As our Strayer text briefly mentions, the Mayans are well known for their detailed calendars and ability to use their complex mathematical knowledge to predict eclipses and cycles of the planets. As we approach 2012 there is more and more talk about the fact that the Mayan calendar, the Long Count Calendar, does not carry over into 2013. Most people joke about this being a prediction of apocalypse, but what does the end of the calendar really represent?
An article in USA Today states that the end of the calendar does not necessarily mean the end of the world, but rather an end of a calendar cycle. This was seen as more of a celebration by the Mayans, but the lack of knowledge about the intentions of the Long Count Calendar these days has led some to cash in on the hype surrounding December 21, 2012 by producing movies and survival guides for the occasion.
Astronomers and historians believe that the Mayans thought of the end of this calendar cycle as a new beginning and rebirth of civilization and that they had no intentions of implying that the world would end in 2012. It is an interesting argument either way, but in my opinion, we have nothing to worry about... hopefully.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Partially thanks to all of my history courses that I am taking this semester at Grand Valley, one of my favorite pass times is to play a video game called Civilization Revolution. It is a game where you, as the player, can choose which empire you wish to control. You have the opportunity to start at around 3,000 BCE and build an empire. There are multiple ways that you can win the game, but one of the neatest things about this particular game is that it actually uses concepts from the actual nations as they existed in history. One of those nations is the Zulu of Africa, which I knew very little about. After playing the game, and learning about sub-sahara Africa in class, I became interested in trying to understand just a little bit more about the culture.
Once I started to search around, I learned that "Zulu" is a fairly recent tribe by historical means, in the fact that they weren't considered Zulu (at least, as the warrior tribe that we know them as today) until around the 16th or 17th centuries. While this does not directly pertain to history before 1500, their origins are considered well before that time. According to this website, The Zulus believe that they are descendents of a Congo chief whom during the 16th century migrated to the South.
After discovering this fact, I wanted to do some research to find more relevance to the earliest history of the Zulu people. As I did some searching around, I learned that the Zulu nation is formed because of several different Nguni nations that were forced together by the Shaka Zulu ruler. This website describes the fact that the Nguni peoples, like many other cultures of sub-sahara Africa, passed down their history orally. There is very little written record of ancient African history. What we can tell, however, is the fact that the Nguni people, around some 3,000 years ago, were one of the pastoral tribes that migrated from Egypt down into Africa herding a specific breed of cattle.
It is particularly interesting how this pastoral tribe became part of a larger society that, in years to come, would dominate the majority of the African culture and become known world wide as an infamous warrior tribe. It is interesting how the events in history can shape and change the way that the world works, as we are slowly coming to understand even in today's multicultural society of America.
Once I started to search around, I learned that "Zulu" is a fairly recent tribe by historical means, in the fact that they weren't considered Zulu (at least, as the warrior tribe that we know them as today) until around the 16th or 17th centuries. While this does not directly pertain to history before 1500, their origins are considered well before that time. According to this website, The Zulus believe that they are descendents of a Congo chief whom during the 16th century migrated to the South.
After discovering this fact, I wanted to do some research to find more relevance to the earliest history of the Zulu people. As I did some searching around, I learned that the Zulu nation is formed because of several different Nguni nations that were forced together by the Shaka Zulu ruler. This website describes the fact that the Nguni peoples, like many other cultures of sub-sahara Africa, passed down their history orally. There is very little written record of ancient African history. What we can tell, however, is the fact that the Nguni people, around some 3,000 years ago, were one of the pastoral tribes that migrated from Egypt down into Africa herding a specific breed of cattle.
It is particularly interesting how this pastoral tribe became part of a larger society that, in years to come, would dominate the majority of the African culture and become known world wide as an infamous warrior tribe. It is interesting how the events in history can shape and change the way that the world works, as we are slowly coming to understand even in today's multicultural society of America.
Friday, October 23, 2009
America
since america wasn't covered in class I will talk about the aztecs. The aztecs were a tribe that lived in present day mexico; they were a very warlike people and as a result they conquered other tribes. The aztecs are known for their violent religion and violent conquest but that isn't all they were. The site of their capital city is now mexico city; the aztecs were a civilization.
the most important invention the aztecs made was the chinampa Tenochtitlan, the aztec capital, was centered ona lake so farmland was limited. the chinampas were giant reed mats covered with mud from the lake and dead plants to fertilize it. The aztec would grow their crops on these mats and even plant willow trees to prevent erosion. This gave them local farms that didnt require irrigation and were protected by the lake from any enemies.
The aztecs, like the maya, had their own calendar. actuall the aztecs had two caledars one caledar for time and the other for religious events. the time caledar was used to determine the best time to plant or harvest crops; the caledar had 365 days in a year with 18 months. Because the months were divided into twenty days there were five bad luck days when natural disasters were most likely to occur. The religion caledar used 260 days as a result of this the caledar days matched up every fifty two years.
the aztec were also great builders they built temples to their gods and they built a city in a lake. while they were a violent people it is unfair to focus only on that. more
the most important invention the aztecs made was the chinampa Tenochtitlan, the aztec capital, was centered ona lake so farmland was limited. the chinampas were giant reed mats covered with mud from the lake and dead plants to fertilize it. The aztec would grow their crops on these mats and even plant willow trees to prevent erosion. This gave them local farms that didnt require irrigation and were protected by the lake from any enemies.
The aztecs, like the maya, had their own calendar. actuall the aztecs had two caledars one caledar for time and the other for religious events. the time caledar was used to determine the best time to plant or harvest crops; the caledar had 365 days in a year with 18 months. Because the months were divided into twenty days there were five bad luck days when natural disasters were most likely to occur. The religion caledar used 260 days as a result of this the caledar days matched up every fifty two years.
the aztec were also great builders they built temples to their gods and they built a city in a lake. while they were a violent people it is unfair to focus only on that. more
The Question of Race in Regardes to History.
Truly I must be naive, for the color of skin is not something I see past its color. Racism, however, is a powerful force with which to be reckoned, to be sure. We can see this entity permeate several aspects of our life and history. Historical accounts of racism are many, yet what of those not accounted?
A question posed in class only two days ago caught my attention and I have been dwelling on it since: Why is such emphasis given to Egyptian culture yet not to sub-Saharan Africa?
This has three, closely linked answers.
First, racism plain and simple. Africa, we know, is the cradle of civilization, our birth place as a spaces. Yet as Africa was over taken via colonization the thought that blacks were mere sauvages was prevelant. There was a complete disregard for their own complex social structure, laws, spritirual beliefes, and so on. These developments were not new, rather a product of centures of cultivation. I truly do believe the hostile whites thought this way because the natives did not have the same things they themselves had, this this was the basis for their superiority complex (as well as their own religious zeal). The natives simply live from the land, natuarally, more as we all once did, and yet should.
Second, we see the Egytpian comparison. It is because Egypt was developed into an imperial-like state they were seen to be developed on the whole. They had a strong government, were more often prosperous, were a stong military power, and had more dealings with other states, powers, and languages and commerce. Thus, they were and are yet seen as beinig developed; perhaps seen as more European in a way. Let us not forget that Eurocentrisicm also plays a part in obscurinig sub-Saharan history. Thus Egypt is decidedly "more interesting," regardless of the long and rich (yet lost) history of their counterpart.
Finally, we coemt o the sad fact that, because of colonization, death, inter-tribal war, and a faulty oral tradition, the true history of sub-Saharan Africa is lost to time itself, Whatever was know is not lost int eh grasslands and dune sands, the rocky mountains and costal lines of Africa.
Maybe this too is another reason Egyptian facination is so strong: there is simply more we know about Egypt in comparison to sub-Saharan Africa.
A question posed in class only two days ago caught my attention and I have been dwelling on it since: Why is such emphasis given to Egyptian culture yet not to sub-Saharan Africa?
This has three, closely linked answers.
First, racism plain and simple. Africa, we know, is the cradle of civilization, our birth place as a spaces. Yet as Africa was over taken via colonization the thought that blacks were mere sauvages was prevelant. There was a complete disregard for their own complex social structure, laws, spritirual beliefes, and so on. These developments were not new, rather a product of centures of cultivation. I truly do believe the hostile whites thought this way because the natives did not have the same things they themselves had, this this was the basis for their superiority complex (as well as their own religious zeal). The natives simply live from the land, natuarally, more as we all once did, and yet should.
Second, we see the Egytpian comparison. It is because Egypt was developed into an imperial-like state they were seen to be developed on the whole. They had a strong government, were more often prosperous, were a stong military power, and had more dealings with other states, powers, and languages and commerce. Thus, they were and are yet seen as beinig developed; perhaps seen as more European in a way. Let us not forget that Eurocentrisicm also plays a part in obscurinig sub-Saharan history. Thus Egypt is decidedly "more interesting," regardless of the long and rich (yet lost) history of their counterpart.
Finally, we coemt o the sad fact that, because of colonization, death, inter-tribal war, and a faulty oral tradition, the true history of sub-Saharan Africa is lost to time itself, Whatever was know is not lost int eh grasslands and dune sands, the rocky mountains and costal lines of Africa.
Maybe this too is another reason Egyptian facination is so strong: there is simply more we know about Egypt in comparison to sub-Saharan Africa.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
300:fact or fiction?
It's true, better late than never, so here is my post, late, but here!
Okay, so most of us have at least heard of the movie 300, if not watched it. Intense, right?
But as awesome as it is, the movie wrongly depicts the battle of Thermopylae.
In the movie, the battle raged on for an intense three days, however in actuality the Greeks held off the opposing Persian army for seven days, three of which were the battle, which is what the movie basically revolved around. In the actual battle, as well as the movie, the Greeks are betrayed by Ephialtes, who helps the Persians route around the Greeks, which the Greeks then realize. Personally, i think this is where the idea of "300" comes in, and here's my theory why:
When the Greeks realize they are in fact out flanked by the Persians, Leonidas, the king of sparta and the leader of the army dismisses the majority of the army, except for 300 spartans (see?) , 700 Thesbians and 400 Thebians.
You might in fact be wondering (if you are completely unaware of the history),
"wait, i thought the battle was fought with only three hundred soldiers?" Nope. In it's entirety, there were roughly 7000 soldiers, and not all of them were spartans. The seven thousand were made up of men from sparta and allied city states.
So, the movie basically showcases the spartans, they are purposely portrayed as the best. Contrary to this, the persians are depicted as heathens, or evil monsterous beings with no valor, which is entirely untrue.
Also, in actuality, the Spartans believed in slavery, however in the movie, they constantly talk about how all men are free, and there was no evidence of slavery at all.
The movie does have it's accuracies, though. First, there was the betrayal mentioned earlier, which was a huge help to the Persians. Then, there was an excellent depiction of the Greek heroic code, and women, who were valued in the greek society and viewed almost as equals in society played a very large role in the movie, supporting the men they were associated with (husbands, lovers...you get the idea) and not being shown as objects.
Now that the comparison is out of the way, here's a little extra info on the battle:
The battle was actually a delayed response to the defeat of the first persian invasion of Greece. Xerxes, the leader of the Persians wasn't all too happy with this, and had bided his time building up a giant army and navy in order to conquer all of Greece. (his army was thought to number somewhere in the millions). The battle of thermopyale is debatably one of the most famous in Europe's history.
After the battle, the body of leonidas was recovered by the Persians, and Xerxes, being ridiculously angry, ordered Leonidas's head cut off and his body crucified (Ew, gruesome.) But this was quite uncommon for the Persians. Normally they regarded "valiant warriors" with honor and tribute.
Okay, so most of us have at least heard of the movie 300, if not watched it. Intense, right?
But as awesome as it is, the movie wrongly depicts the battle of Thermopylae.
In the movie, the battle raged on for an intense three days, however in actuality the Greeks held off the opposing Persian army for seven days, three of which were the battle, which is what the movie basically revolved around. In the actual battle, as well as the movie, the Greeks are betrayed by Ephialtes, who helps the Persians route around the Greeks, which the Greeks then realize. Personally, i think this is where the idea of "300" comes in, and here's my theory why:
When the Greeks realize they are in fact out flanked by the Persians, Leonidas, the king of sparta and the leader of the army dismisses the majority of the army, except for 300 spartans (see?) , 700 Thesbians and 400 Thebians.
You might in fact be wondering (if you are completely unaware of the history),
"wait, i thought the battle was fought with only three hundred soldiers?" Nope. In it's entirety, there were roughly 7000 soldiers, and not all of them were spartans. The seven thousand were made up of men from sparta and allied city states.
So, the movie basically showcases the spartans, they are purposely portrayed as the best. Contrary to this, the persians are depicted as heathens, or evil monsterous beings with no valor, which is entirely untrue.
Also, in actuality, the Spartans believed in slavery, however in the movie, they constantly talk about how all men are free, and there was no evidence of slavery at all.
The movie does have it's accuracies, though. First, there was the betrayal mentioned earlier, which was a huge help to the Persians. Then, there was an excellent depiction of the Greek heroic code, and women, who were valued in the greek society and viewed almost as equals in society played a very large role in the movie, supporting the men they were associated with (husbands, lovers...you get the idea) and not being shown as objects.
Now that the comparison is out of the way, here's a little extra info on the battle:
The battle was actually a delayed response to the defeat of the first persian invasion of Greece. Xerxes, the leader of the Persians wasn't all too happy with this, and had bided his time building up a giant army and navy in order to conquer all of Greece. (his army was thought to number somewhere in the millions). The battle of thermopyale is debatably one of the most famous in Europe's history.
After the battle, the body of leonidas was recovered by the Persians, and Xerxes, being ridiculously angry, ordered Leonidas's head cut off and his body crucified (Ew, gruesome.) But this was quite uncommon for the Persians. Normally they regarded "valiant warriors" with honor and tribute.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Trick-Or-Treat
I meant to post this blog a couple of days ago, but I suppose better late than never...
My favorite holiday is coming up in a couple of weeks, so I thought I would look into the real origins of Halloween to see why it is that we feel the need to dress in costumes and eat ridiculous amounts of candy one day out of every year.
An article that I found on The History Channel website states that the concept of Halloween began 2,000 years ago. The Celts celebrated their New Year on November 1st because October 31st was considered the end of summer and November was the beginning of winter. The cold temperatures and darkness that resulted from the days being shorter during this time of year led people to associate winter with death. They believed that on the last day of the year, the barriers separating the living and the dead were lifted so that ghosts could return to the Earth. The Celts wore costumes, burned crops, and made animal sacrifices to their gods on this day and it became a traditional celebration.
As Christianity spread in the 7th century, the pope declared November 1st All Saints' Day to diminish the negative connotations that went along with the coming of the New Year and October 31st eventually became All-hallow's Eve from the Middle English word for All Saints Day, Alholowmesse. The day continued to be one of celebration with costumes and parades much like the holiday that we know and love today.
My favorite holiday is coming up in a couple of weeks, so I thought I would look into the real origins of Halloween to see why it is that we feel the need to dress in costumes and eat ridiculous amounts of candy one day out of every year.
An article that I found on The History Channel website states that the concept of Halloween began 2,000 years ago. The Celts celebrated their New Year on November 1st because October 31st was considered the end of summer and November was the beginning of winter. The cold temperatures and darkness that resulted from the days being shorter during this time of year led people to associate winter with death. They believed that on the last day of the year, the barriers separating the living and the dead were lifted so that ghosts could return to the Earth. The Celts wore costumes, burned crops, and made animal sacrifices to their gods on this day and it became a traditional celebration.
As Christianity spread in the 7th century, the pope declared November 1st All Saints' Day to diminish the negative connotations that went along with the coming of the New Year and October 31st eventually became All-hallow's Eve from the Middle English word for All Saints Day, Alholowmesse. The day continued to be one of celebration with costumes and parades much like the holiday that we know and love today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)