In the intro of part 5 and the discussion of Eurocentrism, it is interesting to learn that Europe did become the hub of activity in the world at that time. I never even thought about the fact that the “far east” and “middle east” can only be considered that when compared (in location) to Europe. This sentence also stuck out to me: “Even though the European moment operated on a genuinely global scale, Western people have enjoyed their worldwide primacy for at most two centuries” (p 493). The people have enjoyed their time on top, not competed for it, worked for it, sacrificed for it, but enjoyed it. Perhaps this attitude is why, in general, the western world thinks so highly of themselves. It’s as if everything was handed to them, and in a way it kind of was.
Chapter 18 talks about how the industrial revolution just sort of happened to start in Europe. Europe was not “ahead of the game,” but rather even with Asia and other areas economically speaking. Once the revolution started, of course Europeans kicked into high gear and start pumping out machinery, steam engines, all kinds of things to give them the upper hand in the industrial world. But it started out relatively even. Britain is where it all began, if we were to pin point a country. The “many small and highly competitive states [of Europe], […] arguably provided an ‘insurance against economical and technological stagnation” (p 530) and that competition is what drove industrial development. Britain, in comparison to the geographical size of China, the Ottoman Empire, and Mughal Empire (which were less successful in terms of industrial revolution), is small. Did the industrial revolution start because here because there was a very large population competing in a relatively small vicinity for efficient and marketable commerce?
I also thought how interesting it was that with the increase of industry came to increased separation of class in Europe. It makes sense I suppose, but when does it stop? Because the world is still ruled by industry, it always has been, but I mean the highly competitive, dog-eat-dog, steal ideas or patents from your best friend industry. And economic separation is as evident as ever, within one country AND on a country-to-country basis. Look at technology, the iPad. Really? Do people really need portable touch screen computers? No wonder people don’t care about HUMAN issues, like human trafficking, global warming that is destroying the one planet we can live on... They are too busy googling Britney Spears’ latest hair cut, or Pat Roberson’s newest take on why an earthquake hit Haiti. And only people from certain social classes, or from certain countries will be able to buy something like this.
My grandmother is 94 years old and I like talking to her about her life. I think it was 2 years ago now that I showed her my iPod. She looked at me, laughed, and said, “Where does the music come from?” I think about all the things she has seen in her lifetime, and it blows my mind- I can only imagine what its like for her! The technological advances in my lifetime alone are astonishing and overwhelming. Honestly, technology and the drive for the next new thing kind of scare me. You can genetically engineer your kid to be whatever you want, you can have a portable touch screen computer, I don’t even know what else! I want a career in healthcare, and yes technology has made it possible to save so many lives and so many wonderful things. But now it is creating so many moral issues and there is a real concern that people could start to “play God.” Technology stressed me out; it is good and bad all at once.
Back to the reading, I have just one last thought to discuss. In the section about middle class, one seemingly innocent yet slightly offensive phrase could easily have gone unnoticed, much like its subject did in history at this time: “wives, though clearly subordinate, worked productively alongside their husbands” (p537). The definition of subordinate: lower than somebody in rank or status, secondary in importance. After briefly discussing the home-maker role of the women in middle class, this phrase is thrown in there like “Oh, by the way, women worked just like men (in addition to many duties in the home) but they are female, so who cares.” While I cannot take this idea personally, it is still so discouraging that women were thought so little of. Here it is saying they had many responsibilities at home, and then also worked right beside their husbands- meaning they are actually doing more work than the men (!!), and getting no credit, no reward, no recognition from their family, government, or society (at that time).
No comments:
Post a Comment