrested for their participation in the Levelers, a radical religious/political group (you can read it by clicking here).

Once you have read the documents, I would like for you to think about and discuss the following: Why was there a tension in Protestantism over women's position and religious role? How did conservatives base their claims? How did radicals base theirs? What was the relationship between the "humble petition" to parliament and Protestant ideas? What kind of rights were the petitioners claiming, and were they revolutionary? What were the implications of this running debate over women's status? How might it affect relations between men and women in early modern England? How might Protestant leaders and ordinary Protestants work out some compromise between conservative and radical views about women? Were ideas about women and gender relations changing faster at this point in Western Europe than in other parts of the world? Why did Protestants promote a new debate about women and gender relations? Your thoughts...

The Protestant Reformation

In 1517, a German monk, Martin Luther, posted 95 theses, or propositions, on a church door in Wittenberg. These theses condemned many practices of the Catholic Church. Luther particularly objected to the Church's practice of selling indulgences, or spiritual credits, by which people might gain credit toward salvation in heaven. In Luther's eyes, this practice reflected a corrupt church, headed by a venal papacy, but also a totally mistaken belief that people could gain salvation by specific practices, rather than faith and divine predestination.

Luther's attacks were met by Catholic rejection, but Luther continued his efforts, appealing to many groups in Germany for a variety of reasons. Some sincerely agreed with Luther and thought he was pointing toward a true version of Christianity. Others also saw political or social advantages in a new religion. Because Luther and his followers were protesting Catholicism, they were soon called Protestants. A permanent split had opened in Western Christendom.

Lutheranism spread widely in Germany and also in Scandinavia. Other versions of Protestantism, which picked up Lutheran elements but added other doctrines, spread in parts of France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland, and from these centers spread to North America. Protestantism, and the Catholic response, which included some key reforms within the Church, proved vital in European history not only because of the religious division and ensuing wars, but also because of the role of religious change in spurring new developments in areas as diverse as the economy and family life.

Early in his reformist career, in 1520, Luther wrote (in German, rather than Latin) a "Letter to the German Nobility," which sought to rouse their support.

In it he explained many of his objections to Catholic practices and his growing opposition to the pope. He also implied the need for major changes in church government, in family life, in leisure, and in the economy that foreshadowed important developments in Protestant regions in the decades to come.

The document that I would like you to read is an important statement in the early Reformation, but also a challenge to analysis, in figuring out some of the wider implications of Protestantism. Luther's letter also explains some of the diverse appeals offered through this new religious movement. Finally, the letter offers insight into Luther's own motivation, in what proved to be a determined but very difficult personal crusade. You can click here to read excerpts from this letter, but look carefully first at what I need you to read: section 9 (pgs. 108-110), section 11 (just what is on pg. 111), pg. 114 paragraph 1-pg. 115 paragraph 1, the bottom half of pg. 119, the first paragraph of section 18 (pg. 127), the last paragraph of section 19 (pg. 129), the first two paragraphs of section 21 (pgs. 134-135), and the last paragraph of pg. 163 through the rest of pg. 164. Although this may seem like a lot, it's actually a fairly quick read.

When you have finished reading those excerpts, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: What are the main objections Luther had to Catholic practice? What kinds of change does Luther seek in the clergy, and why? What aspects of the existing church-state relationship does Luther attack? What kinds of church-state relations might follow from his views? Why does Luther attack pilgrimages? What are more appropriate duties of the good Christian in his opinion? What kinds of economic change does Luther imply? Would the spread of Protestantism affect the European economy? What kinds of changes in family life does Luther imply? What kinds of appeals does Luther offer, explicitly or implicitly, to the various groups in German society? What might motivate various groups to become Protestant? How does Luther relate to a sense of German identity? How would you interpret Luther's own motivation? What caused him to take on one of the most powerful institutions in Western Europe? Did the Reformation cause similar changes in Europe compared to those prompted by the Renaissance or were the two movements very different? How, if at all, did they combine? Your thoughts...

Tensions in India Re-ignite After the Terrorist Attacks in Mumbai on Wednesday

Ladies and gentlemen, with two seasons under our belts in India now, hopefully the recent terrorist activity in Mumbai (a city formally known as Bombay) is beginning to make a bit more sense. It will make 100% sense after this class is over with, but I still wanted to post this to make sure we're all staying informed of recent and unsettling events. We saw in season two the Muslim world begin to establish itself in northern India, and ever since then the community has grown into the millions. With a Hindu majority that continues in the region, tensions between the two groups have been a constant since season two and will continue to be throughout the rest of the class. At any rate, keep your eyes on India, because this is not over with. I fear that, in fact, these recent attacks may open up larger problems in the region. Already, tensions between India and Pakistan are firing back up as India is beginning to blame Pakistan for the attacks (keep in mind that only 9 countries in the world have nuclear weapons, and India and Pakistan are 2 of the 9). You can read the news on that by clicking here. Additionally, if you need to look up additional information on the attacks in order to increase your understanding of what actually took place, you know that your best source in the English language is always going to be the BBC. Click here for their full coverage of this heinous event. As always, their coverage is incredible! You may also find it helpful to look at the Indian media's coverage of this to get a more local perspective (you can see IBN's coverage by clicking here). It should be interesting to see what the position of the new Obama administration will be on the issue should India really flare up as a result of this. Certainly this is going to be an administration that already has its hands quite full with two wars and an economy that continues to break down with no end in sight. Speaking of the foreign policy of the new Obama administration, Obama yesterday officially announced his new security team, and as expected, it included Democratic Senator Hilary Clinton as the new Secretary of State and Republican Robert Gates (Bush's current Secretary of Defense) as Obama's Secretary of Defense. It should come as no surprise that (1) this is the bipartisan cabinet that I said several weeks ago would come together, and (2) Obama's new cabinet, both in terms of his economic team that was recently announced and his security team, is an impressive group of brilliant minds and respected personalities in Washington (with Eric Holder being a possible exception) that hearkens back to the Franklin D. Roosevelt years in many respects (although Obama's transition is going much smoother than Roosevelt's ever did) and to the Clinton years in many other respects. You can take a look at Obama's cabinet as it stands so far by clicking here. For more in-depth coverage of the congealing Obama presidency, the BBC has excellent coverage that you can look at by clicking here. Needless to say, this is going to be an interesting next several weeks. Stay tuned...

You Are Cordially Invited to an Official AP World Screening of Roland Joffe's 1986 Film The Mission

Ladies and gentlemen, on Monday, December 8th at 2:30 pm, you are all invited to the first in our AP World film series that will continue into second semester. Roland Joffe's The Mission is a powerful film dealing with Spanish presence in the Americas. You don't want to miss it as it will help to enhance your understanding of realities on the ground and the Spanish impact on the Americas. If you have seen the film before, please join us in seeing it again now that you have a clearer understanding of the time period. Below is my review of the film that I posted in July while you were working on your summer film assignments...

If you chose to watch Roland Joffe's The Mission in its entirety, you were hopefully in for a treat. If you find colonial Latin American history intriguing, or if you are simply a Robert DeNiro fan and you were interested in seeing him in his younger days, this film likely was quite an experience for you. The opening scene is captivating, as an unknown man tied to a cross is seen rapidly floating down a river that is descending into a waterfall, and of course the mortal plunge that follows. The film does slow down a bit for the first half, but this, in my opinion, is important for character development purposes. Father Gabriel, played by Jeremy Irons, is a Jesuit missionary that is commissioned to build a mission in a remote part of South America, apparently Brazil, as the land is eventually sold to the Portuguese during the film. Rodrigo Mendoza, played by a young Robert DeNiro, is a former slaver and newly converted Jesuit that is commissioned to assist in the building of this new mission and convert the natives. The beauty of the film lies in the forced assimilation of the natives that one witnesses as one watches the film. We know that the Spanish had a clear agenda coming to the Americas, often referred to the 3 Gs- God, gold, and glory. The question remains though, was the agenda exactly in that order? In fact, what really was "the mission" of the Spanish, as it were, in South America? The film explores just that question, and while the film doesn't force any conclusions, no doubt the viewer arrives at some bitter, and at times conflicting, conclusions. One scene in particular that hopefully will stir some dialogue in this discussion is the scene of the young children singing hymns that they have been taught. As beautiful as the harmony is, one cannot help but look further into this scene. Are these children willing participants? Is this brainwashing or is this part of the process to create a better and more orderly society? Is what we are witnessing part of a bigger agenda? Why is it children in particular that are portrayed in this scene? These are questions that must be discussed. In addition to the thought provoking story that The Mission contains, this film has other merits that I would like to point out. I especially find the musical score of this film to be completely riveting, especially in the monumental concluding 30 minutes. Although the film sets off at a slow pace, the final half moves lightening quick, and it truly does create a fist-clenching sense of suspense. If you enjoyed this film, Roland Joffe previously directed another film of historical significance entitled The Killing Fields in 1984. The film takes a candid and graphic look at the oftentimes overlooked genocide campaign in Cambodia during the 1970s. Viewer beware! This film is not for the faint of heart, and I would not recommend it to squeamish viewers. However, it does serve as an important reminder of the darker side of the human condition, one that, if not held in check, can be enormously devastating. Is there a similar theme that runs through The Mission?

Performance Final Exam Tomorrow, Tuesday, December 2!

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to first of all reiterate the topic of tomorrow's performance final (it will be a comparison essay): Compare and contrast the political and economic effects of Mongol rule on TWO of the following regions: China, the Middle East, or Russia.

A few things...

First, make sure that you are looking through your notes from class discussions (a very important source, HENCE THE NEED TO TAKE GOOD NOTES IN CLASS), PRIMARY DOCUMENTS that I posted on the blog in the middle of November in the archives (you need to focus on the ones describing the aftermath of Mongol invasions because this is an essay on effects, so documents describing actual invasions as they happen are irrelevant), and your textbook for assistance in preparing yourself for the writing task.

Secondly, I have a couple of other primary document material dealing with the Mongols dealings in China that you may find useful by clicking on the links below (NOTE: THIS DOES NOT REPLACE EARLIER PRIMARY DOCUMENTS POSTED, BUT IT DOES GIVE YOU A BROADER VIEW OF THEIR ACTIONS IN CHINA)...

Marco Polo, Description of the World (Read pgs. 82-87. This describes the economic impacts of the Mongols by describing their presence on the Silk Roads especially)

Francesco Pegolotti, The Practice of Commerce (Just read chapter 2. This document also gives a clear look into the Mongols economic impact on China).

Third, again, I can't emphasize this point enough, not all of the documents that I have given you to look at are directly relevant to this writing task, so keep in mind your topic at all times. You are to be focusing on the period after the Mongols took power, so evidence about Mongol invasions and military prowess is irrelevant in this case. No writing about Mongol military trivia tomorrow PLEASE!!! However, evidence of deliberate changes in social, cultural, or religious policies can be counted as political effects (i.e. these changes were consequences of political policy).

I hope this helps folks. I will be away from my computer for a bit, but the blog is open for you to discuss amongst yourselves. Cheers!

The Potato Eaters

Dutch artist Vincent Van Gogh began painting approximately 10 years prior to his suicide at age 37. His short life was marked by strong humanitarian impulses toward the poor, especially miners, weavers, and peasants. Despite his intentions, the poor often ridiculed his efforts. Failures in his personal life and sickness led to despair. Unable to support himself regularly, he lived off his younger brother Theo. Bouts of epilepsy worsened his depression. Although tragic, these experiences enabled Van Gogh to depict the social circumstances and psychological moods of the people who interested him as can been seen in the 1885 painting The Potato Eaters (you can see a larger version of the painting by clicking here), which depicts the social and psychological circumstances of people who became dependent on potatoes. After studying the painting, I would like you all to discuss the following: What features of the painting reveal the social circumstances of the people who became dependent on potatoes as their staple food? How do their circumstances compare with the views of thinkers who had earlier praised the potato? How does the painting suggest the inner mood of the individuals depicted? How might Van Gogh define the purpose of this kind of art in industrial Europe? Your thoughts…

The Columbian Exchange in the Early Modern Period

Disseminated most widely by Alfred Crosby in The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492, the term Columbian exchange refers to the worldwide transfer of pathogens, plants, and animals resulting from the expanded and intensified contact among civilizations after 1492. To America, Europeans brought diseases (smallpox and measles), animals (cattle, horses, sheep, and pigs), and plants (grapes, sugar, wheat, barley, and oats). From America, traders carried away not only precious metals but also corn (maize), potatoes, and sweet potatoes. These transfers contributed significantly to the formation of new civilizations in the Americas and altered the civilizations of Europe, Asia, and Africa.

In the Americas, smallpox and measles reduced the indigenous population of the Caribbean Islands almost to the vanishing point by 1540. In Central Mexico, the native population declined from about 18 million at the time of contact to approximately 1 million in 1605. Peru’s native-American population declined from 11 million to about 700,000 by the early 18th century. Throughout the Americas, the indigenous population declined by about 90 percent.

In place of people, European animals claimed the land. This was especially true where open grasslands were available. To cite one example, in the Mesquital Valley north of Mexico City, sheep increased from 39,000 in 1539 to 4.4 million in 1589. As the number of sheep increased, the former corn-producing valley became scrub land. In other zones, now virtually empty of native farmers because of population loss, new crops of wheat, barley, and sugar became predominant.

In Europe and Asia, maize and potatoes became staple foods for the poor, and in both areas contributed to population increases. Between 1650 and 1750, the population of Europe, including Asiatic Russia, increased from 103 million to 144 million; the population of Asia, excluding Russia, increased from 327 million to 475 million. As one of many factors, new crops bore a direct relationship to the population rise. Maize and potatoes increased the total food supply because they allowed previously uncultivated land to be used, including fallow land.

One of the documents I would like you to read (you can read all the documents I’d like you to read by clicking here) describes a smallpox epidemic in the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán, just months prior to the Spanish siege in August 1521 (you may have already read pieces of this in my post from yesterday). Written originally in Nahuatal, the Aztec language, in 1555 by native informants, the document was translated into Spanish in 1557 by Bernadino de Sahagún, a member of the Franciscan order. The documents on the spread of European plants and animals in Mexico and Chile were written in 1620 by a Carmelite friar, Antonio Vázquez de Espinoza. He not only identified the plants and animals but also described the native-Americans’ adjustments to their spread. Information on maize and potatoes in China came from local histories in the 18th and 19th centuries. European Enlightenment intellectuals wrote about maize and potatoes in Europe.

After reading the documents, I would like you all to consider and discuss the following: In the description of the smallpox epidemic in Tenochtitlán, what statements in the document indicate that community cohesiveness broke down as a result of the disease? What are the military implications of such a breakdown? In the document on the spread of animals and plants in Mexico and Chile, identify the plants and animals introduced from Europe, and review numbers of animals compared with people. Natives who survived the epidemics were forced to adjust to new conditions. How did they adjust? What jobs did they perform? How were the jobs related to the new plants and animals? Who controlled the conditions under which they worked? What are the implications for social relations? In the documents dealing with American crops in France, England, and Ireland, who were Locke, Boyle, and Smith? Why were they optimistic about cultivation of maize and potatoes? What were the advantages of cultivating these crops? In the document dealing with American crops in China, what types of sources were used to describe the cultivation of maize and potatoes in China? Who were the cultivators of maize and potatoes? In what kind of terrain did they cultivate these crops? What was the environmental result? Finally, based on the documents, what are the major ways in which the Columbian exchange altered world history? Your thoughts…

The Battle for Tenochtitlán

Bernardino de Sahagún, a member of the Franciscan religious order, was one of the earliest Spanish missionaries in Mexico, arriving in 1529. He soon developed a keen interest in the culture of the peoples of Mexico, for whom he had deep affection and respect. Having mastered the Nahuatl language, spoken by the Aztecs and other central Mexican peoples, around 1545 he began to collect oral and pictorial information about Native Mexican culture. The result was his General History of the Things of New Spain, a major source of information about Mexican culture at the time of the Spanish conquest. Many Spaniards considered Sahagún’s work dangerous because they feared his efforts to preserve the memory of native culture threatened their plans to exploit and Christianize the “Indians.” As a result, in 1578 his writings and notes were confiscated by royal decree and sent back to Spain, where they gathered dust in an archive until rediscovered and published in the nineteenth century.

The document that I would like you to read comes from the twelfth and last book of the General History. Based on interviews with Aztecs who had lived through the conquest some twenty-five years earlier, Book Twelve, which exists in both Nahuatl and Spanish versions, recounts the conquest of Mexico from the time Cortés arrived on the Mexican coast in April 1519 until the days following the Aztec’s capitulation in August 1521. Although the exact role of Sahagún and his Indian assistants in composing and organizing Book Twelve has been hotly debated by scholars, most agree that it accurately portrays Aztec views and perceptions of the events that unfolded between 1519 and 1521.

The excerpt from the document that I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here) picks up the story in November 1519. By then the Spaniards had gained as allies the Tlaxcalans, the Aztec’s bitter enemies, and were leaving Cholula, an ancient city that the Spaniards and their allies had sacked and looted because of its leaders’ lack of cooperation. They were on their way to Tenochtitlán, the splendid Aztec capital on Lake Texcoco, for an anticipated meeting with Emperor Moctezuma.

After you have read the document, I would like for you all to consider and discuss the following: What does the source reveal about the motives of the Spaniards and their Indian allies for their attack on the Aztecs? What was Moctezuma’s strategy to deal with the Spaniards? What did it fail? Aside from their firearms, what other military advantages did the Spaniards have over their opponents? On several occasions the Aztecs routed the Spaniards. What explains these Aztec victories? How did the Aztec view of war differ from that of the Spaniards? What does the source reveal about Aztec religious beliefs and values? Your thoughts…

Why England Should Sponsor Colonies

Although King Henry VII and a group of Bristol merchants had dispatched the Italian mariner John Cabot to North America in 1497 to search for a route to Asia, no further English exploration or colonization took place until the reign of Elizabeth I, when the political and religious conflicts connected with the English reformation abated. England’s renewed efforts were not auspicious. Backed by a group of investors who formed the Company of Cathay (China), Martin Frobisher made three voyages to North America between 1576 and 1578 in search of gold and the Northwest Passage to Asia, but found neither. Five years later, an effort promoted by Sir Humphrey Gilbert to colonize North America ended in tragedy when the expedition was lost at sea while sailing south from Newfoundland. These setbacks did not discourage a small group of merchants, mariners, and courtiers who continued to formulate plans for colonization and promote them at Elizabeth’s court.

Included in this group was Richard Hakluyt, the son of a minor London merchant, who was orphaned at age five and raised by an older cousin, a lawyer. Through contacts with his cousin’s friends and business associates, the young Hakluyt developed an interest in trade and exploration. Although he studied Greek and Latin at Oxford, his intellectual passion was geography, which he learned from books, maps, and reports from mariners, merchants, and explorers. Ordained a priest in the Church of England, Hakluyt still had time to write books on exploration and lobby royal officials and Queen Elizabeth herself on behalf of various proposals to colonized North America.

In 1584, Hakluyt wrote a lengthy memorandum to Queen Elizabeth in support of a proposal by Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s half brother, Sir Walter Raleigh, to colonize the east coast of North America, known at the time as Norumbega. Elizabeth declined, pleading lack of money, and thin funding was one of several reasons why the Roanoke Colony failed. Hakluyt and other supporters of English colonization continued to lobby on behalf of their ideas, however, and during the reign of James I the chartering of the Virginia Company and the Plymouth Company marked the true beginnings of the successful English colonization of North America.

The document that I would like you to read (you can read the document by clicking here) is the concluding summary to Hakluyt’s memorandum to Elizabeth. After reading the document, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: According to Hakluyt, what are the economic advantages England might expect from colonizing Norumbega? According to Hakluyt, how will colonization strengthen England and weaken its rivals? According to Hakluyt, how will colonization help solve England’s domestic problems? How important is religion in Hakluyt’s thinking about colonization? How much concrete knowledge of the Americas does Hakluyt seem to have? Your thoughts…

1492: What Columbus and His Patrons Hoped to Gain

Among the many factors that contributed to Europe’s expansion in the early modern period, perhaps none was more important than simple human ambition. There is no better example of this truth than Christopher Columbus, the Genoese mariner credited with the “discovery” of the New World. The best available evidence suggests that Columbus (Cristoforo Colombo in Italian; Cristóbal Colón in Spanish) was born in 1451 to a weaver and went to sea as a teenager. As a young man he gained wide experience as a sailor, with voyages as far north as Ireland, as far south as Mina on the Gulf of Guinea, and as far west as the Canary Islands, Madeira, and the Azores, all islands off Africa’s coast. Having taught himself to read, he began to study geographical texts, maps, and even biblical passages that provided him with a set of assumptions concerning the circumference of the Earth (everyone that was educated knew the Earth was round, but the actual circumference was still up for debate), the size of Europe and the distance of Japan from the Asian mainland. Although false, these assumptions convinced him it would be possible to reach Asia by sailing west into the Atlantic. In 1484, Columbus sought support for an exploratory voyage from King John II of Portugal, but the king, who was convinced that sailing around Africa was the most promising route to Asia, refused.

Undeterred, in 1486 Columbus gained an audience with the Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, who on hearing Columbus’ proposal gave him a small stipend and appointed a commission of “learned men and mariners” to examine this plan. For five years Columbus followed the Spanish court from city to city, waiting for a final decision. Negotiations broke down in early 1492 when the king and queen balked at what they considered Columbus’ excessive demands. With Columbus preparing to take his ideas to the king of France, however, a last-minute appeal to Isabella resulted in an agreement among the parties. In two “capitulations,” excerpts of which I would like you to read (you can read the first one by clicking here [read starting at "The Capitulation" on pg. 442 and all of pg. 443] and the second one by clicking here), Ferdinand and Isabella in April 1492 promised Columbus a large share of any economic benefits that might accrue from his voyage and extensive authority over any lands he might discover. Preparations could now begin for Columbus’ historic voyage that departed the Spanish port of Palos on August 3, 1492.

Columbus never realized his dreams of wealth and power. After his discoveries failed to produce either the gold or rich commercial opportunities he had promised, he lost favor at court, and from 1495 onward the monarchs ignored the agreements they had approved in 1492. Columbus made his forth and last voyage across the Atlantic in 1502, four years before he died in Valladolid, Spain, still pressing his claims with the Crown and still convinced he had reached Asia.

After you read the two documents I would like you all to consider and discuss the following: What assumptions underlie Columbus’ and the monarchs’ statements about the authority they expect to exercise in the land Columbus discovers? What kinds of authority will Columbus exercise over the lands he discovers? What role will be played by the monarchs? What kind of material benefits do Columbus and the monarchs expect to gain from Columbus’ promised discoveries? How will these gains be divided? How do the stated and implied goals of Columbus’ enterprise compare with the motives attributed by Gomes Eannes de Azurara to Prince Henry the Navigator? Your thoughts…

Mongols Win 5 Awards But the Byzantine Empire Upsets in the Season 2 Whapey Awards

Well folks, the vote was close in several categories, but the Byzantine Empire took home the top prize in the 3rd annual Season 2 Whapey Awards. The results follow:

Best Government: Byzantine Empire

Most Influential Society: Mongols

Most Influential Person: Chingis Khan

Best Leader: Chingis Khan

Worst Leader: Justinian

Best Conflict: Mongols vs. All

Best Social System: Abbasid Empire

Most Influential Belief System: Islam

Best Economic System: Byzantine Empire

Best Invention: Printing press

Worst Invention: Gunpowder

Most Influential Writer: Ibn-Khaldun

Best Cultural Contributions: Song China

Best Nomadic Society: Mongols

Best Film Set in Season 2: Aladdin

So there you have it! Thanks to all of you who voted, but about 40% of you all did not vote. Many of the categories were extremely close, so I can't emphasize enough the importance of every vote. Enjoy the weekend... the Season 3 Premiere continues with part 2 on Monday...

Why Portugal Began Exploring the African Coast

At the same time that Chinese fleets under Zheng He were sailing to India, the Arabian Peninsula, and east Africa, and Muslim sailors dominated the coastal trade of virtually every inhabited land washed by the Indian Ocean, Portuguese explorers began to inch their way down Africa's west coast. From 1419 onward, Prince Henry, the third son of King John I, almost annually sent out a ship or two in an attempt to push farther toward the sub-Saharan land the Portuguese called Guinea. After they rounded Cape Bojador, on the western Sahara coast in 1434, the pace of exploration quickened, especially now that the Portuguese were coming to believe that it might be possible to reach Asia by sailing around Africa. By 1460, the Portuguese reached the coast of modern Sierra Leone, and in 1488 Bartolomeu Dias sailed around Africa's southern tip. Finally, on May 20, 1498, Vasco da Gama, seeking "Christians and spices," dropped anchor off Calicut on India's west coast after rounding Africa. Although da Gama lost two of his four ships and many of his crew in these enterprise, Portugal was now in the Indian Ocean to stay.

Da Gama's success was still almost a half century in the future when in 1452 Gomes Eannes de Azurara, a Portuguese royal official, began to compose a history of of the life and work of Prince Henry, whose support for early Portuguese exploration has earned him the name "Prince Henry the Navigator." Azurara's history details Portuguese exploration down the African coast until 1448. Having completed The Chronicle of Guinea in 1453, Azurara turned to other duties in his service to the king, and he never completed an intended second volume. Nonetheless, his chronicle gives us a revealing picture of the spirit behind Portugal's first exploring ventures. Please read some excerpts from this document by clicking on the following link (The Chronicle of Guinea; just read chapter VII, pgs. 27-30). Once you have read this passage, I would like you all to consider and discuss the following: What event seems to have sparked Portuguese interest in exploring the oceans off Africa's west coast? What were the anticipated economic benefits from the Portuguese voyages? What religious goals did Henry hope to achieve? Does Azurara give the impression that Henry was motivated more by religion than economic gain? What does the document reveal about the extent of Portuguese knowledge of Africa in the mid-fifteenth century? Your thoughts...

Understanding the Italian Renaissance Through the Writings of Petrarch

The Renaissance was, above all, a significant new cultural movement that began in 14th century Italy, somewhat before the early modern period in a larger world history. Its innovations included new styles and a new attention to style; an increase in secular interests, as opposed to strictly religious goals; and a major revival of attention to classical Roman and Greek models in writing, art, and philosophy. The Italian Renaissance also included new political developments in competing city-states and a growing level of trade. Some scholars have identified growing delight in individualism and individual achievement as another unifying feature of the Renaissance.

As a cultural movement, the Renaissance lasted into the 16th century, by which time it was involving northern Europe as well. The Renaissance contrasted greatly, in religious, stylistic and philosophical terms, with the medieval culture that had preceded it in Western Europe.

The documents that I would like you to read come from letters written by Francesco Petrarch, one of the leading figures in the Italian Renaissance. From 1304 to 1374, Petrarch lived in Florence, a major Renaissance center. Petrarch was a poet, historian, and scholar, known both for his advancement of Latin classics and for his work in Italian. He wrote a number of letters to figures in the classical past, but also to contemporary authors like Boccacio, in order to discuss some of his intellectual and personal concerns. There are four letters of his that I would like you to read (you can read all four of them by clicking here): one simply generally entitled "To Posterity"; another to Boccacio; and two more to the long-dead Roman politician and philosopher Cicero, best known for his writing and for his his talents in the field of rhetoric. The letters were written in Latin and intended for publication.

The letters raise a number of Renaissance themes. The relationship to Roman culture is one that Petrarch deals with directly, in discussing Latin and vernacular Italian. The Renaissance ultimately encouraged the rise of vernacular languages--English and French as well as Italian--in cultural life, but it also promoted esteem for good Latin. The relationship to religion is another key theme: Petrarch writes as a Christian, but suggests a re-balancing of interests between religion and other concerns in intellectual and even ethical life. Petrarch also describes a new sense of himself as an individual, and this invites definition as well, as part of figuring out what the Renaissance was all about.

Petrarch's work can and should be compared with medieval intellectual life, in terms of the different cultural goals and values. It also raises deeper questions about the range of the Renaissance: how much was the Renaissance an elitist movement, and how much did it affect the wider society?

The Italian Renaissance must also be connected to world history. In one sense, it was a very self-contained cultural movement with specifically Italian features. But some scholars have found in the Renaissance a source of wider changes in culture and values that help explain new European initiatives in the world at large. After reading Petrarch's letters, what do you think? Was Petrarch highly individualistic in his presentation and assessment of himself? What were Petrarch's religious views? How do these compare with more traditional Christian values? How does he define the nature and purpose of ethics? What are Petrarch's attitudes toward the classical past? What does he urge his contemporaries to find in classical styles and examples? How does his love of the classics relate to his sense of his own achievements and individuality? Judging by Petrarch's interests, what kinds of changes were involved in the development of the Renaissance culture? How does it compare to medieval culture in Western Europe? What kinds of implications did it have for society at large? Again judging by Petrarch's interests alongside major developments in world history at the time: How would YOU define the significance of the Renaissance in world history? Did Renaissance values play a major role in causing new European global initiatives? How do they compare to other major causes? Your thoughts...

The Season 3 Preview

Ladies and gentlemen, the Season 3 Premiere is only HOURS away. Darkness lies on the horizon for many societies at this very moment. Therefore, without any further delay, here is your Season 3 Preview! Season 3 (or the Early Modern Period, as scholars generally refer to it as) will focus on developments between 1450 and 1750. A new range of global interconnections will be the most important change of the period. But new activity by Western Europe will be an important component as well, and some of this will be prepared by new innovations in the 14th and 15th centuries.

Western Europe's emergence as an increasingly important actor on the world stage between 1300 and 1500 will depend on several developments: new technologies, in part gained by previous contacts with Asia (such as explosive powders and the compass); acute international trade problems and fear of Muslim power, which prompted Europeans to seek new routes to Asia and also sources of gold that would give them greater bargaining power; and changes within European society itself, including greater rivalries among monarchs and within the Christian church. New international positions will continue the process of change within Europe, helping to promote new attitudes toward science. Western Europe's power at the same time will affect other societies, particularly in the Americas, which will soon be open to growing European control. Elsewhere, the impact of Western contacts, higher levels of international trade, and the foodstuffs available from the Americas will have diverse results, ranging from altered commercial patterns in Africa to deliberate imitation in Russia to controlled contact along with growing trade in East Asia. Other developments will shape the early modern centuries as well, including the formation of vigorous new empires (the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal) in the Middle East and India, both of which will extend Muslim power. Renewed political strength in China will be another vital Asian development, as European influence and new global trading patterns will have only selective impact on the largest continent during the early modern centuries. Finally, Japan will face the dilemma of doing business with the west and risking takeover, or isolating itself from the west and risking falling behind the rest of the world. The big question, though, that remains is this: WITH THE ERA OF NOMADIC POWER OVER, WILL THE EARTH EXPERIENCE A GROWING PEACE WITH "CIVILIZED" SOCIETIES TAKING BACK FULL CONTROL, OR WILL THE CIVILIZED PEOPLES OF THE WORLD CREATE THE MOST VIOLENT WORLD WE'VE SEEN YET? Stay tuned for the Season 3 Premiere!

Season 2 Test Questions?

Any discussion that you all would like to have on the test, including any questions that you may have can be posted here...

For Your Consideration...

For Your Consideration

Mongol Empire- Best Government

For Your Consideration...

For Your Consideration

Ibn-Khaldun- Most Influential Writer