Communism rise in Russia and a turn to Authoritarianism Ch. 22

Communism rise in Russia and a turn to Authoritarianism

             The communist revolutions shared many characteristics with the previous political revolutions that inspired them, especially the French Revolution.  Strayer sees that these “revolutions, like their French predecessor, ousted old ruling classes and dispossessed landed aristocracies” (662).  An educated group helped lead the peasants to see their exploitation, and then organized them to fight for their rights, thus inspiring these revolutions.  Another point that Strayer sees in these fights for a “good society” was that they all shared a vision “in a modernizing future, not in some nostalgic vision of the past” (662).  The communists had learned from watching the French Revolution and were wary of a military leader taking power post-revolution.  These revolutions may share and have learned from the previous revolutions, but they had their own characteristics.

            World War I, and the shortages that were being created through Russia’s involvement in the war inspired the peasants to begin to organize protests.  These demonstrations lead to the resignation of Tsar Nicholas II by February 1917.   He would be replaced by a weak Provisional Government, mostly made up of people that continued on the involvement in WWI.  With the resignation of the Tsar, many Russian soldiers left the army, trade unions began to organize in the cities, “soviets” (an organic grassroots group made up of workers and soldiers) were formed to hear all citizens voices, and the peasants in the countryside began to redistribute the large landholdings of the elites.  The ineffectual power of the Provisional Government allowed this social revolution to continue and build power.  The Bolsheviks would eventually arise to power within this radicalized environment.             

            The Bolsheviks, lead by Lenin, would demand “an end to the war, land for the peasants, workers’ control of factories, self-determination for non-Russian nationalities… called for the dissolutions of the Provisional Government and a transfer of state power to the new soviets” (664).  The Bolsheviks would seize the state through a coup, and then face a three-year civil war.  The civil war would be fought by the Bolsheviks on many fronts, from having to fight the old guard, to foreign imperialists scared of communists state, and having to deal with their own internal problem from having to forcefully keep the revolutionaries in check and enforce food rationing.  The civil war left a legacy of authoritarian power that the now Union of Soviet Socialist Republic would continue with.

            I think the legacy and the lessons of the civil war forced the Bolsheviks to become authoritarian, I also think must people who have taken power and then faced a civil war immediately upon taking power will, generally, go in the direction of authoritarianism.  This is partly from needing to coalesce ones power throughout the country in a short period of time that is already charged for resistance, and adding a civil war.  The civil war was troubling since it involved some internal resistance, but was mostly funded, and fought by, western powers that were at the time also fighting WWI.  The turning away from the soviets and towards authoritarianism helped them to build their army, get the supplies needed for the army, and eventually win the war.  Thus, painting a somewhat positive picture of authoritarianism since the Bolsheviks were able to keep in place some of the popular victories they had fought for. 

            

The End of Empire

Ch. 23

            The second wave of European conquest in Asia and Africa also had its own revolutions.  These revolutions would be unlike the first revolutions in the America’s.  Driven by ex-patriots that wanted freedom from the conquering powers, while the second wave of revolutions would be driven by a developing nationalist identity in Africa and Asia drove the revolutions in America.  This ideology would lead to a creation of a large number of states.  The fight for their identity helped these cultures to affirm “the vitality of their cultures, which had been submerged and denigrated during the colonial era” (Strayer, 693).

            Another difference was that the colonial powers had begun to lose power and interesting maintaining colonial states.  The World Wars had taken their toll on Europe, from massive amounts of deaths, to huge amounts of debt.  The Wars had also lead to Europe to question its moral superiority, even questioning its right to empires.  Europe was also influenced by the arising superpower of Soviet Union and the United States, which were interested in getting rid of the colonial empires.  The United Nations was also established after World War II and helped these future countries to communicate their interest in freedom. 

            This occurred internationally as these colonial states to develop their won thought.  These thinkers were educated in Europe, but returned to their nations and began to see the social and economic inequalities that colonial powers were creating.  They began to motivate the people, helping to create popular anti-colonial movements.  These movements were sometimes lead by a group of leaders or were movements that arose from the people.  Regardless, these movements had to be aware of being co-opted by the European administrators. 

            The administrators would do this not through outright rule, but allow the movements to gain some independence through “deliberate planning for decolonization included gradual political reform; investments in railroad; parts, and telegraph lines; the holding of elections; and the writing of constitutions” (Strayer, 695).  This slow transition left some people feeling that the Europeans had given them the right to independence, but this takes the power that the movements needed to force the Europeans out.  The final stage of these revolutions was to decide how leadership and power would be divided between its people and leaders. 

The Second Wave of European Conquets

Ch. 20

           The European takeover of Asia and Africa is considered the second conquest, while the first is the conquering of the America’s.  This second conquest was lead by different countries, instead of the Portugal, Spain, France and England; it was lead by Germany, Italy, Belgium, the United States, and Japan.  The United States was the most surprising player, and mainly gained its territories through the Spanish-American War.  There were other differences in this second conquest, the lack of a “Great Dying,” and the Europeans military might. 

            The “Great Dying” occurred in the America’s during the conquest by the Europeans, disease would strike the people of the America’s to such a large number that it is possible that up to 90% died.  These deaths meant that the conquering Europeans did not face larger armies, or very organized resistance.  Rather they came on to lands that, to them, seemed to be uninhabited and freely available to them to take over, as if God had set the land aside for them.  The lack of a “Great Dying” meant that in Africa and Asia that the Europeans would face off with a population that was much larger, more organized, and protecting their homelands.  Along with having to fight for the conquering of the land, they also had establish new administrating systems for the large number of inhabitants. 

            Faced with this large resistance, the Europeans experience with military and technology helped them get into and conquer Asia and Africa.  Some of the military developments that helped were more organization, drilled practicing, and an advanced command structure the simplified tactics.  Another major helper was the development of the repeating rifles and machine guns.  These helped to morally devastate the people of Africa and Asia.  

The Spanish treating of the America's

Strayer points out that in the Spanish territories of the new world that it was a "more fluid and culturally blended society than in the racially rigid colonies of North America (412)." The driving force behind this more flexible society was the missionaries and church authorities.  Even though the Church played a role in the rationalizing of the oppression of these people by seeing them as savages and needing to be saved, the Church would quickly attempt to humanize the Indians.  These Church authorities would demand some form of kindness towards the part of the indigenous people through all the suffering they had faced.

Another reason for the intermingling of the Spaniards with the Indian population was that the Spaniards came over without women.  Unlike the people who came over from England, who came with the goal of establishing a freer society and moved with their families, the Spanish did not come to establish colonies or empires.  The Spaniards goals were more short term, to find their own treasure, and help Spain become wealthier.  This lack of women, and the unexpectedly long time the Spaniards spent in the America’s meant that they had sex with the indigenous people.  This lead to the creation of different classes based on mixed races, something that didn’t happen in the United States until contemporary times.  Unlike contemporary US society, these mestizos’s had more rights then full indigenous peoples but less rights then full blood Spaniards.  In reality it was more difficult to tell the difference between these people then the authorities expected, thus there was a lot of people who would pass up in their class standings do to their lighter skin.

I think that there is a lot of this left in both US and Latin American societies.  Looking at the media of both countries, it is easy to see that Latin America media is more inclusive of people of all colors in their TV shows.  In the US, we still have a lack of true diversity in our TV shows.  The US is now made of many different people, yet we still see a majority of white faces on TV.  Though Latin America is better in their representation of their diversity, they do still play in to the racial class history.  The characters with white skin, and light eyes are usually the wealthiest person, whether they are good or evil. 

Islamic Empire

           Islam’s success in spreading was linked to its quickly developed empire that intertwined religion and politics/ military in to one entity.  This empire building was quickly started after Muhammad died.  One of the aspects of this rush to empire was to bring the people together, to help them forget the differences that kept them apart for centuries.  Islam also arose when the two near by empires, Byzantine and Persian, were waning.  The conquering of these empires allowed Islam to quickly expand outward, and including the migration of numerous Arabic-speaking people into these lands expanding the Islam.  Muslims saw this quick conquering and assimilation of peoples within this empire as a sign from Allah, that they were doing good work. 

            Byzantine was not completely conquered by this first push, and mostly kept modern day Turkey as its base.  Most of the peoples in conquered Byzantine were quick to convert to Islam.  They already had an understanding of monotheism, Islam saw Jesus Christ as one of the prophets, and Islam provided similar hierarchies that helped these people understand their place in a Muslim society.  Some places did provide a challenge and were quickly overwhelmed by the Islamized Turks who migrated into these parts.  The Persian Empire also offered a people who would convert easily because of their belief in Zoroastrianism.  Other places would provide a challenge.

            The Muslims continued their drive beyond these old empires, conquering lands that provided good agricultural land.  Not all of their expansion was through conquering and military accomplishments.  The east coast of Africa voluntarily converted to Islam.  These people saw this as an opportunity to improve relations with the Muslims and had great respect for their skills as traders.  Islam tended to stay within these coastal communities, and had some synchronism with the African religions.   These peoples would fast for Ramadan, while also sacrificing animals to Allah.  Farther into Africa, the people would have difficulty with the concept of a single God located in a separated plane, similar to the problems Islam faced in India.

            India, though conquered by force and occupied for a few centuries, would never become Muslim in its cultural heartland.  The parts that did become Muslim were Buddhists, lower-caste people, or societies on the edge of India’s influence and beginning to settle.  Hinduisms flexibility and many numerous gods held Islam at bay.  These were two very different traditions, one that was strictly monotheistic, and another that was all-inclusive, could be monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time.  Hinduism and Islam met and created a new religion, Sikhism, though neither had much influence on the other.  

China as the main mover during the "Era of Accelerating Connections"

           I found the chapter 9 on China, to be the most interesting.  China seemed to be a very advanced society at this time, developing many technologies that would help advance other society’s.  From creating larger ships that influenced the development of ships in the Indian Ocean basin to the magnetic compass, to developing a thriving economy that inspired other civilizations with its wealth and diversity.  China was a dominant figure in this third wave of civilization, through technology, agriculture, and markets it was able to help other civilizations get a start.

           China provided lots of technologies to these thriving trade lanes, helping them grow by providing an open trading partner and the largest markets with the wealthiest residents in the known world. Some of the technology that China was able to pass to other societies was gunpowder, the magnetic compass, paper-making and printing.  China also improved upon technologies that would be found in other societies, rice from Vietnam that was drought resistant, borrowed the idea of a windmill from the Persians, and developed papermaking and printing as a response to Buddhism growing influence in China.  China was a flexible dynamic empire that was producing the best technologies, and incorporating others. 

           China, with the help of the new rice, was able to create agriculture “package.”  This package helped Chinese culture to spread out, amongst the Northern and Southern “Barbarians.”  This package would mainly work in the south were the cultures there were able to successfully establish and cultivate this package.  The groups living in the areas north of China did not have land appropriate for these plants and were never acculturated into the Chinese sphere of influence.  The South was acculturated into China for about 1,000 years, and would eventually leave to form Vietnam. 

           The final piece of the straw for China’s dominance was its markets.  China had so much wealth that they were able to spend money on goods that was for wealth comparison.  These markets had developed into a modern market with goods from all over the world that demanded high prices.  These traders would then purchase exotic goods and deliver then all over the world demanding the price they could fetch.  Sounding very much like the begins of market capitalism.  

Ch. 4 outline and questions

Ch. 4  Eurasian Empires - Persia, Greece under Alexander the Great, Rome, China during the Qin and Han dynasties, India during the Mauryan and Gupta dynasties.

Intro

What exactly is an empire?

• At one level, empires are simply states, political systems that exercise coercive power; normally reserved for larger and more aggressive states, those that conquer, rule, and extract resources from other states and peoples; thus, encompass a variety of peoples and cultures within a single political system, and political and cultural oppressions.  

Empires and Civilizations in Collision:  The Persians and the Greeks

• Most empires did not encounter one another, allowing them to establish their owe political systems, cultural values, and ways of organizing society.  Only the Persians and the Greeks would clash over a few centuries.  

The Persian Empire

• Based out of the Iranian plateau, on the margins of Mesopotamia.  Influeced by previous imperial systems of of Babylon and Assyria.
• Persian conquests was lead under, Cyrus and Darius, ranged from Egypt to India, encompassed some 35 million people, containing dozens of people, states, languages, and cultural traditions.
• Centered on elaborate cult of kingship, ruling on the will of the great god Ahura Mazda, making the kings absolute monarchs.
• An effective administrative system placed Persian governors (satraps) in each of the 23 provinces, while lower-level officials were drawn from local authorities.  A systems of imperial spies also gave the empire a reach throughout the empire.  The final piece was a general policy of respect for the empires non-Persian cultural traditions.  
• The infrastructure of the empire included systems of standardized coinage, predictable taxes on the province, a dug canal between the Nile and the Red Sea, and a “royal road” of 1,700 miles, facilitating communication and commerce across this vast empire.  
• showed of their immense wealth and power at the Persepolis and Susa through palaces, audience halls, quarters for the harem, monuments, and carvings made these cities into powerful symbols of imperial authority.

The Greeks

• The political shape of the civilization was made up of hundreds of city-states or small settlements.  The city-states were fiercely independent and in frequent conflict with its neighbors, though they shared a same language, and the same gods.  They would suspend all rivalries every four years in order to participate in the Olympic Games.  Over time this would lead to a greater sense of Greek identity, but the major city-states continued to be rivalries - Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth...
• Unlike the Persians, the Greeks expanded through the form of settlements moving to distant places rather then conquest and empire.  These Greeks do to a growing population that moved looking for more iron ore or new farmland, they spread throughout the Mediterranean basing and the rim of the Black Sea.  The settlers spread Greek culture, language, and building styles and would fight, trade, and inter-marry with the non-Greek peoples.  
• The biggest difference was the popular participation in political life that occurred within the city-states.  The idea of “citizenship” of free people running the affairs of state, of equality for all citizens before the law.  Compared to other places, this Athenian experiment was remarkable.
• Citizenship was limited to, at first, only the wealthy and well-born, who had the right to speak and vote in the assembly, holding public office, and fighting in the army.  These rights would spread to include middle- and lower-class mean, mostly small farmers.  This was in part do to the need for more military men to serve to protect the city-states.

• Popular participation was not perfect, many places had dictators known as tyrants that would arise with the support of the poorer classes to challenge the wealthy.  Sparta would vest most of its political authority in its Council of Elders.  
• Athens would become the shining star of popular participation, would be the orginators (in the west) of direct democracy for those considered citizens - slaves, women, and foreigners were not included in this rank and made up more then half of the population of Athens.  Voting would occur at The Assembly; public office was chosen by lot and was paid, so that even the poorest could participate.  

Collision:  The Greco-Persian Wars

• The wars were started do to the migrant population of Greeks that were being pressured by the Persians.  These Greek cities revolted and gained support from Athens.
• Greece defeated the Persians twice, even though the Persians had a larger force.  These losses were inconsequential to the Persian, but Athens saw this victory as a product of their freedom which had motivated men to perform with extraordinary courage.  
• Helped to radicalize Athenian democracy, most men now became citizens since they fought in the war.
• The Golden Age of Greek culture:  Parthenon, the temple to the Greek goddess Athena, was built; Greek theater was born; and Socrates begins his career.  Also inspired Athens to attempt to be an empire since it brought together the more then 30 Greek city-states, this would spark a civil war, the Peloponnesian War.  The exhausted Greek states would be conquered by the Macedonia’s.  
• Lead to the birth of the notion of East/ West divide; Persia represents Asia and despotism, while Greece signified Europe and freedom.   

Collusion:  Alexander and the Hellenistic Era

• The Macedonian conquest of Greece would lead to the political unification of Greece, at the cost of independence.  This would also lead to a second round of war between Greece and Persia, lead by Alexander the Great.  
• Alexander the Great would launch a ten year expedition that would stretch a Greek empire from Egypt and Anatolia to Afghanistan and India.  
• The main significance of Alexanders conquest would be the dissemination of Greek culture during the Hellenistic era.  The main avenue of the spread of this culture wold be the many cities, complete with monuments and sculptures, theaters and markets, councils and assemblies, these cities would attract Greek settlers serving as state officials, soldiers, or traders.  Alexandria would be the largest and most cosmopolitan.
• The empire was very different from the original Greek city-states: more cultural diversity, no independence; imperial states that preserved order, raised taxes, and maintained the authority of the monarch.  Like the previous city-states, there was a high amount of stratification, with Greeks holding the elite position and having separate laws that applied to them, while other laws applied to the locals.  
• There was some intermingling with the locals by the Greeks, from intermarriage to building of temples to local gods, and supporting their priests.  The Greeks would eventually expand access to citizenship through getting a Greek education, speaking the language, dressing appropriately, and assuming a Greek name.  
• This culture influence in the East would disappear over time; in the West Greek culture would be replaced by Rome and would be carried on by the Roman empire.

Comparing Empires:  Roman and Chinese

Rome: from City-State to Empire

• Rome began as an impoverished city-state, with a king.  The aristocrats would remove the monarchy and start a republic which was dominated by the wealthy, the patricians. The excutive authority was in two consuls, that were advised by the senate of patricians.  Conflict with the lower classes, plebeians, would lead to Rome to develop a code of law that was written and offered the plebeians some protection: abuse; a system of public assemblies that allowed the plebeians to shape public policy; create a new office of the tribune that represented the plebians.   
• The values of the republic - rule of law, the rights of citizens, the absence of pretension, upright moral behavior, keeping one’s word - later idealized as “the way of the ancestor.”

• Empire building for Rome took 500 years, there was no blueprint, and took the entire Mediterranean basin and beyond.  The process was piecemeal and was viewed as defensive by the Romans; each new piece of territory created new vulnerabilities, which could only be assuaged by taking more conquests.  The growth also represented opportunity - poor soldiers hoped for land, loot, or salaries that could lift their families out of poverty; for the well-connected or well-to-do the opportunities were great estates. earned promotion, public acclaim or high political office; the wealth of long-established societies, Greece and Egypt; and the resources and food supplies of less developed regions.  
• Rome was driven by a “well-trained. well-fed, and well-rewarded” army, that would be brutal to its enemies.  Once conquered, the Romans would be generous: sometime granting citizenship; treating others as allies and allowing self-rule.
• Rome would begin to face challenges to its Republic as it continued to expand.  Most of the wealth would become more and more concentrated, and the imperial wealth would empower a few military leaders, including Julius Caesar, to bring a civil war to Rome.  Once this civil war between a few general finished, Caesar Augustus would take the position of emperor.  As the first emperor, Caesar would be careful about wielding power and keep the senate, consuls, and public assemblies to appear to maintain a republic.  This would begin pax Romana, the Roman peace, an era of imperial Rome’s greatest extent and greatest authority.  

China: From Warring States to Empire

• For China, unlike Rome, Empire was a return to the old ways.  These old ways were lead by the dyanasties of Xia, Shang, and Zhou, this empire would eventually dissolve in to warring states of seven competing kingdoms.  
• Shihuangdi would bring the bring China back together as an empire, his state of Qin had developed an effective bureaucracy, subordinated its aristocracy, equipped its army with iron weapons, and had a risiing agricultural output and a growing population.  They had also implemented a political philosophy called Legalism - advocates clear rules and harsh punishments as a means of enforcing the authority of the state.  With these resources he would unite China in 10 years.  
• This empire would lay the foundation for a unified Chinese state through the present.
• Shihuangdi would use his military and brutal policies to build his empire, which would lead to a quick downfall.  The following dynasty, the Han, would bring China together with less force and brutality.  

Consolidating the Roman and Chinese Empires

• Similarties
• Both empires referred to themselves in universal terms: Rome “almost the entire world under the control of Rome;”  China was said to encompass “all under heaven.”
• Both invested in public works - roads, bridges, aqueducts, canals, protective walls - designed to integrate their military and commercial domains.  
• Both established cults around their emperors: Rome’s was based on deceased emperors; China had a more elaborate cult that saw the emperor as the Mandate of Heaven as long as he ruled morally and with benevolence.  Peasant rebellions, “barbarian” invasions, or disastrous floods were seen as signs that the emperor had lost the Mandate of Heaven.  
• Both absorbed foreign religious tradition - Christianity in Rome and Buddhism in China.  Christianity slowly spread through Rome, and eventually became a state Religion, and thus dominant in Europe.  In China, Buddhism spread slowly, becoming a state religion for a short period then becoming a part of the mix of religions found in China.  
• Differences
• The Romans were always a distinct minority within their own empire, and had competing traditions from the Egyptians, to Greeks, to Christianity; while the Chinese empires grew out of a much larger cultural heartland that shared a similar cultural foundation and was older then surrounding cultures.  
• Chinese were better at assimilation of non-Chinese people through marriage, culture and linguistics.  The Romans took longer to spread their citizenship, which only conveyed legal status not cultural assimilation.
• Language was another problem:  Latin, an alphabetic language used letters to depict sounds and would give rise to many languages; Chinese use characters which represent words and was not easily transferred to other languages. Thus those that were literate in Chinese could understand written symbols and speak a different dialect.  
• The similar writing amongst the Chinese helped to establish its bureaucracy, which was based on Confuscius and involved schooling, examinations, and selection by merit.  Roman administration was based on a written law system that was applicable equally to all people of the realm, dealing with matters of justice, property, commerce, and family life.
• What makes for good government?  Rome - it was good laws; China - good men.

The Collapse of Empires

• Rome would split in half before the collapse, with only the Western half collapsing while the Eastern half would continue on from Constantinople and become the Byzantine Empire for another 1000 years.  
• Another similarity in collapse
• became too big, too overextended, and too expensive to be sustained by there resources, and no technological advances to enlarge these resources.
• large landowning families were able to avoid taxes, and turned free peasants into impoverished tenant farmers, diminishing the control of the central government. In China this lead to a major peasant revolt, Yellow Turban Rebellion.
• Conflicts among the elite factions created instabilities
• epidemic disease ravaged both societies
• an outside threat was forming from nomadic or semi-agricultural peoples occupying the frontier of both empires.  The empires would handle this differently:
• China would slowly acculturate these outsiders through intermarriage, adopting of Chinese dress, and setting up their courts in Chinese fashion
• The Roman invaders refused to integrate, and were being pressured by the Huns to move in to Roman territory.  This lead to more of a blending of cultures, then an integration.  

• the end of the empires meant a decline in urban life, contracting population, less area under cultivation, diminishing international trade, and vast insecurity for ordinary people.  

• The main difference is that China would return to an empire, while Western Europe would never return to a unified empire, dissolving into a highly decentralized political system involving kings with little authority, nobles, knights, and vassals, city-states, small territories ruled by princes, bishops, and the pope.  
• Why Europe never united?  vast linguistic and ethnic diversity, while China had a vast cultural homogeneity in its land; no bureaucratic tradition in Rome, in China this provided stability even as dynasties came and went; Catholic church was at odds with states, and its focus on “otherworldliness” did not support the creation of a large empire; Europe was not as productive in agriculture as China.  

Intermittent Empire:  The Case of India

• India has a history of intricately planned cities that have little evidence of any central political authority.
• Classic Indian civilization was a fragmented collection of towns and cities, some small republics governed by public assemblies, and a number of regional states ruled by kings; a vast array of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity as groups from Central Asia would migrate into India.
• The distinctive religious tradition, Hinduism, and a unique social organization, the caste system, are key pieces of identify the Indian civilization.
• Mauryan Empire was Indian’s first and largest experiment with large scale political systems, equivalent with the Persian, Chinese, and Roman empires.  A population of 50 million, and a large military force.  They also had a civilian bureaucracy, spies, and the state operated many industries.  This was financed by taxes on trade, on herds of animals, and especially on land.  
• Best known for Ashoka, an emperor, who would eventually become a buddhist and practice non-violence to the best of his abilities as an emperor.  He would carve edicts that outlined his philosophy of non-violence and tolerance, and place them throughout India.  He would develop policies that were inclusive and integrative moral code for an extremely diverse realm.  These policies would be quickly smashed when he passed and so did the empire.
• what stopped empires from growing in India?  India’s cultural diversity; the frequent invasions from central Asia, that would smash rising states; and India’s social structure, embodied in a caste system linked to occupational groups, made intense local loyalties at the expense of a wider identity.  
• India did foster a vibrant economy, a cotton textile industry that supplied Afro-Eurasian world; Great creativity in religious matters generating two world religions, hinduism and buddhism; and developing an impressive math and science system.  

Questions:

What qualities did Indian civilization display that kept empires from taking root?  Please include some discussion of Europe and why an empire was never able to arise to power again.  

Why was Rome considered a new empire?  China had numerous advantages in the development of it's

China and Rome shared certain features in their collapse, please explain a couple.  What were some of the differences in the collapse?

China had a continuous string of emperors up to the twentieth century, what factors played a role in this?