Journal #2

Kyle  Anderson

Journal 2

       Robert W. Strayer Starts chapter four by quoting another author who asked the question “Is the united States the new Roman Empire” (Strayer 2009 p.97). To me this is a very interesting idea that I have never thought about, but I can defiantly see why some one would ask that question. Strayer describes many aspects of what makes a culture or a civilization an empire by saying that the word,

“is normally reserved for larger and more aggressive states, those that conquer, rule, and extract resources from other states and people. Thus empires have generally encompassed a considerable variety of peoples and cultures within a single political system... [and] frequently, empires have given political expression to a civilization or culture” (Strayer 2009 p.98). 

When you apply this definition to the United States you can clearly see that there is a lot of similarities between the this country and the Roman Empire. The author continues to uses chapter four to describe how certain empires were created, and why they diminished, including Rome. This further strokes my interest because I keep relating it back to where I live and what I know, which is the United States. 

      While reading this chapter I started wondering, if the United States truly is the new modern Roman Empire, could we use the knowledge of history to stop us from repeating the past, and causing the inevitable fall of this great nation. In other world is it possible for the United States to be the last great empire that the world has ever known. It raises the question, is every great nation doomed to fail. Maybe this is not possible, or it could just be too idealistic and even a little utopian. However, If the united states was in fact, the last great empire, would it still be considered an empire. Dose the collapse of a great nation allow historians to declare that particular country or territory an empire. Is the declaration in the definition of an empire it self. 

         Perhaps, I am just questioning semantics but nevertheless I find it interesting and important to explore my curiosity.  Regardless, I need to remember not to stray to far away from the important aspects of examining the past history. At the end of chapter four Strayer put this in perceptive by saying “we have little else to go on expect history in making our way through the complexities of contemporary life,... [and] although the past may be gone, it surely is not dead” (Strayer 2009 p.122).

Reference

Strayer W. Robert. (2009). Ways of the world: A brief global history. Boston, MA: Bedford/St.

Martin’s

Journal # 1

Kyle  Anderson

World History SM 208

Patti Andrews

Journal entry #1 

     This week I read chapter’s one, two, and three, from the book, Ways Of The World: A Brief Global History by Robert W. Strayer. These chapters reviewed the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras of human history, form the nomadic way of life to the early development of agriculture. These chapters further talked talked about how the human species developed from small “gatherers-hunters” tribes to larger societies and then ultimately to the first  known civilization.

     I found these chapters to be interesting because they talked about a time in history that I do not know much about. In fact in chapter one Strayer says that this time in history was  a “way of life [that] sustained humankind for more than 95 percent of the time that our species has inhabited the earth” (Strayer p.11 2009). This statement captivated my imagination because I have not  realized that the modern era (which I am a part of) is only a very small percentage of the amount of time humans have been on this planet. This might be naive but nevertheless this new fact has sort of changed my perception and reshaped my world view of our human history.

     The Author has also changed my perception by deviating from the popular idea that often depict this time in human history as being barbaric, simplistic, and primitive. Instead the author cast light on a view that depicts this time as a time of development and evolution, with rules and structure. In chapter one the author reports that one scholar referred to the Paleolithic and Neolithic people as “‘the original affluent society’ not because they had so much, but because they wanted or needed so little” (Strayer p.21 2009). This blew my mind and once again captivated my imagination causing me to wonder if these nomadic people were happy. 

     It has also caused me to think about my life and specifically our modern society. Ironically, in the modern world we have so much and a lot of technology that can better the human race but yet I would bet that very few of us are considered affluent. Sure the definition of wealth and prosperity would be different in the stone age but I think that happiness and contentment is universal. So, the question still stands, were they happy. Its painfully obvious that we will never know the answer to this question but, still, maybe we can learner something form our ancient  ancestors. Simply put maybe less is more. It might seem strange to think about happens when reading school text book but I think it is good to remind our selves how history can provide us a vast wealth of knowledge encompassing many topics.

Reference

Strayer W. Robert. (2009). Ways of the world: A brief global history. Boston, MA: Bedford/St.

     Martin’s