As we start a new week of school, I'm thinking about where we've been, academically speaking...
Thus far, we have:
- read Jared Diamond's article about whether farming was a huge mistake
- read some pages in our textbook to get some additional context about the pluses and minuses of the agricultural revolution
- worked on developing a thesis and supporting it with evidence
- read a summary of Gilgamesh and thought about what Mesopotamia might have been like around 2000 BCE
- selected a current event to follow for the first trimester
- learned how to use Google Earth
Speaking of Google Earth (you will be on a team soon!) let's think about where we've been in a geographic sense.
Most (though not all) of you have now visited the area around the North Carolina/Virginia border near the Blue Ridge Mountains. We are now back in Cary. When you traveled, did you wonder -- or historia -- about how the "Blue Ridge Mountains" got their name? They didn't look Blue to me. But maybe that's because I didn't see them in the morning:
When we look across to other mountains it is easy to see why they were named the "Blue Ridge Mountains." The early morning air in the distance looks like thick smoke. It makes the color of the mountains a deep ocean blue. This color is caused by the amount of water in the air. It is almost like fog. When the sun rises higher, some of the water in the air will be burned away. Then the mountains will slowly turn dark green.
source: http://www.manythings.org/voa/05/2005-08-16-3.html
Now that we are back at Cary Academy, how did Cary get its name?
We got to the Blue Ridge Mountains by traveling west on Route 40. What's up with routes and numbers? Did you ever notice that interstate highway numbers ending in zero -- such as Route 10, 20, 30, 40, etc. -- go East-West, whereas numbers ending in five -- such as Route 95, 85, 75, etc. -- go North-South? Who set up these highways anyway?
Would it be good for China to develop a similar highway system, so its 1.3 billion people could spread out more? Auto makers would certainly be happy with that decision, but would it be good for the environment to have China develop more and better roads? If cars in the future run on more environmentally-friendly fuels, maybe it won't matter so much. Or will all these roads (and by the way -- do all roads lead to Rome? or is that Persia's Royal Road?) be historical relics in the future when we all fly around like The Jetsons?
There actually was a point to all that question asking (aside from re-introducing you to the concept of historia: to learn by inquiry)
As you prepare for class on Monday, please read actively. Look up words you don't know. Think about what the text is telling you.
We will spend the next few weeks looking at the early river civilizations. The title of chapter three is “The Great River Valleys”.
picture source: http://www.harappa.com/indus2/gif/oldworld.jpg
For instance, on page 76 (electronic page 122), we learn that China grew a lot of millet on the Yangtze River. An active reader might wonder what millet looks like.
The caption next to the colorful picture on p. 76 (you are reading the captions and looking at the maps, aren't you?) tells us that rice -- the crop often associated with China -- tends to grow better in the moist south of China, on the Yangtze River.
Where do we get our food from today? So many questions...
Speaking of questions, if you have any questions (or thoughts or comments) as you do the reading, please post them as comments to this blog entry.
11 comments:
After reading the pages in the textbook I went back to electronic page 117 and re-read a statement that interests me. "We can, however, understand a civilization simply as a society that, for good or ill, engages ambitiously with its environment..."
I got to thinking, does our 21st century American society engage with our environment for good, or for ill?
The ecology of civilization, how we act towards the environment does not always prove to be helpful to the environment. We have a lot of benefits in our society, but at the cost of damaged environments, such as pollution, oil drilling etc. I think maybe our society does not benefit the environment such as some earlier civilizations have.
Does anyone agree/disagree?
I have to wonder if we are doing more damage than good. I would have to say yes. It seems like we are doing what we wat today, without thinking about tomorrow.
I was also wondering whether or not the changes made by early civilizations were good. I am talking about the first paragraph of electronic page 116, where it says, "They modified the landscape..." Sure, they did some things that were very progressive and modern for the time, but what if they weren't actually changes that were for the better. Does anyone have any opinions or ideas?
I thought it was very interesting how “change was measured in terms of intensified agriculture, technological innovation, development of state power and construction of cities. It never suggests that change might be measured in terms of people’s lifestyles. I assume that during this time, agriculture, technological innovation, development of state power and the construction of cities were of primary importance. It is hard to say whether the changes made were good or bad, and as Laura puts it, “modifying the landscape”. I guess it all really gets down to whether you agree/disagree that it was a good idea to switch to agriculture. It made society what it is today, which probably has a lot more technological advances, development of state power and construction of cities than it would have if we had not switched to agriculture. However, what’s saying that the life we live in now is better than the life that could have been and was for thousands and thousands of years? As is shown in all four river civilizations, their lives depended almost completely on the climate/weather. Obviously, you can’t tame nature, so maybe we made a mistake by trying to in the first place. Perhaps it created more problems than we’ve gained from it.
This article from Sunday's New York Times talks about how people are making their "footprint" known on the world in new ways -- as viewed through the lens of mapmakers...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/weekinreview/08basic.html
I found it interesting to see the many similarities between all the civilizations- the most obvious and important being the rivers. Every civilization has started around a water source.
One part I didn't really understand was on electronic page 120 where it said, "Mesopotamia and Harappa certainly traded with each other. Mesopotamia and Egypt were close to each other and in constant touch. The map shows, however, that China's Yellow River valley was relatively isolated by long distances and physical barriers...." Does this mean that the people living in that civilization weren't aware of the other ones, or was commerce just not a large part of their lives?
I think maybe they meant that, if the Yellow River Valley peoples even knew about the other civilizations, it was probably only vague and they most likely didn't have much contact considering the amount of space between them.
As to our damaging the environment, I think it is definitely true that the human race has changed our surroundings in a bad way. For example, as have been mentioned before, pollution, oil drilling, and also cutting down so many trees to make way for expansion of cities and such. If we don't stop destroying the earth, nothing good can come of it.
One other thing that hasn't been mentioned yet that I found interesting was the fact that ancient Egypt had a female ruler; Queen Hatshepsut, as mentioned on electronic page 118. It mentioned a memorial built in her honor; does this mean women had a more equal status in ancient Egypt? I'm curious...
On Page 70 under the Ecology of Egypt, it talks about the "Delta Region" since the text didn't specify where exactly that region is I dediced to research it and i found out some information about it, The Nile Delta is the delta formed in Northern Egypt where the Nile River spreads out and drains into the Mediterranean Sea. It is one of the world's largest river deltas—from Alexandria in the west to Port Said in the east, it covers some 240 km of Mediterranean coastline—and is a rich agricultural region. From north to south the delta is approximately 160 km in length. The Delta begins slightly down-river from Cairo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_Delta
A couple pictures...
http://www.maps-charts.com/images/Nile%20Map%201774.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nile_River_and_delta_from_orbit.jpg
I agree with Erin's statement. there are many issues in American politics about a woman's place in the government.If in Ancient Egypt women were equal to men shouldn't the modern world learn from that and be able to accept that? If the modern world can learn to accept that, then maybe a women president is in store for the future. I also wonder if femenism was present during Ancient Egypt because woman had equal rights and I wonder if that was always that way or if someone had to fight for that?
I also agree with the comments on how humans may have affected and may still be affecting the environment. Thankfully there are environmental activists out there trying to stop it and hopefully we can help the environment. I am curious if in Ancient Egypt they were harming the environment or keeping it safe? the electronic reading probably specified that but I am not sure.
Finally I read something in the electronic reading that interested me. It said that the ruins and relics of the Great River Valleys inspire film makers, advertisers, artists, toy makers and writers of computer games. I find that very interesting becuase all of the things listed are modern aspects of our society. they are the basis of buisness, entertainment, pleasure, money making ect. the fact that something so ancient as the Great River Valleys can have an impact on such modern things is fascinating to me.
I though that the reading about correct writing, was repetitive. The part we read was about how much things could be cut down and how our writing was "cluttered" with extra words that did not need to be included. I found the reading a little funny because I felt that the author, William Knowlton Zinsser, was repeating himself which was what he was telling the reader not to do. Did anyone else feel this way?
I noticed a section on page 69(115 Electronic) that said,"Civilization is now a discredited word. People have abused it as a name for
societies they approve of, which usually means societies that resemble their own.
They have also denied the term to cultures they deem alien or lacking in material
culture or institutions similar to their own." This statement really made me think about I have seen certain places portrayed, especially in the negative manner talked about above. In personal experience I notice that people in America tend to look down on certain places like African tribes and places in the Middle East. They treat these cultures that are so different from their own as alien and sometimes not even cultures at all. This treatment isn't reserved for people just outside America, however. I have known people to look down upon people like the Native Americans, just because they are so different.
Rather than embracing difference, we discourage it, as can be seen in so many places today.
Does that make sense? Anyone have any ideas on the topic?
After reading pages 93-98 in the textbook...
Some things I found interesting in the reading what things could cause the downfall of a society. I saw it mentioned in the first page that the King of Hitties has a grasp for power. Maybe it is possible the grasp for power is a cause of instability. I also found it interesting that empires grow and fall. It is interesting because it is almost like saying success leads to failure. I also found it interesting that trade was not just economic, it was social.
Questions:
1. Was the story on pg 93 a will?
2. How did the Hititties flourish in such a hostile environment?
3. Was trade a cause of instability?
4. Why did trading areas switch?
Post a Comment