Saturday, January 18, 2014
Blog Número Dos
For this blog post, I have some questions and my own person answers, but I really want to here from you. What do you think?
1) The majority of this week we have talked about nations. And what really brings up the following question is in Sarmiento's Chapter 1. As I was reading it, I was trying to find whether or not I have a biased on who is civilized and who is not. Throughout our highschool careers, we've talked civilized versus barbarism, the Indians who the settlers thought were barbarians, and have talked extensively about the same issue in South and Latin America in this class regarding the Aztecs, Mexicas, and Incas. We've talked about what defines a civilization, but on the flip side what defines a barbarian?
2) Another question from Sarmiento's Chapter 1 was one I related to Burns' writing. In Burns', you'll remember that he talks about how the ideology of the elites was shaped by the enlightenment among other things. The idea of the enlightenment was that if people had the opportunity to know the truth, they would select "civilization" over "barbarism". Sarmiento makes a comment in his chapter that "Civilization, then, can never be attained, barbarism is the norm..." But if this was the days of enlightenment, why didn't they try and erase that ignorance and change the barbarism to truth?
My Answers:
1) I personally, believe there are higher and lower forms of civilization, but they are all civilizations. People were created equal. The reason Europe became so "civilized" and advanced is all because of how we viewed it. We have been able to study the society of Europe from the beginning of time, but not that of the New World societies. In order to see how far something has advanced, you need a starting point. If you are measuring the length of a pencil, you need a start point and an end point. With no distinct starting point for the New World societies, I don't think anyone can come up with a true analysis of how far these societies have come. So I don't believe there are barbarians. No matter what race, gender, social structure, religion or culture a people has, they all possess intelligence and have the potential to become something better, to improve. Some improve slower than others, but there are many factors that go into progress so I'm not going to go into that. :)
2) In the context of this excerpt, he mentions before that the culture of intelligence was neglected in the [Arab or Tartar tribe] and is not only neglected but impossible because if they were to implant a school, would children from ten leagues (about 34.5 miles) away come to attend? There is the same issue with the church. Because the people are so spread out in many directions, they cannot decide on a proper place to build a church or school so that people would actually attend. So in this context, I can kind of see where this comment came from. However, I still don't quite understand why, in the enlightenment idea, that they didn't not build churches and schools in various spots and believe, since it was the enlightenment idea that you would pursue civilization if the chance was handed to you, that people would come and attend in the pursuit of knowledge and civilization.
Feel free to answer my questions, or question both my questions or answers! :) Enjoy your extended weekend, everyone!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You asked what defines a barbarian, so I will answer!
ReplyDeleteI would like to use a cartoon to show what most people think a barbarian is. I'm not sure if you ever watched or if you remember the disney channel cartoon Dave the Barbarian? Haha, yes. Here is another disney reference from a fellow Latin American Civ. member. Well, the main character Dave, was considered to be a barbarian. He and his family members are perfect examples of the typical savage one would picture when describing a barbarian. Fur clothes and shoes, Dave's younger sister wore a bone in her hair, and dave wasn't particularly smart. He was strong, but had no brains. Also, Dave and his family of barbarians lived wayyyy back in time, which makes them seem more primitive in nature.
I think this exemplifies how most Americans view what a barbarian is. When I think of the word Barbarian, I think of someone who lacks intelligence, someone who is unfamiliar with new technology, but also someone who existed a long time ago. Sort of like a step up from a caveman.
So yeah, that's what I think of Barbarians!
Leah,
ReplyDeleteTo answer your questions, first, I agree with Alexis that most people think of barbarians as people who lived a long time ago. When I think of the word barbarian, I think of cavemen and sometimes picture the Flintstones. They are primitive people who lived at the beginning of time. Barbarians were focused on meeting the basic needs for survival: food, water, shelter, ect. They don’t use technology or modern methods to meet their needs; they are hunters and trappers. Often times, they are nomads and do not have permanent homes. That is how I would define a barbarian. To answer your second question, I agree with you that they could have tried to build some schools or churches despite the distance in hopes of educating the people of the countryside. However, I am not sure that all of the people would choose to change their ways to the civilized ways. The “barbarian” cowboys lived simple lives and may not have wished to trade their simplistic peaceful lives for the stressful civilized lives of the city dwellers.
I completely see where you both are coming from, and indeed, when I think of barbarians on a superficial level, I think of similar things. I find it interesting, and a little disconcerting that we get the basis of what we define barbarians as from animations and Disney. But, we have nothing else to base our ideas off besides that. The only exception is if you believe the Bible - that changes the whole aspect and outlook. Adam and Eve were far from barbarians, and naively this was were I was kind of coming from.
ReplyDelete