This reading is a speech Adolf Hitler gave in 1933. He is very nationalistic. He speaks with endearing terms about Germany, and warns of the coming danger. He is vehemently against Communism and speaks of the horrible destruction that will come if Communism reigns. All of the ruin is the result of the war and has left thousands unemployed. He is trying to appeal to the people to allow the National Government to engage in two four year plans, and see if things are not better after the first four years. He plans to eliminate unemployment and rescue the German farmer. He makes a great speech, and I can see why people wanted to follow him. He seems very charismatic.
The textbook discusses Hitler's quick rise to power. Sadly, Hitler had spent much time in Vienna where anti-semitism was very strong. Hitler opposed socialism, trade unionism, and anything that emphasized class conflict or worker's rights. He exalted the nation, but he focused on race as a key struggle. The Jews were always a historic enemy and Hitler viewed them as a biological infection that could be passed to further generations and must be stopped. The Nazi party grew tremendously in just three years, and they went from a small minority to the largest political party. This speech was given just one month after Hitler had become chancellor. The men who worked with Hitler were sure he was no danger, and that in two months he would even want out, but they were wrong. Within six months Hitler had destroyed democracy in Germany and established Nazi dictatorship.
I think the sentence that stood out to me the most was the sentence, "Within four years unemployment must finally be overcome". I had to laugh when I read this sentence. Hitler seems to think he could totally eradicate unemployment, and in four years. No one can totally get rid of unemployment. Perhaps it can lessen significantly, but not be totally overcome. I think that he had some pretty unrealistic goals.
One new thought I had was about the progression of Hitler's power. While he had anti-Semitic feelings the whole time, I wonder if he had the annihilation of the Jews in mind from the very beginning. I guess I'm wondering if he planned from before he was in power, that he would become a dictator and destroy the Jews, or if it was more of a spontaneous progression that snowballed into what occurred. Perhaps after getting a little more power here, and a little more there, it snowballed as he acquired power but wasn't completely planned from the beginning. I suppose I'm trying to give Hitler some benefit of the doubt to make him seem not as horrible, but in all likelihood, he probably planned everything out from the beginning.
One modern parallel I saw was Joseph Kony. He is an African leader trying to purify the people. He enslaves children and makes them his soldiers, and uses them to kill millions of people. If that isn't a modern day Hitler, I don't know who is.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
Conspicuous Consumption
This reading is all
about the nature of consumption amongst the leisure class. Often a gentleman
will have servants and/or a wife that consumes goods for him, which adds to his
reputation. Early phases of predatory culture show that there is an honorable
class of men and a laboring class of women. Women only consumed what was
necessary for life, which was not honorable; they did not consume anything for
added comfort or fullness of life. Also, the use of alcohol and stimulating drugs
amongst upper class men was seen as honorable. There are also different ranks
among the leisure class. Some men inherit the status of gentleman by blood but
do not inherit the money necessary for living the leisurely lifestyle of a
gentleman. In this case, these lower gentlemen will be in a state of dependence
on the higher class gentlemen. The nature of the consumption of the gentlemen
is that it is wasteful, that is, it is not necessary for life.
One
statement that stood out to me was, “Drunkenness and the other pathological
consequences of the free use of stimulants therefore tend in their turn to
become honorific, as being a mark, at the second remove, of the superior status
of those who are able to afford the indulgence. Infirmities induced by
over-indulgence are among some peoples freely recognized as manly attributes.”
At this time, being drunk and intoxicated from various drugs was an honorable,
manly thing, simply because they could afford it. Perhaps they did not know the
adverse effects of the drugs and alcohol as much as today, but the abuse and
wasting of money that comes from alcoholism should have been evident. I cannot imagine alcohol and drug use being
an honorable thing.
One thought I had, was about how the
luxurious class seemed to buy things just because they could. It was part of
the definition of a luxurious and gentleman class to buy extravagant things
they did not need. This reading makes it sound like a finely oiled machine or
system, where the men and women are continuously thinking about their
reputations, and what they need to buy in order to maintain or improve their
position. I am hoping that this system of life was more subconscious than that.
Hopefully it was just a way of life to buy luxurious things, and become
intoxicated if you had money, and it wasn’t such a calculated thing. Perhaps
the author of this reading has the perspective of an outside, analyzing the
ways of life, and that is why it seems so formulated.
Nowadays, people with money get the latest
iphones and cars, and have nice houses. While it is a mark of luxury to have
those things, I do not think that people are strongly looked down upon for
having average items. It seems that the lifestyle in this reading resembles how
teenagers function. Teens often are all about getting the latest and greatest
thing so they can be popular. Teens want iphones and the most expensive name
brand clothes. They fear they won’t be liked if they do not have these things.
I think that is the modern parallel I see, that teens behave the way the
luxurious class behaved. While some people operate this way their whole life, I
hope most adults outgrow this need to impress people with material possessions.
Conspicuous consumption is spending goods mainly for displaying income or
wealth. In the mind of a conspicuous consumer, these display served as a means
of attaining or maintaining social status. Thorstein Veblen was an
economist and sociologist. He used the term conspicuous consumer to describe
the nouveau riche, which was an emerging class with wealth as a result of the
second industrial revolution.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Workers' Rights
The theme of this reading is workers' rights in the 19th century. This reading is a petition sent to the legislature House from workers. The petition expresses the concerns of the exhausted and often starved workers. The workers complain of too much taxes and ask that taxes be on property and not industry. The petetioners demand universal suffrage, the right to vote, and fair reresentation in parliament. They ask the House to allow every able man to vote, to direct elections with secret ballots, only allow people to be in parliament a year at a time, and do away with property qualifications on parliament members.
The textbook discusses much about workers' rights and struggles. In countries all over Europe and in the United States the second Industrial Revolution causes much social and economic hardship. There was more being produced than what could be consumed, and manufacturers kept costs down by requiring long hours and lowering wages. Also, people traveled to the cities for work, and made things even harder because there was just not enough to go around. These conditions caused workers to organize themselves and respond with strikes and oftentimes violence. Socialism appealed to many workers because socialism was all about helping workers acquire rights and establish welfare programs for the unwealthy.
The phrase that stands out to me is the phrase, " the laws that make food dear, and those which by making money scarce, make labor cheap, must be abolished". I think this gets the point across very well. Everything that makes money hard to get and makes labor cheap needs to get abolished, so everyone can have enough to eat. This basic statement of survival gets to the bottom of the issue, which is that most workers and barely surviving and are trying to provide for their families.
One modern parallel is the potential strike with at&t. Workers are organized in their unions and are demanding that their bosses improve conditions revolving around job security, healthcare costs, benefits, and work rules. Around 40,000 emplyees, or 15% of employees, may strike.
New thoughts that come to me are about the connection between large populations and poverty. When people flooded the cities for work, and the average number of children was around six, although it was gradually decreasing, the population in the cities was too much for the economy to handle. Also, the public water and health care systems were not prepared for this population boom. There were housing shortages and horrible living and working conditions, and it made a mess for everyone. Of course, once a population is large, and a mess is made, there is nothing you can do but work to fix it. However, the choice to limit the number of children in a family is one way to keep the population a little more manageable.
Sources:
Text book
http://news.yahoo.com/40-000-t-workers-may-strike-talks-fail-024101541.html
The textbook discusses much about workers' rights and struggles. In countries all over Europe and in the United States the second Industrial Revolution causes much social and economic hardship. There was more being produced than what could be consumed, and manufacturers kept costs down by requiring long hours and lowering wages. Also, people traveled to the cities for work, and made things even harder because there was just not enough to go around. These conditions caused workers to organize themselves and respond with strikes and oftentimes violence. Socialism appealed to many workers because socialism was all about helping workers acquire rights and establish welfare programs for the unwealthy.
The phrase that stands out to me is the phrase, " the laws that make food dear, and those which by making money scarce, make labor cheap, must be abolished". I think this gets the point across very well. Everything that makes money hard to get and makes labor cheap needs to get abolished, so everyone can have enough to eat. This basic statement of survival gets to the bottom of the issue, which is that most workers and barely surviving and are trying to provide for their families.
One modern parallel is the potential strike with at&t. Workers are organized in their unions and are demanding that their bosses improve conditions revolving around job security, healthcare costs, benefits, and work rules. Around 40,000 emplyees, or 15% of employees, may strike.
New thoughts that come to me are about the connection between large populations and poverty. When people flooded the cities for work, and the average number of children was around six, although it was gradually decreasing, the population in the cities was too much for the economy to handle. Also, the public water and health care systems were not prepared for this population boom. There were housing shortages and horrible living and working conditions, and it made a mess for everyone. Of course, once a population is large, and a mess is made, there is nothing you can do but work to fix it. However, the choice to limit the number of children in a family is one way to keep the population a little more manageable.
Sources:
Text book
http://news.yahoo.com/40-000-t-workers-may-strike-talks-fail-024101541.html
Friday, April 20, 2012
Women Miners in the English Coal Pits
This reading is all about women working in the mines in England and Scotland, and was written in 1842 during the Industrial Revolution. Men and boys working in the mines either were naked down to the waist or completely naked as they worked. Many girls and women working in the mines were naked down to the waist, although some were clothed. The common clothing among all were the belts around their waste with chains passing between their legs, and many times these chains would wear holes in their pants between their legs, which was very indecent. The hard work of mining coal was distributed evenly across male and female workers. The fact that women and young girls were working with naked men in dark chambers led to common sexual occurrences. Much of the time the women had very little to eat all day long and went home exhausted and filthy to their children in the evening.
The textbook discusses the large numbers of women and children that were recruited into the workforce during the Industrial Revolution, especially in the textile and mining industries. Female and child labor was plentiful and cheap. Children only received 1/6 to 1/3 of what a man would earn, and women received 1/3 to 1/2 of what a man would make. The women and children did not have a choice but to take one of these low-paying jobs. Families needed money, and everyone had to work and earn what they could. After some time, women could no longer care for their children while on the job, which led to the trend of women taking care of the children at home while the men earned wages and worked outside the home.
The sentence that stood out to me the most was, "When it is remembered that these girls hurry chiefly for men who are not their parents; that they go from 15 to 20 times a day into a dark chamber (the bank face), which is often 50 yards apart from anyone, to a man working naked, or next to naked, it is not to be supposed but that where opportunity thus prevails sexual vices are of common occurrence." I cannot imagine being a girl or woman of any age having to work around naked men and being raped in a coal mine. I cannot imagine being that desperate for money that I would take a job where I did hard manual labor for twelve hours a day, and would be frequently taken advantage of at any given moment. I cannot imagine only having bread and butter for lunch, and just having potatoes for dinner, and maybe every once in awhile, some meat. People were really struggling just to survive and had to do whatever they could to make some money, even if that meant being taken advantage of, or choosing to let your children be taken advantage of.
This reading reminds of the poverty in third world countries, where people are so desperate they either sell their children or themselves into prostitution. I am sure that word spread, and the women and young girls knew what additional services they would be providing in addition to their back-breaking physical labor. I'm sure women and young girls realized that in addition to being miners, they were also agreeing to be prostitutes, except without any extra pay. In some respect, you could say that these girls and women had it worse than prostitutes because they had to do hard, filthy labor for twelve hours a day, in addition to being victimized by men in the mines for no additional pay.
In modern times, there are still sweatshops, where most often, young, uneducated women work for an unfair wage, and cannot meet the standard of living with this as their only income. These women often have to work in unsafe and unsanitary working conditions, and are the victims of sexual harassment. The garment industry is based on a system where retailers like Wal-Mart and Target are at the top of the sub-contracting chain. Manufacturers hire contractors and subcontractors, who then hire the garment workers. Most contractors are in a tough position due to competition, and they have to pay low wages and cut corners with safety and conditions because they are not being paid enough by the manufacturers. Thus, the garment workers get the short end of the stick and have to work very hard for low wages and be a victim to whatever the conditions may be.
Sources:
Text book
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~nshah/fashioncrimes/Sweatshops.html
The textbook discusses the large numbers of women and children that were recruited into the workforce during the Industrial Revolution, especially in the textile and mining industries. Female and child labor was plentiful and cheap. Children only received 1/6 to 1/3 of what a man would earn, and women received 1/3 to 1/2 of what a man would make. The women and children did not have a choice but to take one of these low-paying jobs. Families needed money, and everyone had to work and earn what they could. After some time, women could no longer care for their children while on the job, which led to the trend of women taking care of the children at home while the men earned wages and worked outside the home.
The sentence that stood out to me the most was, "When it is remembered that these girls hurry chiefly for men who are not their parents; that they go from 15 to 20 times a day into a dark chamber (the bank face), which is often 50 yards apart from anyone, to a man working naked, or next to naked, it is not to be supposed but that where opportunity thus prevails sexual vices are of common occurrence." I cannot imagine being a girl or woman of any age having to work around naked men and being raped in a coal mine. I cannot imagine being that desperate for money that I would take a job where I did hard manual labor for twelve hours a day, and would be frequently taken advantage of at any given moment. I cannot imagine only having bread and butter for lunch, and just having potatoes for dinner, and maybe every once in awhile, some meat. People were really struggling just to survive and had to do whatever they could to make some money, even if that meant being taken advantage of, or choosing to let your children be taken advantage of.
This reading reminds of the poverty in third world countries, where people are so desperate they either sell their children or themselves into prostitution. I am sure that word spread, and the women and young girls knew what additional services they would be providing in addition to their back-breaking physical labor. I'm sure women and young girls realized that in addition to being miners, they were also agreeing to be prostitutes, except without any extra pay. In some respect, you could say that these girls and women had it worse than prostitutes because they had to do hard, filthy labor for twelve hours a day, in addition to being victimized by men in the mines for no additional pay.
In modern times, there are still sweatshops, where most often, young, uneducated women work for an unfair wage, and cannot meet the standard of living with this as their only income. These women often have to work in unsafe and unsanitary working conditions, and are the victims of sexual harassment. The garment industry is based on a system where retailers like Wal-Mart and Target are at the top of the sub-contracting chain. Manufacturers hire contractors and subcontractors, who then hire the garment workers. Most contractors are in a tough position due to competition, and they have to pay low wages and cut corners with safety and conditions because they are not being paid enough by the manufacturers. Thus, the garment workers get the short end of the stick and have to work very hard for low wages and be a victim to whatever the conditions may be.
Sources:
Text book
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~nshah/fashioncrimes/Sweatshops.html
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Galileo
The theme of this reading is heresy, and revolves around the trial of Galileo before the Roman Inquisition. It was heretical for Galileo to go against current interpretation of scripture that the earth was stationary and the sun moved. Galileo was being tried for heresy because he published books and furthered the Copernican view of the sun being immobile and the earth rotating around the sun. The Roman Inquisition forced Galileo to denounce his views and abandon all efforts to further them.
The text provides adequate background information of the trial of Galileo. The book, The Assayer won Galileo the support of Pope Urban VIII who took Galileo under his wing because he wanted to be associated with the latest intellectual activity. However, when his book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published it caused him a lot of problems. This book promoted Copernicanism more forcefully. This book caused Galileo to lose support from Pope Urban because the pope felt it was a direct insult to him. Throughout the trial Galileo denied that he felt Copernicanism as being undeniably true, he simply thought it was probable. However, the Roman Court said that any view that is contrary to scripture is not probable. The Court made Galileo renounce his views and he was sent to Sienna for a year, and then he returned to his home in Arcetri where he remained under house arrest for the rest of his life.
This is so interesting that the church was trying to respect scripture and prevent anyone from going against scripture, when they did not know that scripture is not in opposition to the earth rotating around the sun. They really thought they were doing what was right as Christians in defending scripture, but they basically ruined a brilliant man's life in the process. This whole account reminds me of the trial with Socrates, where Socrates is accused of corrupting the youth and believing in other gods, neither of which were true. Socrates simply wanted to embrace wisdom and challenge people to look at themselves deeply and seek out wisdom as well. He was the only one really doing that at the time and the young people that wanted to follow in his ways were those he was accused of corrupting. Socrates was sentenced to death for these things because he would not give up the life of philosophy he wanted to live. Would Galileo have been tortured or put to death if he had refused to renounce his beliefs? Perhaps the story would have been even more life Socrates if Galileo had refused to give up his beliefs.
One thing that stood out to me was that Galileo was seventy years old when he was put on trial for this, and Socrates was seventy-two I believe. Both of these men were late in years as they were put on trial. Galileo lived nine more years, one year as an outcast and eight under house arrest. Something else that stands out to me is that the pope is being referred to as his Holiness. I think that is way too grand a title for any person to have. No one is holy except God. Every person falls so short of absolute Holiness. When the pope is referred to as his Holiness, the "h" is capital, and later when it is said, "the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ", the "h" is lowercase. I think Jesus' name deserves a capital "h" much more than the pope's title.
A modern parallel I see is the controversy over evolution and scripture. To be honest, I am a six day creationist, and a science major. I have read many things that cause me to believe that carbon dating is flawed and is probably not accurate. I support a literal interpretation of Genesis and a young earth perspective. Perhaps an old earth and evolution are compatible with scripture, or perhaps they are not. Maybe those who want to stand by a literal interpretation of scripture and not by science are wrong and we just haven't seen how they are compatible yet, or maybe they are right. Either way, that point is not a salvation determining factor. As long as the church does not ostracize and punish anyone who would go against their interpretation of scripture, we are doing better than the church of the 1600's.
Source:
Text Book
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html
The text provides adequate background information of the trial of Galileo. The book, The Assayer won Galileo the support of Pope Urban VIII who took Galileo under his wing because he wanted to be associated with the latest intellectual activity. However, when his book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published it caused him a lot of problems. This book promoted Copernicanism more forcefully. This book caused Galileo to lose support from Pope Urban because the pope felt it was a direct insult to him. Throughout the trial Galileo denied that he felt Copernicanism as being undeniably true, he simply thought it was probable. However, the Roman Court said that any view that is contrary to scripture is not probable. The Court made Galileo renounce his views and he was sent to Sienna for a year, and then he returned to his home in Arcetri where he remained under house arrest for the rest of his life.
This is so interesting that the church was trying to respect scripture and prevent anyone from going against scripture, when they did not know that scripture is not in opposition to the earth rotating around the sun. They really thought they were doing what was right as Christians in defending scripture, but they basically ruined a brilliant man's life in the process. This whole account reminds me of the trial with Socrates, where Socrates is accused of corrupting the youth and believing in other gods, neither of which were true. Socrates simply wanted to embrace wisdom and challenge people to look at themselves deeply and seek out wisdom as well. He was the only one really doing that at the time and the young people that wanted to follow in his ways were those he was accused of corrupting. Socrates was sentenced to death for these things because he would not give up the life of philosophy he wanted to live. Would Galileo have been tortured or put to death if he had refused to renounce his beliefs? Perhaps the story would have been even more life Socrates if Galileo had refused to give up his beliefs.
One thing that stood out to me was that Galileo was seventy years old when he was put on trial for this, and Socrates was seventy-two I believe. Both of these men were late in years as they were put on trial. Galileo lived nine more years, one year as an outcast and eight under house arrest. Something else that stands out to me is that the pope is being referred to as his Holiness. I think that is way too grand a title for any person to have. No one is holy except God. Every person falls so short of absolute Holiness. When the pope is referred to as his Holiness, the "h" is capital, and later when it is said, "the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ", the "h" is lowercase. I think Jesus' name deserves a capital "h" much more than the pope's title.
A modern parallel I see is the controversy over evolution and scripture. To be honest, I am a six day creationist, and a science major. I have read many things that cause me to believe that carbon dating is flawed and is probably not accurate. I support a literal interpretation of Genesis and a young earth perspective. Perhaps an old earth and evolution are compatible with scripture, or perhaps they are not. Maybe those who want to stand by a literal interpretation of scripture and not by science are wrong and we just haven't seen how they are compatible yet, or maybe they are right. Either way, that point is not a salvation determining factor. As long as the church does not ostracize and punish anyone who would go against their interpretation of scripture, we are doing better than the church of the 1600's.
Source:
Text Book
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Duty of a King in His Royal Office
The theme of this reading is absolutism and revolves around the king having absolute power. The reading suggests that a king is a god, a father, and the head. The reading suggest that kings are referred to as gods by God and have God-like attributes. Kings can create or destroy, give life or send death, judge all yet not be judged, to raise things high or make them low, and to require love of the soul and the work of the body. The reading claims the king is a father as the king can give his inheritance out if he wishes, or disinherit the ones expected to receive the inheritance and prefer another. A father can make his children rich or make them beggars. A father can be near to his children or far from them. A father can forgive or cast away. Finally the reading suggest the king is like the head of a physical body in that the head directs all the members of the body and uses judgement.
Kings never had complete power because the laws did not permit the kings to have such absolute power. Even during the seventeenth century when the monarch power was "absolute" it was still limited because other politicians and high class men were still involved in political matters. Kings could not afford to lose the support of these men. What is really meant by absolute power is that the king has the highest legislative power in the kingdom. Kings were viewed as above the law, but they were still expected to observe peoples' rights and the moral law of God in their actions.
The very first sentence stands out to me: "The state of the manarchie is the supremest thing upon the earth; for kings are not only Gods lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods." I would like to see what scripture they were referring to here. The second commandment is to have no other gods before me. God did not want Israel to have a king; God wanted to be their only king. However, the people demanded to have a king so He gave them Saul, but God warned them all the king would do that would be oppressive. God always says to respect authorities and recognize that God is in control of those in power, but it doesn't sound like God to refer to any man as a "god".
This reading caused me to think of the quote, "With much power comes great responsibility". If God is allowing men to be kings on the earth, then God is trusting them to rule as He would. I would think that these rulers are especially accountable to God for their actions, because their actions affect so many. Just as the Bible says that teachers are especially accountable for the things they teach and for their pupils. The kings and the people believed that the power was given by God, so hopefully that gave them a sense of humility because God could easily take that power away. The Bible does not emphasize being first or being the most powerful as what is important. Jesus led by example and showed that being a humble servant is what we are to aim for. Humility is always key.
A modern parallel I see are monopolies like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is the most popular store to buy everyday items at a cheap price. Most of Wal-Mart's products are made in China in sweatshops by people who are not being paid well. Wal-Mart has probably caused countless "mom and pop" stores to go out of business because they cannot compete with Wal-Mart's prices. Wal-Mart seems to have "absolute power" in the realm of consumerism, and it's power is not considerate of many of its employees and of course none of its competitors.
Sources:
Text Book
http://history-world.org/absolutism.htm
Kings never had complete power because the laws did not permit the kings to have such absolute power. Even during the seventeenth century when the monarch power was "absolute" it was still limited because other politicians and high class men were still involved in political matters. Kings could not afford to lose the support of these men. What is really meant by absolute power is that the king has the highest legislative power in the kingdom. Kings were viewed as above the law, but they were still expected to observe peoples' rights and the moral law of God in their actions.
The very first sentence stands out to me: "The state of the manarchie is the supremest thing upon the earth; for kings are not only Gods lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods." I would like to see what scripture they were referring to here. The second commandment is to have no other gods before me. God did not want Israel to have a king; God wanted to be their only king. However, the people demanded to have a king so He gave them Saul, but God warned them all the king would do that would be oppressive. God always says to respect authorities and recognize that God is in control of those in power, but it doesn't sound like God to refer to any man as a "god".
This reading caused me to think of the quote, "With much power comes great responsibility". If God is allowing men to be kings on the earth, then God is trusting them to rule as He would. I would think that these rulers are especially accountable to God for their actions, because their actions affect so many. Just as the Bible says that teachers are especially accountable for the things they teach and for their pupils. The kings and the people believed that the power was given by God, so hopefully that gave them a sense of humility because God could easily take that power away. The Bible does not emphasize being first or being the most powerful as what is important. Jesus led by example and showed that being a humble servant is what we are to aim for. Humility is always key.
A modern parallel I see are monopolies like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is the most popular store to buy everyday items at a cheap price. Most of Wal-Mart's products are made in China in sweatshops by people who are not being paid well. Wal-Mart has probably caused countless "mom and pop" stores to go out of business because they cannot compete with Wal-Mart's prices. Wal-Mart seems to have "absolute power" in the realm of consumerism, and it's power is not considerate of many of its employees and of course none of its competitors.
Sources:
Text Book
http://history-world.org/absolutism.htm
Thursday, March 22, 2012
12 Articles
The theme of the reading is reform. The peasants are demanding reform. Their reform consists of twelve articles. The articles address the ability to choose a pastor, paying just amount of tithe and not extra, and that extra money should be given to the poor or saved. The peasants declare that they should not have to be serfs and be held as property since Christ has delivered all. They also say they should be allowed to kill animals that interfere with their crops since God gave man dominion over all the animals, and they say that firewood should be free to all, instead of charging a poor man a fee for wood. The peasants say that they should not have excessive and ever increasing services to the lords and that all service to the lords should be just and fair. Fair rent prices are requested, and the peasants ask to be judged according to the old written law instead of all the new laws. The peasants ask that the meadows and fields be owned communally instead of individually. They say they will not endure the heriot due any longer, which is a feudal service due to the lord on the death of a tenant. Finally they declare that all articles should be according the word of God.
Luther and other authorities were against the peasants’ revolts. The peasants thought they were doing what Luther had suggested in his reforms, but Luther had never intended the reforms that the peasants proposed. Luther referred to spiritual freedom, not necessarily social freedom. Luther supported the feudal lords in opposing the peasant armies that were rising. Luther suggested the peasants be hunted down and killed, and 70,000-100,000 peasants were killed.
A phrase that stood out to me was, “the gospel is not the cause of revolt and disorder, since it is the message of Christ”. They continue to suggest that Christ taught only love, peace, patience, and concord. While this is partially true, Christ didn’t exactly fit in peacefully with everyone. Christ openly opposed the Pharisees and Sadducees, and even turned over tables and made a whip to get the moneychangers out of the temple. Yes, Jesus teaches love, peace, and patience, but He also was not afraid to go against the crowd and be radical. Of course the gospel itself is not the cause of violent revolt and disorder, but the gospel is not always comfortable in its message either.
The first article about being able to choose a pastor caused me to think about the way some denominations choose pastors. My church was founded over thirty years ago, and today the son of the founder of the church is the pastor. The church has had one pastor for nearly thirty years and then the church was passed down to his son and he has been pastor around five years now. Our church does not vote for a pastor. I have heard of other churches and denominations that change pastors frequently and vote them out for various reasons. I am happy to be in a church where I know the pastor is going to be around for a long time.
I think there is a modern parallel with the way people can get carried away with different church doctrines and carry them to extremes that were perhaps never intended. I have heard much talk and debate about “word of faith” and “prosperity gospel” teachings lately. Some preachers under these categories seem to take things to the extreme by suggesting a person can never be sick, or never be poor, otherwise they are outside the will of God. However, some of the “faith” teaching can be quite good, when not taken to the extreme. I admire how “faith” teachers take the Bible at its word and believe it wholeheartedly and there is much good that can come from that. I think that “word of faith” teaching can be really beneficial if not taken too far and too out of balance, just as Luther’s reforms were not meant to imply radical social reform and be taken to the extreme.
Sources:
Text Book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Articles
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Charter of Homage and Fealty of Bernard Atton, A.D. 1110
The theme of this reading is the nature of feudalism in regards to lords, vassals, and fiefs. It seems that Lord Bernard Atton is a great lord over many things, but he is expressing that lord Leo is lord over him. Lord Leo will be lord over all Bernard Atton has, and Bernard Atton will be loyal and faithful to lord Leo in all things. This was written in a company of witnesses by a monk named John. St. Mary of Grasse is the monastery that Leo is abbot of, and so he expresses that St. Mary is in a way lord as well.
This is how feudalism worked. Lords owned property and had vassals under them. Lords gave vassals fiefs, or land, and expected loyalty and service in return. This structure was supposed to form a hierarchy of power starting with the king and going down, but it became a very complex system of power. Many lords had just as much land if not more than the king, so this did not work out for the king to have the absolute power. Some were lords over some, but were vassals to others. A person might be a vassal to more than one person, which made loyalty a sticky situation. In this reading, Bernard Atton is a lord over much, but he is recognizing Leo as lord over him. Bernard Atton is a vassal to Leo, but a lord over others.
The small fourth paragraph stood out to me. "And if I or my sons or their successors do not observe to thee or to thy successors each and all the things declared above, and should come against these things, we wish that all the aforesaid fiefs should be that very fact be handled over to thee and to the said monastery of St. Mary of Grasse and to thy successors." This is the penalty for breaking the agreement. If Bernard Atton and his successors do not provide proper honor and loyalty, then the monastery gets to keep everything mentioned above, which is a lot. They must have been serious about their loyalty and honor, because this was no light agreement.
This made me think about what would happen if things went wrong. What if some other lord came and overtook all that Bernard Atton had? What if he was left with nothing? He would not be able to hold up his end of the agreement, and the monastery would not be able to claim his land and property because it would have already been taken over by another lord. He would have nothing to offer lord Leo or the monastery. It seems like lots of agreements like this were probably made, but I wonder if changing economy, changing weather patterns, or unexpected disaster or raids ever brought an unforeseen tragedy where these agreements could not be carried out.
This network of loyalties from the past reminds me of current networks of friends. I was in a situation recently where there was a conflict between a friend of mine and two other friends of mine. I was caught in the middle, not wanting to be disloyal to either party. I had to be honest with both parties involved and thankfully it all worked out. But in these situations in 1110 AD, it was likely matters of war. It is unlikely a vassal could be a mediator between two fighting lords. The vassal would have to choose which lord to be loyal to, and hope that lord won. Otherwise who knows what the other lord would do to the treacherous vassal. It also reminds of current legal systems. This seems to be comparable to a legal document of a will and agreement. It is somewhat complex in its language, just as current legal documents are.
Source: Text Book
This is how feudalism worked. Lords owned property and had vassals under them. Lords gave vassals fiefs, or land, and expected loyalty and service in return. This structure was supposed to form a hierarchy of power starting with the king and going down, but it became a very complex system of power. Many lords had just as much land if not more than the king, so this did not work out for the king to have the absolute power. Some were lords over some, but were vassals to others. A person might be a vassal to more than one person, which made loyalty a sticky situation. In this reading, Bernard Atton is a lord over much, but he is recognizing Leo as lord over him. Bernard Atton is a vassal to Leo, but a lord over others.
The small fourth paragraph stood out to me. "And if I or my sons or their successors do not observe to thee or to thy successors each and all the things declared above, and should come against these things, we wish that all the aforesaid fiefs should be that very fact be handled over to thee and to the said monastery of St. Mary of Grasse and to thy successors." This is the penalty for breaking the agreement. If Bernard Atton and his successors do not provide proper honor and loyalty, then the monastery gets to keep everything mentioned above, which is a lot. They must have been serious about their loyalty and honor, because this was no light agreement.
This made me think about what would happen if things went wrong. What if some other lord came and overtook all that Bernard Atton had? What if he was left with nothing? He would not be able to hold up his end of the agreement, and the monastery would not be able to claim his land and property because it would have already been taken over by another lord. He would have nothing to offer lord Leo or the monastery. It seems like lots of agreements like this were probably made, but I wonder if changing economy, changing weather patterns, or unexpected disaster or raids ever brought an unforeseen tragedy where these agreements could not be carried out.
This network of loyalties from the past reminds me of current networks of friends. I was in a situation recently where there was a conflict between a friend of mine and two other friends of mine. I was caught in the middle, not wanting to be disloyal to either party. I had to be honest with both parties involved and thankfully it all worked out. But in these situations in 1110 AD, it was likely matters of war. It is unlikely a vassal could be a mediator between two fighting lords. The vassal would have to choose which lord to be loyal to, and hope that lord won. Otherwise who knows what the other lord would do to the treacherous vassal. It also reminds of current legal systems. This seems to be comparable to a legal document of a will and agreement. It is somewhat complex in its language, just as current legal documents are.
Source: Text Book
Friday, February 24, 2012
Islamic Conquest of Spain
This is an account of how Islam gained control of Spain. It is admitted that both fact and myth are mixed together in this account which was written about 150 years after it happened. There are no accounts of the Islamic conquest of Spain that are known to be totally accurate. This legend states that Tarik was in command of an army. Tarik be-friended Ilyan, Lord of Septa. Ilyan was a subject of Roderic, king of Spain. Ilyan sent one of his daughters to Roderic to be educated but she became pregnant by him. Ilyan wanted revenge on Roderik and helped Tarik invade Spain. On the island of Umm-Hakim the Moslems took the vinedressers captive and butchered one of them and boiled his flesh. They also boiled meat. They threw away the flesh of the man when no one was looking and ate the meat, but the other prisoners thought that the Moslems ate human flesh. Roderoc was defeated and Spain was conquered.
Many people wonder if the reason for the conquest was really Ilyan wanting revenge against Roderic. Many suspect that the Muslim people wanted to enlarge their territory. Perhaps Ilyan wanted the throne as well. As the Muslims conquered many countries, they were much more generous to the people they conquered than other rulers in the past.
The portion of the reading that stood out to me was the portion about the Moslems making it look like they feasted on human flesh to intimidate the other prisoners. While some sources say the Moslems were more generous to captive people than others in the past, this suggestion of having the reputation of eating human flesh seems less than gentle (whether they did it or not). The part of the Jihad to wage war on unbelievers with the sword is a less than gentle approach.
At the very beginning of the reading it says that they were waging holy war. I wanted to find out more about this, and I looked into what this really refers to. Non-Muslims often translate the term jihad as holy war, but Islamic people want people to know these terms are not the same. The Quran never uses the term jihad for fighting and combat in the name of Allah. Jihad is a term meaning a struggle of any kind, whether it be internal, religious, violent, etc. There are many misunderstandings about jihad and "holy war". Many Muslims claim that the greatest jihad is an internal struggle to live the Muslim life and that violence and terrorism are not their goals. However, there are others who say that to wage war on unbelievers is the highest form of jihad and should be pursued.
In current times Islamic people have come to be viewed as a dangerous militant minority that could disrupt society through terrorism. Some articles say that Muslims will fight for world domination, and that they expect to be dominant in Europe within thirty years and become the largest religion in the world during that time. Mosques are being erected all over the United States more and more as well. If non-Muslims will be viewed as infidels, then this potential spread could be very dangerous. Just as Islam was conquering in the past, they are still trying to conquer today.
Sources:
Text book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0075_popup9.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_islam.html
http://blogs.christianpost.com/christianity/2010/07/countering-the-spread-of-islam-08/
Many people wonder if the reason for the conquest was really Ilyan wanting revenge against Roderic. Many suspect that the Muslim people wanted to enlarge their territory. Perhaps Ilyan wanted the throne as well. As the Muslims conquered many countries, they were much more generous to the people they conquered than other rulers in the past.
The portion of the reading that stood out to me was the portion about the Moslems making it look like they feasted on human flesh to intimidate the other prisoners. While some sources say the Moslems were more generous to captive people than others in the past, this suggestion of having the reputation of eating human flesh seems less than gentle (whether they did it or not). The part of the Jihad to wage war on unbelievers with the sword is a less than gentle approach.
At the very beginning of the reading it says that they were waging holy war. I wanted to find out more about this, and I looked into what this really refers to. Non-Muslims often translate the term jihad as holy war, but Islamic people want people to know these terms are not the same. The Quran never uses the term jihad for fighting and combat in the name of Allah. Jihad is a term meaning a struggle of any kind, whether it be internal, religious, violent, etc. There are many misunderstandings about jihad and "holy war". Many Muslims claim that the greatest jihad is an internal struggle to live the Muslim life and that violence and terrorism are not their goals. However, there are others who say that to wage war on unbelievers is the highest form of jihad and should be pursued.
In current times Islamic people have come to be viewed as a dangerous militant minority that could disrupt society through terrorism. Some articles say that Muslims will fight for world domination, and that they expect to be dominant in Europe within thirty years and become the largest religion in the world during that time. Mosques are being erected all over the United States more and more as well. If non-Muslims will be viewed as infidels, then this potential spread could be very dangerous. Just as Islam was conquering in the past, they are still trying to conquer today.
Sources:
Text book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0075_popup9.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_islam.html
http://blogs.christianpost.com/christianity/2010/07/countering-the-spread-of-islam-08/
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Early History of the Hellenes
This reading describes the development and progression of the Hellenes. Hellas was not a settled country in ancient times. Rather, the people migrated, and were continuously vulnerable to attack and overthrow from other people groups. There was no accumulation of wealth or commerce. When people were successful because of good land, people fought over the power that could be acquired. If the land was poor, then the people did not fight, because there was nothing to fight over. Hellen and his sons became powerful in Phthiotis, and eventually the people called themselves after this name. Other parts of the development were as follows: Minos established the first navy. Piracy was a constant threat, and people carried weapons at all times because of the danger. The Athenians were the first to put down their weapons and adopt an easier and more luxurious way of life. The shores began to consist of walled towns to be protected from pirates, and these coast populations began to acquire wealth and become more settled. The climax is the Peloponnesian War in which Athens is overthrown by Sparta.
Thucydides, the author of this reading, is an Ancient Greek historian of the fifth century B.C. He suggests that a change in hierarchy of weaker states does not really affect the stability of the overall system. However, when stronger states are fighting for power, then instability and disaster can occur. This is what happened with the great power of Athens rising and intimidating Sparta. People continue to look back on the Peloponnesian War and learn from its principles of power and hierarchy.
An interesting part of this account is that the Hellenes and other coastal barbarians were tempted to become pirates. They were becoming more accustomed to the ways of the sea, and becoming pirates and plundering vulnerable cities and villages would be a good way to provide for their own needs, and help support the needy. The unusual aspect is that apparently in these times being a pirate, and doing these things, was an honorable occupation, and not a disgraceful one. I cannot imagine plundering cities and villages being an honorable thing. Perhaps whoever could acquire the resources they needed were respected and honored. Perhaps the honor was given based on a "survival of the fittest" attitude. If you needed to take someone else's resources to survive, then so be it.
The development and settling of a people group causes me to think about what we are learning and discussing in my anthropology class. The Hellenes migrated a great deal, and carried weapons to protect themselves in their vulnerability. They eventually became familiar with the ways of the sea, and acquired more wealth. They eventually became a settled people, but it took awhile. All people groups have to endure that process in some way or another to survive. Whether it is tribal people in the Amazon Rainforest, settlers traveling to a new land, or the Hellenes, each people group must be in a location where there is enough food, where they can have some form of protection, shelter, and other resources. Without these basic needs a people group cannot survive. The determining factor of who is the most powerful is who is the most successful at this quest. The people group that is doing the best job at producing abundant food, having shelter for all its people, protecting its people, and effectively using resources will be the most powerful. I never really thought about the acquiring of power in this way before.
The struggle that ultimately occurred between Athens and Sparta reminds me of the struggle between the Soviet Union and America. The Peloponnesian War seems to parallel the Cold War very much. In the very beginning of the Hellenes, if people started becoming successful they fought over the power. This principle holds true at every level. When powers rise, conflicts often emerge. When certain nations rise in power, it makes other nations nervous. Iran’s nuclear powers, and China’s potential to be a global power, are things that make America nervous. Mankind will always struggle over power. Adam and Eve wanted to be “like God”, so they disobeyed God and sinned. Man wanted a higher position of power. It is how man began, and man will always struggle with this temptation.
Thucydides, the author of this reading, is an Ancient Greek historian of the fifth century B.C. He suggests that a change in hierarchy of weaker states does not really affect the stability of the overall system. However, when stronger states are fighting for power, then instability and disaster can occur. This is what happened with the great power of Athens rising and intimidating Sparta. People continue to look back on the Peloponnesian War and learn from its principles of power and hierarchy.
An interesting part of this account is that the Hellenes and other coastal barbarians were tempted to become pirates. They were becoming more accustomed to the ways of the sea, and becoming pirates and plundering vulnerable cities and villages would be a good way to provide for their own needs, and help support the needy. The unusual aspect is that apparently in these times being a pirate, and doing these things, was an honorable occupation, and not a disgraceful one. I cannot imagine plundering cities and villages being an honorable thing. Perhaps whoever could acquire the resources they needed were respected and honored. Perhaps the honor was given based on a "survival of the fittest" attitude. If you needed to take someone else's resources to survive, then so be it.
The development and settling of a people group causes me to think about what we are learning and discussing in my anthropology class. The Hellenes migrated a great deal, and carried weapons to protect themselves in their vulnerability. They eventually became familiar with the ways of the sea, and acquired more wealth. They eventually became a settled people, but it took awhile. All people groups have to endure that process in some way or another to survive. Whether it is tribal people in the Amazon Rainforest, settlers traveling to a new land, or the Hellenes, each people group must be in a location where there is enough food, where they can have some form of protection, shelter, and other resources. Without these basic needs a people group cannot survive. The determining factor of who is the most powerful is who is the most successful at this quest. The people group that is doing the best job at producing abundant food, having shelter for all its people, protecting its people, and effectively using resources will be the most powerful. I never really thought about the acquiring of power in this way before.
The struggle that ultimately occurred between Athens and Sparta reminds me of the struggle between the Soviet Union and America. The Peloponnesian War seems to parallel the Cold War very much. In the very beginning of the Hellenes, if people started becoming successful they fought over the power. This principle holds true at every level. When powers rise, conflicts often emerge. When certain nations rise in power, it makes other nations nervous. Iran’s nuclear powers, and China’s potential to be a global power, are things that make America nervous. Mankind will always struggle over power. Adam and Eve wanted to be “like God”, so they disobeyed God and sinned. Man wanted a higher position of power. It is how man began, and man will always struggle with this temptation.
Sources:
Text Book
Thursday, February 2, 2012
When on High
This is a very interesting Babylonian creation story. Unlike the Christian story of creation, there are many gods involved. The creation of the world starts off where there is no material form to anything in the universe, and a male and a female god came about in this formless state. Apsu is the male god, and Tiamat is the female god. Mummu seems to also be apart right from the beginning as well. Apsu means sweet primeval waters, and Tiamat means salt primeval waters. Sweet and salt water come together at the merging of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which is where the origin of Mesopotamian civilization occurs. (This is interesting because we are starting off studying the early Mesopotamia civilization.) Mummu means maker. Next Lahmu and Lahamu come about, and their names mean slime, mud, and silt. From these two gods come Anshar, which means whole sky, and Kishar, which means whole earth. Anshar and Kishar come together to make Anu, the sky god. He produces Ea, which means image fashioner.
Ea begins to stir up trouble, and Apsu becomes angry, but Tiamat does not seem to mind. However, after awhile, Apsu and Mummu go before Tiamat and suggest that they destroy Ea. Tiamat is troubled by this and does not agree. Apsu and Mummu plan to destroy the younger gods anyway. However, Ea overhears the plots to destroy him, and puts a spell on Apsu and Mummu, causing Apsu to fall asleep and Mummu to be unable to move. Ea killed Apsu and captured Mummu. Then Marduk is born to Ea and his wife, Daminka. Marduk means son-of-the-sun. Marduk is more powerful than his father and impressive in appearance.
The other gods go to Tiamat complaining about Marduk, and saying she did not stand to defend her husband Apsu or Mummu. Tiamat goes to battle against Marduk, but Marduk prevails and Tiamat is destroyed. Marduk decides to create a savage man, who will be "charged with the service of the gods". Ea suggests that the god who caused Tiamat to rebel should be killed in order to make the savage man. Kingu is the one who caused the uprising, so they killed him and made mankind out of him. He was used to "let free the gods".
I thought it was very interesting that Apsu and Mummu wanted to destroy the other gods, which were his sons, but Tiamat did not. Tiamat said, "What? Should we destroy what we have built? Their ways are indeed troublesome, but let us attend kindly!" Tiamat wanted to be gracious and merciful, and not destroy her own children. These two gods were the original gods according to this story. One wanted to destroy what he had created, the other did not. This concept caused me to think about God, the Christian, biblical God. When God decided to destroy mankind except for Noah and his family, or when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, or even when He allowed His one and only son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the world's sin, I am sure that God did not want to destroy his creation, or allow His son to be crucified, but because of His justice and wrath against sin, He knew it was the right thing to do.
This creation story seems to have modern parallels with monarchies. In the creation story, certain gods are more powerful than others, and that power seems to stay in the same "family" of gods. Ea is the most powerful god and defeats Apsu and Mummu. He then gives birth to Marduk who is even more powerful. He then defeats Tiamat and continues to reign. This family of gods is clearly in charge and in power. Throughout history and even currently, some nations are ruled by monarchies. All the power remains and in the same family, and rulers often rule for a lifetime.
Source: http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Enuma_Elish.html
Ea begins to stir up trouble, and Apsu becomes angry, but Tiamat does not seem to mind. However, after awhile, Apsu and Mummu go before Tiamat and suggest that they destroy Ea. Tiamat is troubled by this and does not agree. Apsu and Mummu plan to destroy the younger gods anyway. However, Ea overhears the plots to destroy him, and puts a spell on Apsu and Mummu, causing Apsu to fall asleep and Mummu to be unable to move. Ea killed Apsu and captured Mummu. Then Marduk is born to Ea and his wife, Daminka. Marduk means son-of-the-sun. Marduk is more powerful than his father and impressive in appearance.
The other gods go to Tiamat complaining about Marduk, and saying she did not stand to defend her husband Apsu or Mummu. Tiamat goes to battle against Marduk, but Marduk prevails and Tiamat is destroyed. Marduk decides to create a savage man, who will be "charged with the service of the gods". Ea suggests that the god who caused Tiamat to rebel should be killed in order to make the savage man. Kingu is the one who caused the uprising, so they killed him and made mankind out of him. He was used to "let free the gods".
I thought it was very interesting that Apsu and Mummu wanted to destroy the other gods, which were his sons, but Tiamat did not. Tiamat said, "What? Should we destroy what we have built? Their ways are indeed troublesome, but let us attend kindly!" Tiamat wanted to be gracious and merciful, and not destroy her own children. These two gods were the original gods according to this story. One wanted to destroy what he had created, the other did not. This concept caused me to think about God, the Christian, biblical God. When God decided to destroy mankind except for Noah and his family, or when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, or even when He allowed His one and only son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the world's sin, I am sure that God did not want to destroy his creation, or allow His son to be crucified, but because of His justice and wrath against sin, He knew it was the right thing to do.
This creation story seems to have modern parallels with monarchies. In the creation story, certain gods are more powerful than others, and that power seems to stay in the same "family" of gods. Ea is the most powerful god and defeats Apsu and Mummu. He then gives birth to Marduk who is even more powerful. He then defeats Tiamat and continues to reign. This family of gods is clearly in charge and in power. Throughout history and even currently, some nations are ruled by monarchies. All the power remains and in the same family, and rulers often rule for a lifetime.
Source: http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Enuma_Elish.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)