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
Friday, October 23, 2009
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.
Friday, October 16, 2009
you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring
I wasn't sure what to write about until I looked on our blog and read the post about the Mayan calander. I thought I would write about an event in europe that is indirectly connected to the region where the maya lived. this week I am writing about the spanish inquisition.
In the 1470's the catholics rulers of spain united under ferdinand and isabella. by 1492 they had conquered the last of the muslim kingdoms in spain. this unification of spain was also the reason columbus was sponsored by spain. After ferdinand ad isabella drove out the moors, they decided to make spain unified by religion as well as politics. the result was the exile of all jews and muslims who would not convert to catholicism.
the goal of the inqusitions was to eliminate heretics by forcing them to renounce their heresy or by burning them at the stake as an example. eventually the inqusitons of europe began to harass jews. in spain the jews and muslims had suposedly all left or converted, so in spain the job of the inqusition was to find heretics and those conversos (Converts) who still secretly practiced their old religion. through a wide variety of tourtures the inqusitors forced confessions out of their prisoners, many were executed by burning at the stake. The inqusiton was harsh and lasted over a decade with the support of the spanish monarchy, the ruthlessness of the inqusiton was a powerful tool for the rulers of spain over their subjects and solidified control over the conquered areas. the inquisition was so bloody in fact that the church actually tried to intervene. for more information click here and here
In the 1470's the catholics rulers of spain united under ferdinand and isabella. by 1492 they had conquered the last of the muslim kingdoms in spain. this unification of spain was also the reason columbus was sponsored by spain. After ferdinand ad isabella drove out the moors, they decided to make spain unified by religion as well as politics. the result was the exile of all jews and muslims who would not convert to catholicism.
the goal of the inqusitions was to eliminate heretics by forcing them to renounce their heresy or by burning them at the stake as an example. eventually the inqusitons of europe began to harass jews. in spain the jews and muslims had suposedly all left or converted, so in spain the job of the inqusition was to find heretics and those conversos (Converts) who still secretly practiced their old religion. through a wide variety of tourtures the inqusitors forced confessions out of their prisoners, many were executed by burning at the stake. The inqusiton was harsh and lasted over a decade with the support of the spanish monarchy, the ruthlessness of the inqusiton was a powerful tool for the rulers of spain over their subjects and solidified control over the conquered areas. the inquisition was so bloody in fact that the church actually tried to intervene. for more information click here and here
"All I ask of food is that it doesn't harm me."
Food.
It is the very center of any culture and our very existence as living creatures. Since the dawn of time we have been eating, yet what we have been eating has changed. Today we eat meat as a normal piece of our diet, almost as if it were the most important part. It is only recently, under my personal editing of my eating habits, that I have come to realize this.
For thousands of years the Human thing lived without eating meat as often or in such quantities as we do today. I site specifically the Paleolithic ear of our species existence. In turn, we can safety say that Humans are more that capable of surviving, comfortably, with minimal or no meat consumption. Originally, we subsisted on nuts, berries, wheat, and other greens. Meat, while not always a total rarity, was not what one would call a main course (as we would think of it).
This begs the question: what is the dies for which our bodies is designed? We are aware of our appendix and of its apparent uselessness as well as that of our wisdom teeth. Were these, at one point, needed to help process our semi-meatless diet?
Another question to be asked: would this ancient diet be more compatible with our bodies than what we currently eat?
Of course it would! Nuts, berries, herbs, legumes: these have not the preservatives nor the fact content of today's food. While the body does need a certain amount of protein this can be found in various other sources of foods, as we are sure those living in the Paleolithic era consumed.
Now, please do not read this as "my case for vegetarianism," because it is not. At all. I do eat meat, however, I have cut back and modified on my intake. Call it a combination of personal taste meets experimentation. I think it can be said that we are hard pressed to think of a "fat caveman" or "obese paleolithic humanoid" (whichever you prefer): the point still stands. Between daily activity (while not always harsh) and eating habits, our genetic ancestors were not as obese as today's posterity.
While not saying "there were on to something," at least not consciously, they certainly benefited from the results to an extent. Perhaps if there were a shift back to this diet, or something more like it, the Human condition of health would see something of an advancement.
Boulding, Elise. 2007. Women and the Agricultural Revolution. In Worlds of History, A Comparative Reader, 3ed. 16-20. Boston, MA. Bedford/ St. Martin's.
Strayer, Robert W. 2009. First Farmers, The Revolution of Agriculture. In A Brief Global History. 35-53. Boston, MA. Bedford/ St. Martin's.
It is the very center of any culture and our very existence as living creatures. Since the dawn of time we have been eating, yet what we have been eating has changed. Today we eat meat as a normal piece of our diet, almost as if it were the most important part. It is only recently, under my personal editing of my eating habits, that I have come to realize this.
For thousands of years the Human thing lived without eating meat as often or in such quantities as we do today. I site specifically the Paleolithic ear of our species existence. In turn, we can safety say that Humans are more that capable of surviving, comfortably, with minimal or no meat consumption. Originally, we subsisted on nuts, berries, wheat, and other greens. Meat, while not always a total rarity, was not what one would call a main course (as we would think of it).
This begs the question: what is the dies for which our bodies is designed? We are aware of our appendix and of its apparent uselessness as well as that of our wisdom teeth. Were these, at one point, needed to help process our semi-meatless diet?
Another question to be asked: would this ancient diet be more compatible with our bodies than what we currently eat?
Of course it would! Nuts, berries, herbs, legumes: these have not the preservatives nor the fact content of today's food. While the body does need a certain amount of protein this can be found in various other sources of foods, as we are sure those living in the Paleolithic era consumed.
Now, please do not read this as "my case for vegetarianism," because it is not. At all. I do eat meat, however, I have cut back and modified on my intake. Call it a combination of personal taste meets experimentation. I think it can be said that we are hard pressed to think of a "fat caveman" or "obese paleolithic humanoid" (whichever you prefer): the point still stands. Between daily activity (while not always harsh) and eating habits, our genetic ancestors were not as obese as today's posterity.
While not saying "there were on to something," at least not consciously, they certainly benefited from the results to an extent. Perhaps if there were a shift back to this diet, or something more like it, the Human condition of health would see something of an advancement.
Boulding, Elise. 2007. Women and the Agricultural Revolution. In Worlds of History, A Comparative Reader, 3ed. 16-20. Boston, MA. Bedford/ St. Martin's.
Strayer, Robert W. 2009. First Farmers, The Revolution of Agriculture. In A Brief Global History. 35-53. Boston, MA. Bedford/ St. Martin's.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Here, he says he's not dead...Yes he is...I'm not!
Upon checking my e-mail this morning at yahoo, one of the first pages that appeared on the news section of the main site was this one, which does its best to inform the general public about the possible destruction of the world in 2012 based off the infamous Mayan calendar. As someone who has also earned a Spanish minor at Grand Valley State University, I have had the privilege of studying the Mayan culture before the hype about this possible doomsday event rose in its popularity. Also, as part of an early world history course at Grand Valley State, one of the main topics of discussion is learning about the early successful civilizations of the world. I decided to do some in-depth research in regards to the Mayan civilization, and also look into why so many people today are highly concerned about 2012.
According to this historical website, "The Maya are probably the best-known of the classical civilizations of Mesoamerica. Mayan history starts in the Yucatan around 2600 B.C., Mayan history rose to prominence around A.D. 250 in present-day southern Mexico, Guatemala, western Honduras, El Salvador, and northern Belize."
In other words, the Maya civilization existed roughly along the times of the famous classical Roman empire and during the height of Han Dynasty China, two civilizations that my classmates and I are currently studying as part of our world history course at Grand Valley State University. This particular site, as well, lays out a fairly detailed map explaining where the Mayan civilization existed within the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico. So now, we have the when, the what, and the where describing the Mayan civilization. But what about why? Why 2012? What is the big deal? Or how? How does the Mayan calendar predict this special date?
Perhaps the most important ruin discovery of the Mayan civilization is that of Chichen Itza. It is a pyramid design, but there is far more to it than just that. Chichen Itza represents part of the epic Mayan calendar. At this site, one can learn about the importance of the equinoxes for the Mayan civilization. The site describes that on both the spring and the autumnal equinox, the light from the sun will hit the stairs descending from the pyramid at directly the right point. It is rumored that the shadows cast by the pyramid itself will cause a serpent's image to be shown on those stairs, descending to the earth from the top of the pyramid. December 21, 2012, happens to be the fall equinox when this epic image appears--and it is also the very end of the current Mayan calendar. In other words, Chichen Itza is the embodiment of the prediction of the Mayan calendar.
The Mayan Calendar, as it currently stands, is scheduled to run out of dates December 21, 2012. Does this mean the end of the world, however? Remember that the Mayan civilization began around 2000 BCE, and reached its height shortly after the common era began. As someone who has been lucky enough to visit the Mayan ruin of Chichen Itza, I am not so easily convinced. However, using the information I have researched in this post, I will let you decide. Given the information here, is it enough to convince anyone that the world will ultimately reach its destruction in 2012?
According to this historical website, "The Maya are probably the best-known of the classical civilizations of Mesoamerica. Mayan history starts in the Yucatan around 2600 B.C., Mayan history rose to prominence around A.D. 250 in present-day southern Mexico, Guatemala, western Honduras, El Salvador, and northern Belize."
In other words, the Maya civilization existed roughly along the times of the famous classical Roman empire and during the height of Han Dynasty China, two civilizations that my classmates and I are currently studying as part of our world history course at Grand Valley State University. This particular site, as well, lays out a fairly detailed map explaining where the Mayan civilization existed within the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico. So now, we have the when, the what, and the where describing the Mayan civilization. But what about why? Why 2012? What is the big deal? Or how? How does the Mayan calendar predict this special date?
Perhaps the most important ruin discovery of the Mayan civilization is that of Chichen Itza. It is a pyramid design, but there is far more to it than just that. Chichen Itza represents part of the epic Mayan calendar. At this site, one can learn about the importance of the equinoxes for the Mayan civilization. The site describes that on both the spring and the autumnal equinox, the light from the sun will hit the stairs descending from the pyramid at directly the right point. It is rumored that the shadows cast by the pyramid itself will cause a serpent's image to be shown on those stairs, descending to the earth from the top of the pyramid. December 21, 2012, happens to be the fall equinox when this epic image appears--and it is also the very end of the current Mayan calendar. In other words, Chichen Itza is the embodiment of the prediction of the Mayan calendar.
The Mayan Calendar, as it currently stands, is scheduled to run out of dates December 21, 2012. Does this mean the end of the world, however? Remember that the Mayan civilization began around 2000 BCE, and reached its height shortly after the common era began. As someone who has been lucky enough to visit the Mayan ruin of Chichen Itza, I am not so easily convinced. However, using the information I have researched in this post, I will let you decide. Given the information here, is it enough to convince anyone that the world will ultimately reach its destruction in 2012?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)