The Tribe has always been an important concept in Arabian and Islamic history, creating divisions among its dwellers and followers. How has this caused problems in the history of Islam?
Muhammad tried to unite all people under Islam. The existence and value of tribes caused many problems for him and his successors. Creating and maintaining unity was made very hard by the fact that many tribes were enemies. After Muhammad’s death, Abu Talib (his uncle) put in tremendous efforts to keep the tribes united. As peoples’ alliances lay with their tribes, all wanted the next spiritual leader (the caliph) to be from their own tribe (or at least not an enemy tribe). Many revolts and wars throughout the history of Islam were caused by the split of Islam into 3, which initially was, in some degree, the result of tribal controversies and preferences.
The ancient tribal problems are still causing conflict. In several modern countries, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan where the absolute majority of citizens are Muslim, religion and government is not enough to unite the people. Tribal loyalties for many of them aren’t only above religion; they are also above the law. People respect and fear their tribal laws and traditions more than they do formal law and central governments.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
blog 9
How has the religious history of India influenced India ’s tradition of non-violence? The non-violent tradition is deeply rooted in Indian culture and religious history. In Jainism, there’s ahimsa, the concept of “noninjury” to anything living. Jainism follows the extreme of this concept, some even wearing a cloth over their face to avoid accidentally swallowing a fly. Tolerance of all forms of life became a widespread concept in both Hinduism and Buddhism. In Hinduism, whatever bad you do ruins your next few lives. The heritage and ideas of one of the most prominent Indians, Mohandas Gandhi, were greatly influenced by those religions. The basis of his ideas was satyagrana: the concept of non-violent protest. This concept was very effectively used during the Indian struggle for independence from Britain.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Blog 8: Can migrations have a positive impact on the people and/or land receiving the immigrants?
Can migrations have a positive impact on the people and/or land receiving the immigrants?
In my opinion, cultures and countries can often benefit from immigrants. There are examples of this in history and our world of today.
In the 14th century, Poland invited Jews. The Jewish people brought with them knowledge, skilled artisans, and traders, as well as many other valuable techniques and ideas. This started off Poland golden age.
As well as introducing new ideas and skills, they encourage tourism, which allows more businesses, boosting the economy. Often, native citizens complain that the immigrants are taking their jobs. That is because many immigrants will do work for a lower pay and also better, creating competition. When my grandparents came to the US, my grandpa got a job at a flower shop because he agreed to work for a minimal wage. He was happy to have a job and his employers were happy to have such a worker.
Immigrants coming to a new country can also increase the population, making the country seem more important (as well as diverse). An increasing population also encourages more businesses, because more supplies are needed. Those businesses create more jobs and the money that is earned goes into other businesses, boosting the economy. According to www.marketwatch.com, immigration from 1990 to 2007 boosted the average annual earnings of native-born Americans from 0.7 to 1.8 percent.
Most immigrants usually move because of oppression in their native countries or better opportunities in other countries (or both). Therefore, many try their best to get good grades and jobs and use all opportunities that they are presented with. This creates competition for others, causing everyone to strive to be better, increasing the quality of education and the rate of development.
They come with knowledge of bad ideas (that made them migrate from their own country), making the country they come to less likely to repeat the mistakes of other countries.
In conclusion, immigrants often have a positive impact on the places to which they migrate and it’s citizens.
In my opinion, cultures and countries can often benefit from immigrants. There are examples of this in history and our world of today.
In the 14th century, Poland invited Jews. The Jewish people brought with them knowledge, skilled artisans, and traders, as well as many other valuable techniques and ideas. This started off Poland golden age.
As well as introducing new ideas and skills, they encourage tourism, which allows more businesses, boosting the economy. Often, native citizens complain that the immigrants are taking their jobs. That is because many immigrants will do work for a lower pay and also better, creating competition. When my grandparents came to the US, my grandpa got a job at a flower shop because he agreed to work for a minimal wage. He was happy to have a job and his employers were happy to have such a worker.
Immigrants coming to a new country can also increase the population, making the country seem more important (as well as diverse). An increasing population also encourages more businesses, because more supplies are needed. Those businesses create more jobs and the money that is earned goes into other businesses, boosting the economy. According to www.marketwatch.com, immigration from 1990 to 2007 boosted the average annual earnings of native-born Americans from 0.7 to 1.8 percent.
Most immigrants usually move because of oppression in their native countries or better opportunities in other countries (or both). Therefore, many try their best to get good grades and jobs and use all opportunities that they are presented with. This creates competition for others, causing everyone to strive to be better, increasing the quality of education and the rate of development.
They come with knowledge of bad ideas (that made them migrate from their own country), making the country they come to less likely to repeat the mistakes of other countries.
In conclusion, immigrants often have a positive impact on the places to which they migrate and it’s citizens.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Blog 6
1. I agree with the quote from Socrates “I know that I’m intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.” If you are intelligent and knowledgeable, there are many questions and doubts that you have. You know information that supports facts and information that proves them false. Therefore, you can conclude that you know nothing (for sure).
This quote, in my opinion, goes together with another one of Socrates quotes, “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” It’s basically saying that if you are good, it’s because you are knowledgeable and when you are evil, it’s because of your ignorance. For example, Socrates was condemned to death by ignorant people because he showed how easily they could be proved wrong.
2. Plato thought that the social structure of a perfect society had to be created based on the intelligence of the people. The extraordinarily intelligent and brave people should rule the state. Those who aren’t intelligent should be farmers and smiths or do other things of that sort. The ones in between should make up the army and police.
3. In Plato’s ideal republic, the most intelligent get the most power. It might ensure a good government for a few generations but eventually, only the ancestors of previous governors would be called intelligent. The lower classes wouldn’t get enough education to be considered good enough for the government. The kids of the extraordinary will have the privilege of knowing what they need and being able to afford the education.
Also, I can’t think of a way to choose those who are especially talented.
The majority of citizens may not get what they want and need because they will be underrepresented in the government.
4. Obviously, an ideal state or republic would be one in which everyone would be happy. However, no civilization has managed that yet.
I think an ideal society should be democratic because everyone will always be different. I think that emphasis should be put on philosophical education so that everyone could be trusted to participate in a democratic society. I think that there should be a central government but the land should be divided into states, which should consist of cities. The cities should have elected representatives who report to elected state representatives, who, in turn, will report to the also elected president. There should be nothing like the Electoral College. Representatives should be elected by the people directly. Any one who has completed the philosophical education should be able to vote. Issues like abortions should be decided in cities separately.
5. It means that there are random things which we see, hear, or feel, such as school and fashion, that we pay more attention to than others. Those things that we pay attention to are temporary and constantly changing. The unchanging ideas like math and philosophy, which are more educational, we tend to ignore (saying, why does it matter, when there is what I can influence and feel?).
This quote, in my opinion, goes together with another one of Socrates quotes, “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” It’s basically saying that if you are good, it’s because you are knowledgeable and when you are evil, it’s because of your ignorance. For example, Socrates was condemned to death by ignorant people because he showed how easily they could be proved wrong.
2. Plato thought that the social structure of a perfect society had to be created based on the intelligence of the people. The extraordinarily intelligent and brave people should rule the state. Those who aren’t intelligent should be farmers and smiths or do other things of that sort. The ones in between should make up the army and police.
3. In Plato’s ideal republic, the most intelligent get the most power. It might ensure a good government for a few generations but eventually, only the ancestors of previous governors would be called intelligent. The lower classes wouldn’t get enough education to be considered good enough for the government. The kids of the extraordinary will have the privilege of knowing what they need and being able to afford the education.
Also, I can’t think of a way to choose those who are especially talented.
The majority of citizens may not get what they want and need because they will be underrepresented in the government.
4. Obviously, an ideal state or republic would be one in which everyone would be happy. However, no civilization has managed that yet.
I think an ideal society should be democratic because everyone will always be different. I think that emphasis should be put on philosophical education so that everyone could be trusted to participate in a democratic society. I think that there should be a central government but the land should be divided into states, which should consist of cities. The cities should have elected representatives who report to elected state representatives, who, in turn, will report to the also elected president. There should be nothing like the Electoral College. Representatives should be elected by the people directly. Any one who has completed the philosophical education should be able to vote. Issues like abortions should be decided in cities separately.
5. It means that there are random things which we see, hear, or feel, such as school and fashion, that we pay more attention to than others. Those things that we pay attention to are temporary and constantly changing. The unchanging ideas like math and philosophy, which are more educational, we tend to ignore (saying, why does it matter, when there is what I can influence and feel?).
Monday, November 10, 2008
Athens vs Sparta
1. If you were a young teenage girl of the citizen class, in which city-state would you rather live? Why?
I would rather live in Sparta. In Sparta, women were the most independent out of all the Greek city-states. Girls received education in reading and writing, athletics, gymnastics, and survival skills, no matter how much money their parents had.
2. If you were a slave, in which city-state would you rather live? Why?
I’d rather live in Sparta if I were a slave. In Sparta, instead of having slaves, they had serfs (helots). Helots did mostly agricultural work and, while the land belonged to the Spartans, could keep ½ of their produce. In Athens, slaves belonged to a particular owner, who was in almost total control of them. An owner could even kill them.
3. If you were a boy of the citizen class, in which would you rather live? Why?
I’d rather live in Athens. In Sparta, boys were taken away from their parents at age 7. They were given only a cloak for clothes, and not enough food, meaning they had to steal (to learn survival skills). The emphasis was put on military training. In Athens however, boys stayed with their parents and had more opportunities for varied education.
4. If you were a young soldier, in which would you rather live? Why?
I’d rather live in Sparta. In Sparta, soldiers had higher status. Every young person was a soldier in Sparta; no one was better than you. In Athens, while you were following orders, other people were out studying, trading, traveling, or making money.
5. If you were a very wealthy person of the citizen class, in which would you rather live? Why?
I’d rather live in Athens. In Athens, you could buy many things with money. With money, you could have more influence and slaves. Also there were more education opportunities and flexibility. In Sparta the influence of wealth was limited; it was literally difficult to carry money.
6. Finally, decide to represent either Athens or Sparta and debate which is the best place to live. Use the chart from class to find criticisms of the other city-state while praising your own.
Sparta is a great place to live. In Sparta, we are all equal (except serfs); everyone receives the same education and opportunities, no matter how much money our parents have. Education and careers aren’t privileges for the wealthy (like they are in Athens). In Sparta our women also get education; they learn writing and reading, survival skills, gymnastics, and athletics. Your Athenian women sit around and learn domestic art. Why do they even need it if you have slaves? Spartans are all raised to be brave, honorable, and patriotic. Each citizen gets what he or she deserves while in Athens, all are corrupt because money can buy everything. We are a more just society even in the way we treat slaves. While Athenian slaves can be killed by owners and have no rights, our helots do necessary agricultural work and can keep ½ of their produce. In your democracy, misinformed, lower class citizens get as much say in decisions as those that have ample and correct information and education.
I would rather live in Sparta. In Sparta, women were the most independent out of all the Greek city-states. Girls received education in reading and writing, athletics, gymnastics, and survival skills, no matter how much money their parents had.
2. If you were a slave, in which city-state would you rather live? Why?
I’d rather live in Sparta if I were a slave. In Sparta, instead of having slaves, they had serfs (helots). Helots did mostly agricultural work and, while the land belonged to the Spartans, could keep ½ of their produce. In Athens, slaves belonged to a particular owner, who was in almost total control of them. An owner could even kill them.
3. If you were a boy of the citizen class, in which would you rather live? Why?
I’d rather live in Athens. In Sparta, boys were taken away from their parents at age 7. They were given only a cloak for clothes, and not enough food, meaning they had to steal (to learn survival skills). The emphasis was put on military training. In Athens however, boys stayed with their parents and had more opportunities for varied education.
4. If you were a young soldier, in which would you rather live? Why?
I’d rather live in Sparta. In Sparta, soldiers had higher status. Every young person was a soldier in Sparta; no one was better than you. In Athens, while you were following orders, other people were out studying, trading, traveling, or making money.
5. If you were a very wealthy person of the citizen class, in which would you rather live? Why?
I’d rather live in Athens. In Athens, you could buy many things with money. With money, you could have more influence and slaves. Also there were more education opportunities and flexibility. In Sparta the influence of wealth was limited; it was literally difficult to carry money.
6. Finally, decide to represent either Athens or Sparta and debate which is the best place to live. Use the chart from class to find criticisms of the other city-state while praising your own.
Sparta is a great place to live. In Sparta, we are all equal (except serfs); everyone receives the same education and opportunities, no matter how much money our parents have. Education and careers aren’t privileges for the wealthy (like they are in Athens). In Sparta our women also get education; they learn writing and reading, survival skills, gymnastics, and athletics. Your Athenian women sit around and learn domestic art. Why do they even need it if you have slaves? Spartans are all raised to be brave, honorable, and patriotic. Each citizen gets what he or she deserves while in Athens, all are corrupt because money can buy everything. We are a more just society even in the way we treat slaves. While Athenian slaves can be killed by owners and have no rights, our helots do necessary agricultural work and can keep ½ of their produce. In your democracy, misinformed, lower class citizens get as much say in decisions as those that have ample and correct information and education.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
hi
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
blog 4
Blog 4
New ideas in politics and philosophy tend to emerge in times of social, political, and/or economic stress? How can this be explained?
At times of social, political, or economic stress, people particularly distrust the government. They don’t know what to expect but no one expects anything good. Because of this, everyone knows that changes need to be made. It usually starts with a philosophy of change, which then translates into the practical politics.
People come up with various ideas. Not many want to hold high government positions in times of trouble. However, some individuals see the desperation of others as their chance to earn respect and fame. The expectations of society combined with aspirations of these individuals bring about dramatic changes.
For example, during the Great Depression, the government, for the first time, interfered with the economy by ordering public projects so that more people could’ve gotten jobs. In ancient China, if a ruler crushed the opposition and won wars, he had the Mandate of Heavens, and therefore the people. If the ruler didn’t succeed, that meant he wasn’t supported by the Heavens and a new one was needed with new political ideas and new philosophies.
New ideas in politics and philosophy tend to emerge in times of social, political, and/or economic stress? How can this be explained?
At times of social, political, or economic stress, people particularly distrust the government. They don’t know what to expect but no one expects anything good. Because of this, everyone knows that changes need to be made. It usually starts with a philosophy of change, which then translates into the practical politics.
People come up with various ideas. Not many want to hold high government positions in times of trouble. However, some individuals see the desperation of others as their chance to earn respect and fame. The expectations of society combined with aspirations of these individuals bring about dramatic changes.
For example, during the Great Depression, the government, for the first time, interfered with the economy by ordering public projects so that more people could’ve gotten jobs. In ancient China, if a ruler crushed the opposition and won wars, he had the Mandate of Heavens, and therefore the people. If the ruler didn’t succeed, that meant he wasn’t supported by the Heavens and a new one was needed with new political ideas and new philosophies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)