Harun al-Rashid (wiki-style)

This source was indeed bad; I don't mean to hop on the "Wikipedia is the worst thing ever" bandwagon, but there are certain things about it that I just can't seem to trust. Such as him being strongly influenced by our very own Mike Ackerman, now isn't that some great history! No but seriously, even the organization was not up-to-par, I like the intro at the beginning before the great wall of text, but there is very little "organization". I guess you could call it organized with Wikipedia's little contents box that always comes after the intro paragraph(s), but I'm not convinced its good enough. However, this Wikipedia article is seemingly full of mostly facts, though I think the accuracy could be a little off. Mike Ackerman probably disagrees with me though.

The only questions I have are about his gain in power and how the people viewed him at a person in society. I guess the only reason I have so little questions is because of the lack of interest I read most Wikipedia articles with; but I also think the views given on his life were relatively in-depth. To find out more about him I would probably just run an internet search, and try to look for more reliable sources that not just anyone can edit. To filter Google searches of his name, I would probably look for things like the URL's to look for something more official than .com, probably more along the lines of .org. But also adding keywords into my search for whatever specifically i might be trying to find out about him would work.

He probably sparked so much imagination because of his role in flourishing Baghdad, but I didn't see anything in the article about him in pop culture, or why, at least. I don't think I have ever heard his name until today, which I think about sums up why I'm sort of confused as to whether I should have known about him previously or not.

Benjamin of tudela

If you ask me, Benjamin of Tudela is a guy who should be taken seriously; he is a well-educated Spanish rabbi, who is more the qualified of making educated decisions. He does not give a very biased view on things, he gives the good and the bad, the palace and the caliph, for example. But the bit of bias he did was was towards Baghdad, he seemed to favor it a bit more, perhaps because of its magnificence, but more likely because of his social experiences there. He doesn't put down Constantinople directly, but he indeed gives "bland" descriptions, unlike what he did with Baghdad, but i do believe that he is someone to take seriously.

Islamic expansion map

Comparing Islam to other religions

Compare the Quran's teachings on the relationship between Allah and human beings with the views of Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians discussed in earlier chapters (pg 350)

The Quran's teachings, are for obvious reasons, very similar to that of Zoroastrianism's, Jusaism's, and Christianity's. Just as in Zoroastrianism and Christianity, Islam believes in a final salvation, a judgment day. Also it is said that like in all other religions, the main god of the religion is the only one who can lead you to salvation, and to a happy afterlife. And similarly, there is only one existing god in all of these religions, so all the monotheistic beliefs have that way to be similar to each other. All of these beliefs also preach of practicing good faith and good deeds by being good to others and other things. However, in Islam, it would seem that a follower would be more subjected to the will of Allah.

Islamization of the Silk Road

Richard C. Foltz's article supports the ideas in Bentley's argument, specifically the pressure, voluntary association, and assimilation.

Voluntary association was accomplished in a few different ways, the most effective was trade. Not as if the beliefs were traded along and exchanged for money or something, more in the sense of interaction by merchants leading to the spread of their beliefs. It was said that no other religions thus far had "favored trade as much as Islam did", showing how even they knew that trade was beneficial to them in multiple ways. Also, Prophet Muhammad did things like dealing with the greviances in society, which pretty much served as a follower magnet; this just about led people to tell more people, who told more people, etc.

Now for pressure, I guess you wouldn't have to do much reading about to figure out. People under Muslim rule, who had not already converted, would feel pressure from society to make the switch. Also another rapid growth factor in pressure was the raiding caravans; basically being under Islamic faith would have ensured safety.

Last, and definitely not least (not to say any of the way these spread was a "least")is assimilation; the key thing about assimilation was the mixed marriages. Because when a child was born into a mixed marriage couple, he/she would have to be raised as a Muslim in the parents' new community.








\

On our own.

     Ibn Battuta has an overall negative opinion on Constantinople. He describes parts of it and gives a very brutally honest opinion. He says "The bazaars in this part of the town are good but filthy, and a small and very dirty river runs through them. Their churches too are filthy and mean". This shows how he isn't exactly fond of Constantinople. However, I wasn't to sure on the use for the focus of Ibn Battuta; he seemed to give a very focused opinion. His opinions were focused more on the money side of things (of course.). 
     Benjamin of Tudela's view of Constantinople, in contrast to Battuta's, is positive. Similar to Battuta, however, Benjamin's focus on the wealth was very noticeable. He says that their wealth is "not to be found in the whole world", showing how fond he is of it. It could be said he idealized the idea of Constantinople as a place to live, he compliments pretty much everything. The entertainment, the wealth, the people, he loves it all; quite the jolly guy it seems.
    Liudprand of Cremona sticks to an Ibn-esque description of Constantinople, he tends to stick to the negatives. He doesn't hesitate to just flat out give his honest opinion on it, he uses his experiences to help express why he seriously dislikes it. When he came there, he was treated as an inferior, and was forced to walk on foot even though he arrived on horseback. He also seriously dislikes the king, emperor, "Rex", take your pick, but he describes him with serious brutality. He calls him a "monstrosity of a man, a dwarf, fat headed" among other things, very biased and almost immature. 

What lies ahead? Brb checking crystal ball.

From what I understood from the reading, the Post-Classical Era will consist of restoration, from a social & political standpoint, anyways. All the destruction caused by internal struggles is what causes the need for this restoration, and I guess I would be wrong to not include that external pressures played and equal role in destruction. Populations increase everywhere in relation to agriculture and its advances; people devote their time and effort into agriculture as it is booming. This causes manufacturing and trade to boom as well, leading (slowly) to great technological advances. Religions, along with all the material exchanges, start to go spread around rapidly. Islam and Christianity, specifically become the bases for empires. Centralized control loses a lot of popularity; it never returns to India and it is only in Western Europe for a short period of time.

What Da &?! (Qin)

If I were the Han emperor, I don't believe I would see the Roman empire as a threat. The Romans were a very rich empire, both in wealth and culture. If anything they would be an ally to the Han empire, but alas, the distance between China and Rome is too great for any really good/useful alliance. However the few of us that travel there bring back much to learn; but large amounts of the population going there would not be the best thing in the world. I think the only time either of the empires would pose any sort of threat towards each other is if they somehow started effecting each others trade/economies. But in reality, the distance at which the two empires are pretty much eliminates that problem. So overall, I would have to say its a neutral "relationship" if you must, because again, the length at which they would have to travel to collide is kind of a lot.

The Roman Empire: Positive or Negative Image?

Personally, I have a negative image of the Roman Empire as a whole. Although I admit they have some pretty amazing feats and positives, the positives are outweighed by the negatives if you ask me. The rulers in ancient Rome did not rule with compassion at all, they were quite cruel as a matter of fact; and this is a very huge downside in my opinion. I feel as though a positive feeling towards an empire or government or whatever requires some good rulers, but in Rome the corruption was so great that it wouldn't even matter what the public had to say. The emperor especially, I think should be a kind an generous leader, not a self-concerned man who only cares about the power he has over a population. Marriages too, were a large factor in my decision to have a negative image of ancient Rome. Marriages became more of a business, a decision made with some sort of financial or social standing benefit in mind. And at the very end was slaves; although I would not mind a giant group of unskilled(or even skilled) lower class, I'm against the slavery and the cruelty that generally comes with it. I believe many people of the Roman empire must have felt the same way, and this as a whole would have lead to weakening of the empire, thus giving me a negative view of it overall.

#republictoempire

Rome's transition from a republic to an empire was through a series of steps. In the first step, we have a few elite's who determine the rules and live breaking the rules if they wish. Next came a set of rules known as the Twelve Tables which discouraged doing "bad" things among other things. After this step, things started to become more aristocratic, and the higher classes could corrupted the government completely if they pleased. With all this corruption, voting never really mattered anymore because the few in charge would rig it. Soon a singular leader emerged as an emperor who would always be "voted" back every year, bringing Rome to an empire.

Alexander the Great as the President of the US?

Honestly, I don't think he'd make it today, though I do believe that there would be select groups of people who would just about worship him. He was a great leader indeed, with an impressive drive. I'm sure people in the US would love someone with drive like that. I think what really makes him un-electable is that hes very VERY expansionist. As a US president in these times, his attitude of expansion would never fly; arrogance however, would indeed "fly". He is a conqueror indeed, and would probably go around trying to destroy other place if he couldn't go what he wanted out of them, typical of someone who grew up like he did.

Democracy in the Middle East?

King Abdullah of Jordan seems to know what he's doing. I like his idea of bringing democracy to Jordan, which is currently ruled by a monarchy. Weird though... Basically, a monarch ruler is trying to change his country to a democratic government. As Abdullah said, each country is effected differently, and obviously the same would apply to Jordan. Their constitution is even in reform, and although that's a huge step towards his goal, it will take plenty to time to get to where he wants to be. He admits that it will take a long time, 5, 10, or 15 years he said it might take. Personally, I believe that Abdullah is on the right track and can reach success; but in order for him to get there he'll have to take it easy and make sure he doesn't anger the people. The most important thing I think, is that Abdullah has experience in seeing other countries not do so well (fail.), and from there he can avoid the downfalls of other countries and better his own.

Democracy?

Democracy is defined as a system in which each citizen has their own say in the government. Now while this may be effective in small societies, with much smaller populations, I do not believe that a large population could pull this off. There's really no good, or effective way, rather, for everyone's opinions to be treated equally and without bias. This would only work in smaller populations because while there are opinions of a full society to be dealt with, it would not be so overwhelming that a rule could not be held with democracy. As discussed in class, we in America live in a republic, which is much easier for larger populations; elected representatives can be much smaller in number and still (sort of ) represent a smaller section of a whole population.

Ashoka as a Teacher of equality according to the Ashokavadana

In what ways and for what reason might this story form the Ashokavadana have appealed to various groups of early Buddhists? 

The appeal of this story from the Ashokavadana might have appealed to various groups of early Buddhists because of the lack of regard for social classes; it preached the idea of equality. This would attract any of the lower-class people who were in not so good shape. If equality was forced on everyone, the poor would not have to worry about their being in the lowest class. Also very important is Ashoka himself prostrated himself for Buddha and giving utmost respect to the monks. This made people really believe in it because someone such as the king, who is at the top of the social classes, went out of his own way to preach it.

Ancient China Map

The Chinese & Indian Dynasties

Both China and India were in Bureaucracies at the same time; while the Mauryan and Gupta dynasties were ruling in India, The Qin and Han dynasties were ruling in China. If you are to speak of success while comparing these two, you will find that the Chinese were more "up there" in terms of success. Both dynasties from China, in comparison to India's were noticeably more centralized. Centralized government in China lead to better political organization, while India only had their power distributed between allies. Another very important thing that the Chinese had that the Indian didn't was standardization, (measurements, language, etc.). A large part of the ancient Indian dynasties was spending the majority of tax money on soldiers, even during peace; while the Chinese spent their tax money on their essentials.

Mencius vs. Xun Zi

What does Mencius believe about human nature?

-Mencius believes that human nature is fundamentally good, he had a very optimistic view on humanity. He believed that all men cared about others, and a part of them which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others. Sympathy towards those who are in more need than you are is a trait that Mencius thought was within all.

What does Xun Zi believe about human nature?

Xun Zi, unlike Mencius, believed that human nature was fundamentally bad, and that "good" is a human product. He has a cynical view on the human nature as a whole, he feels that everyone is "born with a love of profit". He did however, think that they could be fixed, that they were pieces of wood which "must be steamed and forced before it is made straight", he figured that they could only be fixed with tough discipline and punishment.

Who do you line up with?
Xun Zi

Why?
Not that i necessarily have cynical views about the human race as a whole, but i do feel that naturally we are not all good, most of us are not. And i do believe in his idea of punishment and disciple, although obviously not as strongly, i do believe its a good way to get a point across; like when teaching your child to differ between good/bad, you might wanna give them the corner or a dunce cap (does anyone even still do this?). But anyways, I had to go with Xun Zi because i felt that the optimism about the nature of humans was too great in Mencius, something I don't really seem to have. 

C-O-N-F-U-C-I-U-S.

           I do not believe that Confucianism is a religion, I think it is more of a philosophy. Those who argue may bring up the fact that Confucius brings up heaven in his philosophies, and that he does indeed, but usually in the context of the kings (sons of heaven). The other religions at the time all had godly figures in which they were all looked over by.

           I think that Confucius believed that people were not born good or evil, but were born neutral, and could chose their path. He said that "He who aims to be a man of complete virtue in his food does not seek to gratify his appetite", showing that people aim towards being good or bad. Also he noted that he "could follow what my heart desired", showing that people had the ability to chose their course in life. And lastly he says that if "their elders have any troublesome affairs, the young take the toll of them" showing how the young can be shaped by the elders, even if they are bad.

Persian Empires Map

Zarathustra on Good and Evil

What assumptions does Zarathustra make about human nature and the capacity of human being to make morally good choices out of their own free will?


The assumptions that Zarathustra makes about human nature is that all humans have the choice to be either good or evil and he assumes that all humans would make good choices.

History Head comments

Como estas, Senior Amit! I really liked your broad selection of pictures, i thought that showing actual pictures with the addition of some Mesoamerican art was helpful in understanding the then-and-now. I also like how your pictures are large and clear. However, I'd just like a point a few things out: I liked the pictures inside your history head, they were great in fact, but they didn't fit in the head exactly, you probably already knew that though...Anyways, I also noticed how the picture you have in the top right corner of your poster is slanted (I'm assuming that this is the timeline as the picture is not so great), and it seems you ran out of room with your other pictures being so large. And lastly I believe the cutting out of your pictures could have been slightly more precise and that the white borders you have on there make it look a tad less clean than it could be. I noticed that you have a picture of a Mesoamerican pyramid on your poster, and that was similar to the Egyptians in the way that they also made pyramids even though they look a little different. Something different between the two societies we did our projects on was the climates: In Egypt, the places away from the Nile were very dry while in Mesoamerica there was much more green. And Finally, I'd like to know why you chose a printed version of the timeline as opposed to drawing it out.

-Ronak

___________________________________________

Hey Nick!

I liked a bunch of things about your poster, one of the things that really stood out for me was the fact that the pictures inside your history head actually fit! (Mine didn't... >:[), and also I like the variety in your pictures, and your key was very defined and clear. However, something I'd like to point out is your timeline; it is indeed a timeline, but I feel that there would be more than a beginning and an end (from what I can see in this amazing Ipad camera quality, anyways). The civilizations in both Mesopotamia and Egypt had polytheistic religions; and they were different in the sense that the writing of the Mesopotamians was based on strokes and symbols Egypts was based on pictures. Oh right...and my question is about the picture labeled 3 and what it represents. 

-Ronak

Picture from History Head project

First AP test+essay of the year!

Today we finished out first test + in-class essay combo of the year in AP world history. I'll be honest though I think I have no idea whether I did better on the test or the essay, all I know is that I'm not sure what I should be expecting from the results. To be completely truthful I don't believe I was prepared for either fully, I had somewhat of an idea of what was going down, but it was the first time I was doing either in AP world history. The next time we take a test and have our essay, I definitely feel that I'll be able to do better because I now sort of have a better feel for it, but I would definitely put more time into some details and relationships and thinking deeper as I read.