This chapter is mainly about the rise of Asia until the the 16th and 17th century, then because of poor judgment by the leaders they fell behind Western Europe. The above is a picture of a replica of Santa Maria, Christopher Columbus's ship on his journey to the Americas. Fareed explains how before Columbus, a Chinese admiral named Zheng had traveled to the Americas with a better and larger fleet of ships and crew in the early 1400. Unfortunately his travels were oddly axed, because the new Chinese rulers perceived such efforts as costly and pointless. They forbid the construction of large ships that could travel the oceans. This action completely destroyed the Chinese shipping industry for centuries.
Fareed explains how the Asian's lacked interest in newer technologies which led to this gap that exists today between the the two continents in term of GDP. In the beginning when the Portugese and the British took new technologies ( ie. clocks, cannons, farming equipments) to Asia they decided to use them but never learned how to, and later decided to completely reject them. In a letter to King George III, the Qienlong emperor rejectd the request for trade and explains, " We have never set much store on strange and ingenious objects, nor do we need any more of your country's manufactures." This is when the Chinese decided to close their minds to the world.
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/881104/2/istockphoto_881104_asian_farm_worker.jpg
http://www.ilri.org/ILRIPubAware/Uploaded%20Files/HTML%20IMAGES/Crop-Livestock%20Farming%20Systems%20The%20backbone%20of%20small-scale%20Asian%20agriculture.jpg
A German combine harvester.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Claas-lexion-570-1.jpg
http://www.ilri.org/ILRIPubAware/Uploaded%20Files/HTML%20IMAGES/Crop-Livestock%20Farming%20Systems%20The%20backbone%20of%20small-scale%20Asian%20agriculture.jpg
A German combine harvester.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Claas-lexion-570-1.jpg
In this chapter, Fareed also refers to An Essay on the Principle of Population, by Thomas Malthus. In this paper, Malthus explains how the food production rises at an arithmetic rate, but population rises at a geometric rate. The one flaw in his theory was that, he did not take technological advancements into consideration, so it failed in England. His analysis, however, described Asia and Africa very precisely.
The author's point of view is that, a possible reason they did not advance in so many different fields is because they focused all the energy and effort on a few specific projects. The Chinese put all of their resources together to build the forbidden city and the Indians and Monguls did the same with the Taj Mahal, and neglected some very basic projects for their population. He mentioned the Soviet space program in the 1970s, or Iran's current nuclear and space programs. He refers to this as "Strength is Weakness."
He also talks about productivity and compares the British to the Chinese. The historian Philip Huang makes a comparison between the farmers of the Yangtze Delta and those of England. The Chinese were able to make their land highly productive, but they did this by placing more workers on a given acre. The British on the other hand, looked for ways of make their existing labor more productive, producing more crops. The result of using newer technology was an incredibly higher production of crops. By the eighteenth century, the average farm size in southern England was 150 acres, whereas in Yangtze Delta, it was only about 1 acre.
Another disadvantage for the Chinese in term of shipping was the European discipline and efficiency. The European missions were more productive and used innovative methods to pay for the trips. The Dutch pioneered innovations in finance and taxation, so every trip was intended to return a profit and bring new discoveries. In China, however, the voyages depended on the interests and power of the monarch. The Chinese who used cannons effectively in the 13th century, now needed the Europeans to teach them how. Fareed explains, " this was the tragedy of Asia: even when there was knowledge, there was no learning."
Cultures also played a role in growth of nations. The Europeans grew because of a strong civil society. In countries where the states controlled everything, growth is much lower because of their personal, religious, or even cultural conflicts. Fareed explains that sometimes politics can change a culture a save it from self-destruction. At some point in time, certain attributes seem immutable, but then economics and politics shift, and change those attributes, making space for others. Mesopotamia was the center of science, trade, and knowledge for centuries. Now its main exports are oil and Islamist fundamentalism. This is very hard to bare, considering the first ever cylinder of human rights was made during the reign of the first Persian Empire. After the Arab invasion, brutal centralized government that only demanded taxes and brought no infrastructure in return, left the society weak and unhappy, and caused them to fall behind the rest of the world by every measure of progress.
Europe also benefited from being a geographical haven. With its vast mountains and river, it was divided into many different principalities. If a group of people were mistreated, they would just simply move to a different state. If they flourished others would follow, and if the failed, they would just die off. This landscape also limited use of centralized governments, like those is China. Lack of flatland allowed the population to protect themselves against the aggressors, and no monarch was ever strong enough to be able to control all that land. Water is also plentiful in Europe because of the rivers and its vast coastline. Despite Europe's geographic diversity, it was once conquered by a great land empire, Rome, which tried to keep the empire centralized. Also the Middle East did well at one point under the Persian Empire.
Reza Shah at the opening ceremony of the University of Tehran's Faculty of Medicine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah
In 1927, during the opening of the State Art and Sculpture Museum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataturk
The author's point of view is that, a possible reason they did not advance in so many different fields is because they focused all the energy and effort on a few specific projects. The Chinese put all of their resources together to build the forbidden city and the Indians and Monguls did the same with the Taj Mahal, and neglected some very basic projects for their population. He mentioned the Soviet space program in the 1970s, or Iran's current nuclear and space programs. He refers to this as "Strength is Weakness."
He also talks about productivity and compares the British to the Chinese. The historian Philip Huang makes a comparison between the farmers of the Yangtze Delta and those of England. The Chinese were able to make their land highly productive, but they did this by placing more workers on a given acre. The British on the other hand, looked for ways of make their existing labor more productive, producing more crops. The result of using newer technology was an incredibly higher production of crops. By the eighteenth century, the average farm size in southern England was 150 acres, whereas in Yangtze Delta, it was only about 1 acre.
Another disadvantage for the Chinese in term of shipping was the European discipline and efficiency. The European missions were more productive and used innovative methods to pay for the trips. The Dutch pioneered innovations in finance and taxation, so every trip was intended to return a profit and bring new discoveries. In China, however, the voyages depended on the interests and power of the monarch. The Chinese who used cannons effectively in the 13th century, now needed the Europeans to teach them how. Fareed explains, " this was the tragedy of Asia: even when there was knowledge, there was no learning."
Cultures also played a role in growth of nations. The Europeans grew because of a strong civil society. In countries where the states controlled everything, growth is much lower because of their personal, religious, or even cultural conflicts. Fareed explains that sometimes politics can change a culture a save it from self-destruction. At some point in time, certain attributes seem immutable, but then economics and politics shift, and change those attributes, making space for others. Mesopotamia was the center of science, trade, and knowledge for centuries. Now its main exports are oil and Islamist fundamentalism. This is very hard to bare, considering the first ever cylinder of human rights was made during the reign of the first Persian Empire. After the Arab invasion, brutal centralized government that only demanded taxes and brought no infrastructure in return, left the society weak and unhappy, and caused them to fall behind the rest of the world by every measure of progress.
Europe also benefited from being a geographical haven. With its vast mountains and river, it was divided into many different principalities. If a group of people were mistreated, they would just simply move to a different state. If they flourished others would follow, and if the failed, they would just die off. This landscape also limited use of centralized governments, like those is China. Lack of flatland allowed the population to protect themselves against the aggressors, and no monarch was ever strong enough to be able to control all that land. Water is also plentiful in Europe because of the rivers and its vast coastline. Despite Europe's geographic diversity, it was once conquered by a great land empire, Rome, which tried to keep the empire centralized. Also the Middle East did well at one point under the Persian Empire.
http://www.thejournal.org/studylibrary/maps/persian-empire-at-its-height-large-map.jpg
Fareed raises the question of what all of this European growth and advancement meant to the rest of the world. With their success Europeans now started to move around more and by the nineteenth century, almost everywhere was marked for use by the Europeans. He answered his own question by explaining that initially the Europeans only focused on finding product they could bring back, whether by trade or force. Soon, however, this involvement became more permanent. They slowly started settling in North and South America, and re-creating the European style societies. They called this the New World. The Portuguese and the Dutch were there first, and their presence was soon eclipsed by the French and the British who brought African slaves for work. This presence, for the most part, changed or destroyed the existing non-Western societies and way of living in those areas. They killed or displaced the native inhabitants of the land and drew new borders, and placed whomever they wanted in power.
The implications of such actions was that the existing native culture were damaged and some some instances completely destryed. In many cases, European influence was regressive, destrying the old ways but creating very little to replace them. America, Asia, and Africa were irreversibly changed by the discovery of the West.
In the Middle East the story was different. European nations did not have as strong a military advantage to rule over them, so they traded with them, whereas in America and Africa they were clearly stronger than the natives and knew it.
American discovery was a mistake, which ended up being a good mistake. It became Europe's great escape for over 400 years. The mostly moved there because of the overcrowding, poverty, and religious persecution in Europe. The easility overcame the native people by better military methods and the European diseases that the natives could not withstand, and destroyed their tribes and cultures.
American Indians
http://www.edgateteam.net/Lessons/Images/native_american.gif
The implications of such actions was that the existing native culture were damaged and some some instances completely destryed. In many cases, European influence was regressive, destrying the old ways but creating very little to replace them. America, Asia, and Africa were irreversibly changed by the discovery of the West.
In the Middle East the story was different. European nations did not have as strong a military advantage to rule over them, so they traded with them, whereas in America and Africa they were clearly stronger than the natives and knew it.
American discovery was a mistake, which ended up being a good mistake. It became Europe's great escape for over 400 years. The mostly moved there because of the overcrowding, poverty, and religious persecution in Europe. The easility overcame the native people by better military methods and the European diseases that the natives could not withstand, and destroyed their tribes and cultures.
American Indians
http://www.edgateteam.net/Lessons/Images/native_american.gif
The common assumption people make is that countries always colonized other countries. However, colonization was often done by the corporations, not the countries. The Dutch and British East India companies were licensed monopolies, created to end competition among the businessmen. They also wanted to keep the other countries out, so they started contruction of formal empires, of which Britain proved to be the strongest and the most successful.
Fareed's view of this overall European invasion or "Westernization", is that there were also many positive outcomes. Many countries actually learned from the European's disipline and incorporated it in their own societies. Perhaps these admirations were by Europe's superiority at producing wealth and a strong military existance. As in the case of Peter the Great, where he travelled across Europe and learned a lot from them and used that knowledge for a new reformation in Russia and made matters more Western. Some of the more radical examples were Kemal Ataturk of Turkey and Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran. They both brought the culture of 'forgetting the past and embracing the future'. They built universities, railways, communication means, roads, and modernized their countries as fast as they could. Perhaps the most controversial of these was the banning of the Islamis head cover, which to this day still exists in modern day Turkey.
Fareed's view of this overall European invasion or "Westernization", is that there were also many positive outcomes. Many countries actually learned from the European's disipline and incorporated it in their own societies. Perhaps these admirations were by Europe's superiority at producing wealth and a strong military existance. As in the case of Peter the Great, where he travelled across Europe and learned a lot from them and used that knowledge for a new reformation in Russia and made matters more Western. Some of the more radical examples were Kemal Ataturk of Turkey and Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran. They both brought the culture of 'forgetting the past and embracing the future'. They built universities, railways, communication means, roads, and modernized their countries as fast as they could. Perhaps the most controversial of these was the banning of the Islamis head cover, which to this day still exists in modern day Turkey.
Reza Shah at the opening ceremony of the University of Tehran's Faculty of Medicine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah
In 1927, during the opening of the State Art and Sculpture Museum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataturk
Fareed then talks about modernization and how it started in the West. He states that now three of the world's four biggest economies will be non-Western (Japan, China, and India). And the fourth, The United States, is increasingly shaped by its non European population. He uses the Japanese example of how their technologies are far more superior than any Western countries, yet inspite of all the wealth, they stay very traditional and foriegn to the rest of a Western visitor. If wealth did not westernize Japan, it will not westernize the rest of the world. In a world where people of different races and cultures are wealthy and confident, this will be a world of enormous cultural diversity and exoticism. Basically Fareed's concept is that westernization is not the same as modernization. Still the West has been around for so long and has spread so far that the line between modernization and Westernization is very clear. A lot of ideas and methods of what we consider modern is Western. Western festivities are becoming more popular in non-Western societies (ie. Christmas, Valentine's day), and even Western style clothing is replacing traditional garments, because they are considered more sophisticated and modern.
Ever since armies began dressing in Western-style uniforms, men around the world emulated that style. The business suit, a descendant of a European army officer's outfit, is now standard for men from Japan to South Africa, with the exception of the Persian Gulf countries.
An example of Westernisation: Meiji era, Japan, Prince Yorihito Higashifushimi in typical Western naval dress uniform with white gloves, medals and hat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HIH_Prince_Yorihito_Higashifushimi.jpg
Ever since armies began dressing in Western-style uniforms, men around the world emulated that style. The business suit, a descendant of a European army officer's outfit, is now standard for men from Japan to South Africa, with the exception of the Persian Gulf countries.
An example of Westernisation: Meiji era, Japan, Prince Yorihito Higashifushimi in typical Western naval dress uniform with white gloves, medals and hat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HIH_Prince_Yorihito_Higashifushimi.jpg
However the readers should not make the assumption that westernization it only about appearances. A very important one is what they call "standard " business practices. Such accounting and book-keeping methods have all originated in the West. Such standards exist in the central banks, educational institutions, as well as parliaments and the list goes on. American consultants (formerly European) are paid large sums of money to go to other countries and teach them how best to appeal to their own countrymen. The American or Western culture is very dominant, maybe because on certain issues, it is very easy going. They crown out older, more distinctive ways of dining, dressing and even music. The implications of this modernization has caused the new culture to become the most important. It is so, because in a democratic age, quantity trumps quality. Fareed explains that, "How many listen, matters more than who listens." To me probably the most bizarre example is the new Japanese Holiday: Halloween!
The world we are entering has been structured and majorly influenced by the West, but will retain elements of the local culture. Persian rock music sounds awfully like its British counterpart, but the theme and lyrics are Persian. The Persian rap, heavily influence from the inner city ghettos of south central Los Angeles, but it address the frustrations of the Persian youths. Local and modern are growing side by side, and the author wants the readers to understand this concept. Many shows, movies, restaurant, etc have originated from the West and many countries were dependent on those product for decades. But they have now been able to put their own spin on the production by incorporating the Western frame of production and adding their own cultural bits and pieces to it. A good example of that is NEWS reporting. It started with CNN, and then BBC. Now we have a handful of major NEWS agencies such as Al-Jazeera, PressTV, NDTV, and Aaj Tak.
Fareed's view of modernity is a profound one. In his opinion, modernity has come with the rise of the West, so it has taken a Western face. Now with the growth of everyone else and the globalization, modernity becomes a melting pot. To Fareed the question of " Will the future be modern or Western?" is more complicated that it sounds. The complex answer is to look at countries individually. He believes we can simply refer all the countries in Asia as Asia. They are many contries with large populations, who harbor differences and suspicions about one another. They are all rising powers and the world looks very differently at each one because of their history, geography, and capabilities. Fareed believes that the great shift taking place in world is more about power than a specific culture.
The world we are entering has been structured and majorly influenced by the West, but will retain elements of the local culture. Persian rock music sounds awfully like its British counterpart, but the theme and lyrics are Persian. The Persian rap, heavily influence from the inner city ghettos of south central Los Angeles, but it address the frustrations of the Persian youths. Local and modern are growing side by side, and the author wants the readers to understand this concept. Many shows, movies, restaurant, etc have originated from the West and many countries were dependent on those product for decades. But they have now been able to put their own spin on the production by incorporating the Western frame of production and adding their own cultural bits and pieces to it. A good example of that is NEWS reporting. It started with CNN, and then BBC. Now we have a handful of major NEWS agencies such as Al-Jazeera, PressTV, NDTV, and Aaj Tak.
Fareed's view of modernity is a profound one. In his opinion, modernity has come with the rise of the West, so it has taken a Western face. Now with the growth of everyone else and the globalization, modernity becomes a melting pot. To Fareed the question of " Will the future be modern or Western?" is more complicated that it sounds. The complex answer is to look at countries individually. He believes we can simply refer all the countries in Asia as Asia. They are many contries with large populations, who harbor differences and suspicions about one another. They are all rising powers and the world looks very differently at each one because of their history, geography, and capabilities. Fareed believes that the great shift taking place in world is more about power than a specific culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment