Dr. Murnane

AP World History

November 10, 2011

CNN’s Millennium: History Through the Lens of Entertainment

While CNN’s Millennium has several flaws that must be addressed, overall it was an admirable presentation of world history. Granted, the series emphasized certain trivial events at the expense of more important information, misrepresented time periods and the people in them, and often lacked consistent thesis statements. However, the episodes overall were very informative and entertaining, and had a well-organized format. The way that the episodes were broken down into segments, each with a different topic, was beneficial because it gave the segments clarity by separating regions and stories in a way that could be easily digested, and it also made certain that the viewer was not overloaded with too much information all at once. CNN broke up 1000 years of history into ten episodes and fifty segments, each including the story of a different region or group within a specific century. The trouble with this, however, was that these segments did not always link back to the thesis and metaphor of the episode as a whole. For example, the episode titled “Century of the Scythe” rarely linked the presented information back to this symbol. The scythe represented death, as clearly seen in the section about the Black Death in which the people were “scythed down” by the plague. However, in many other segments such as the one pertaining to the rise of Mali or the development of trade routes around the kingdom of Majapahit, the opposite effect is seen; people prospered. This flaw was also seen in the episodes “Century of the Sword” and “Century of the Sail”. Even “Century of the Axe” contradicted its symbol in the last segment by pointing out that the Australians maintained ancestral ways, ignoring the axe, while the rest of the world advanced architecturally. In addition, certain episodes were misrepresentative because they were stereotypical and were inconsistent with the time period. Modern costumes and props distorted the reality of the century, and the casting of a gloomy sky (literally) over certain groups of people gave them a false demeanor. For example, Christianity was portrayed in a very somber and downcast way in two episodes (“Century of the Sword” and “Century of the Sail”). In these episodes, Christians were depicted as helpless and violent people through dark music and an overall dark look. In addition, India is presented in a very vulgar way in the “Century of the Sword” episode as well—CNN chose to show nude statues and sexual images when depicting India. In terms of representation of the time period, taxis, polo shirts, mopeds, and modern fur coats are not accurate representations of the 11^th and 15^th centuries—these oddballs were seen throughout the series. The final flaw is that certain sections emphasized insignificant events at the expense of more important ones. For example, the “Century of the Sword” section on Japanese novels contained an abundance of historically useless information because of its limited view. This information could have easily been replaced with more pertinent 11^th-century events such as the Crusades, the 1066 Norman conquest of England, or the Vikings. Other sections fall into the same category, including the “Century of the Sail” section on the Italian Renaissance, which included much cultural information that in no way affected the rest of the world. On the upside, the episodes were informative, using many methods of conveying information, such as reenactments, graphics, and citations; presenting many types of facts, such as statistics, names, dates, cultural evidence, and events; and going into a good amount of detail. In addition, the scope of the regions covered by the first five episodes is immense. Eighteen different regions and groups were discussed directly, and these eighteen affected many, many more through cause and effect, conquest, and exploration. The voyages of explorers of the age (such as Zheng He and Vasco da Gama) reached a vast number of new regions, empires such as the Ottoman Empire and the Mongolian Empire spanned much of the world, and trade routes crisscrossed the globe. Finally, the episodes were entertaining because of captivating graphics, dramatic quotes and statistics, and exciting music. In particular, the section on the Black Death in “Century of the Scythe” portrayed this strength. The graphic involving a black hand taking over the Earth was intense and captivating; quotes such as “If death is a wineglass, my heart is drunk,” caught the attention of viewers and displayed a unique side to the story; and dark and stormy music stirred the audience emotionally and helped them to really feel the tragedy. “Century of the Axe” graphics were also entertaining and displayed the complexity of 12^th-century buildings in an evident way. The statistics referring to the conquest of Timur’s army in “Century of the Scythe” were also amazingly brutal, and the quotes from the “Century of the Scythe” segment on the turn to cannibalism in 14^th-century Europe were sickeningly entertaining. Finally, the music in “Century of the Stirrup” was majestic and upbeat, really capturing the excitement of the battles of the Mongolian conquest. Therefore, while CNN’s Millennium has several flaws that must be addressed, overall it was an admirable presentation of world history.

The first flaw could be seen in the first episode–the misrepresentation and stereotyping of certain groups of people. For example, in the section of  “Century of the Sword” pertaining to the 11^th-century inward turn of India, statues and architectural structures were carved to display human contact and naked people, and paintings were equally as crude. The actors in this segment were also naked for some of the time. With all of this sexual content, India was portrayed in a very vulgar way. This labeling also happened other times within this particular episode as well during the section on the divide of Christianity. The music was very somber, and the whole picture was quite dark. Outcries and bold movements also gave the idea of violence. Meanwhile, during sections such as the one about the spread of Islam, the music was upbeat and powerful. This could be seen as a display of stereotype, marking Christians as somber and melancholy, while Muslims are seen as strong and enthusiastic. Even though this might be the view of certain people, displaying a group as being entirely one thing is very dangerous. Christians were also given a bad reputation again in the 15^th-century episode, “Century of the Sail”, during which the Ottoman conquest and their triumph over Christianity was highlighted. Again the Muslims looked like a people of power and might while Christians are again shown in a much less positive light. In fact, Christians are seen as the flawed and unworthy victims for whom the Ottomans showed mercy. Misrepresentation is one of the worst things a TV series can do, and even if these stereotypes have some truth to them, it is unfair to use labels to define every member of a group, and using negative stereotypes is risky because viewers who identify themselves as part of a specific group could feel offended.

However, it was not just the people of the time periods that were sometimes misrepresented, but the time periods themselves were often distorted as well. It is quite obvious that 11^th-century Indians did not wear collared polo shirts, nor did taxis roam the streets of the 15^th-century Aztec empire. And no matter how artsy and classy Italians were during the Renaissance, women certainly did not wear modern North Face fur coats and men did not ride around on mopeds. Finally, Coca Cola was not established during this age, so the Coca Cola sign in the background of the “Century of the Sword” episode was ridiculous. These modernized representations could be found throughout the entire series, and it caused the time periods to get somewhat lost in translation, causing the episodes to lose some of their historical feel.

The third major flaw of the series has to do with its metaphorical layout, or perhaps the weakness of this metaphor. Millennium, as assumed from the title, was created in order to display the history of an entire millennium of history, a shocking 1000 years filled with battles, conquest, expansion, and innovation. In order to accomplish this, CNN decided to divide the millennium into ten episodes, each pertaining to one century, and each episode into 5 individual segments, each displaying the story of one region during that century. In addition, each episode was assigned to a metaphor that was supposed to represent the entire 100 years. The first five episodes (1000 A.D.-1500 A.D.) were thus titled “Century of the Sword”, “Century of the Axe”, “Century of the Stirrup”, “Century of the Scythe”, and finally “Century of the Sail”. However, while this seems like a highly intelligent idea, unifying an entire century under one inanimate object cannot be an easy task, and CNN certainly seemed to struggle with it. Very rarely did the symbol connect with every single segment of each episode. The most drastic example of this flaw was the “Century of the Sword” episode, in which the sword does not play a role in majority of the segments. In no way does China being inventive and developing things such as paper, the compass, or the seismograph have to do with a sword of any kind, and nor does India turning inward or Japan developing novels. The scythe in “Century of the Scythe” (representing death and tragedy) is also completely lost within such segments as those about the flourish of Mali in gold and the rise of major trade routes around the Kingdom of Majapahit, and the sail is similarly mislaid in the “Century of the Sail” episode. The metaphor in this episode was missing or very vague within the two sections regarding the Aztec capitol and the Italian Renaissance. The Aztec capitol was built in the center of a lake, but this did not seem nearly as strong a correlation with the sail when compared with the ocean voyages and sea battles of other segments (about the voyages of Zheng He, the European discovery of the New World, and the Ottoman battle at Constantinople), and the Italian Renaissance was in no way connected with the sea. In fact, its only relationship with exploration at all (air travel) was extremely vague and disconnected. It was mentioned very briefly at the end of the segment during the introduction of Leonardo da Vinci after an entire episode pertaining to artists. Even the “Century of the Axe” episode betrayed its symbol in the last segment by pointing out that many of the world’s regions, such as Australia, defied the axe, remaining consistent with ancestral ways. It seems that the only episode with a strong and consistent connection with its symbol was “Century of the Stirrup”, an episode about the conquest of the Mongols, who used horses for many purposes.

Despite the fact that these episode metaphors were not as strong as they could have been, however, the segmented layout was, overall, very beneficial to the audience. As a viewer, having 1000 years of history thrown at you all at once can be quite overwhelming. So much took place between 1000 A.D. and 2000 A.D that keeping it straight can be difficult. However, taking the millennium century by century and the centuries region by region helped the viewer to digest what was being displayed. Which one is easier to remember? “In 1054, Christianity divided; in 1275, Marco Polo traveled to China; and in 1348, the Black Death plagued the world,” or “In 15^th-century China, Zheng He made his legendary sea voyages, but he was not the only one. Europeans were also discovering the New World within the same century, and the Ottomans were crossing deep waters in order to conquer Constantinople”? Connection is very important in history, making seemingly random events begin to make sense in our minds, so CNN’s idea to unify events under individual metaphors, time periods, and regions was very sensible.

CNN’s Millennium was also highly entertaining, and one quality that made it thus was graphics. Throughout the episodes, many graphics captivated the audience, rebuilding history in front of their eyes. For example, in the first section of “Century of the Scythe” pertaining to the Black Death, the graphic used to depict the plague taking over, a black hand slowly encompassing the Earth, was drastic and interesting, causing much intrigue and discussion about the section. People literally fell under the hand of the plague. Another very interesting graphic was used during the “Century of the Axe” episode. This particular episode was very focused on the advancements made within different regions during the 12^th century, namely, North America, Europe, Ethiopia, Italy, and finally, the rest of the undeveloped world. It was a century of architectural advancement. The graphic in this episode that was most appealing was the one in which models of the newly developed buildings were reconstructed on-screen. This not only showed the complexity of the structures but was also far more interesting than merely seeing a picture. Graphics such as these caught the attention of the viewer and set Millennium apart from other historical documentaries.

Another entertaining aspect of Millennium was its varied and interesting quotes. For example, in the aforementioned section about the Black Death, dramatic quotes such as “If death is a wineglass, my heart is drunk,” and “If you rise in the morning, don’t count on being alive by nightfall” make this section memorable. Other examples of quotes that definitely catch the attention of the audience from this episode (“Century of the Scythe”) can also be found within the section on the mini ice age and the subsequent famines of Europe during the 14^th century. One such quote is: “…men and women eat their little children, and even other people’s.” This quote pertains to the turn to cannibalism because of the lack of food in Europe. Clearly, it is meant to grasp and entertain viewers through astonishment and disgust, and it also captures the low morale and distress of 14^th-century Europe.

Yet another addition to CNN’s series that made it even more interesting was dramatic statistics. Adding a number to a statement can really make it much more effective. For example, not only did CNN enthrall audiences with information about the blood and gore of the conquest of Timur’s army in 14^th-century Asia, but mentioning the “70,000 severed heads [that] were built into towers surrounding the ruined city” caused the audience to also wow at the vast amount of severed heads that there were. Statistics can also really help in the portrayal of the scope of tragedies or major accomplishments.

Music is the fourth and final entertainment value in CNN’s Millennium. For many people (myself included), music is a source of entertainment, and it can also be very touching. Therefore, the use of music in Millennium helped audiences to really relate emotionally to the events of the past. For example, the dark music surrounding the Black Death gave the audience a feeling of fear and dismay, while the upbeat music played during battles such as the “Century of the Stirrup” conquests of the Mongols in the 13^th century excited audiences and made them feel triumphant when the battle was won. The emotional roller coaster instigated by the music of the episodes was much more comparable to an exciting film than just another forgettable history textbook.

One concluding statement that should be made about all of these entertainment qualities within the series is that they also helped the presented information to be better absorbed. Referring back to the Timur army statistic, mental images of severed heads make this section memorable, either through disgust or intrigue, and it is likely that people will remember at least some of the information presented, and perhaps even discuss it with others, spreading the information while also helping the spreader to retain it. The hand of the Black Death clearly conveyed the vast influence of the tragedy in a way that would also be remembered; the Plague spread through much of Europe and Africa. The thought of the poor little children being eaten during the European famine also leaves deep scars in the viewers’ brains that will not be soon forgotten. Finally, music is often used for the purposes of memorization and remembrance, so the addition of music to the episodes may help some to retain their overall mood more effectively. Therefore, entertainment value is good on two different fronts. Gaining viewers in the first place and enthralling them so that they enjoy the presentation is a clear upside, but this also comes with the bonus of helping those viewers to better retain history. It is captivating and interesting, but this captivation also makes the reception of the information much better as well. Perhaps this series can be used as a good portrayal of the idea that good history does not have to be boring.

Of course, for audiences to absorb much beneficial information, much beneficial information must be presented, and CNN’s Millennium overcame this challenge with relative ease. As mentioned before, the episodes were informative. CNN used many methods of conveying information, such as reenactments of battles (such as the Mongolian conquests in “Century of the Stirrup”), demonstrative graphics (such as the aforementioned reconstruction of 12^th-century buildings in “Century of the Axe”), and citations of famous figures of the time period (such as quotes from the travel journal of Columbus during his discovery of the New World found in the “Century of the Sail” episode). They also presented many varying types of facts in good balance. Using a variety of statistics, names, dates, cultural evidence, and straight up facts gives the series an extensive overview of events. In addition, the series goes into a good amount of detail, not so much as to overwhelm the audience, but enough to give them a broad sense of any one historical event.

The final way in which Millennium was highly informative was in the scope of the places covered by the series. Across the first five episodes, all of the following regions were directly covered: China, India, Japan, North America, Europe, Ethiopia, Italy, Australia, Mongolia, Egypt, Mali, Asia, Indonesia, the Aztec Empire, Constantinople, and the New World. Christianity and Islam were also discussed in depth. On top of these areas that were directly mentioned and discussed, a vast number of other places were included indirectly in the series because of their connection to the main countries and regions. Zheng He’s explorations reached 30 countries around the Indian Ocean. European exploration spread south beyond the Cape of Good Hope (thanks to Vasco de Gama) to the Indian Ocean, meanwhile reaching the New World. Ottoman empires stretched across Eurasia to the Euphrates. Malian salt trade attracted merchants from miles around. Islamic empires spread from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean. The Mongols had influence over most of the Eastern World. The list goes on and on. Basically, Millennium is an effective and informative portrayal of world history because it includes stories pertaining to every continent and every corner of the world.

However, there are always two sides to every story, and that is the case with the information presented by CNN. While the series undoubtedly presented a significant amount of information, and while a good portion of this information was beneficial, there were definitely sections that could have been improved on or omitted altogether. Two segments in particular that could have used some drastic improvement were the “Century of the Sword” segment on the creation of novels in Japan and the “Century of the Sail” segment on the Italian Renaissance.

The section on the creation of Japanese novels was flawed and pointless for several reasons. Firstly, it in no way displayed the relevance of Japanese novel development to the worldview strived for by a world historian. Secondly, it was too specific and limited. During class, it has been rightly mentioned several times that our births would not have been included in the series. But this statement begs the question: then why was Sei Shonagon’s whole life included? Why was she so unique or different from any other woman author of the time? Also, can the accomplishments of one woman who lived during only a fraction of the 11^th century really be a sufficient representation of an entire country throughout an entire century? Basically, this insignificant segment was a waste of ten minutes that could have been much more wisely used describing other more world-pertinent events of the century, such as the Norman conquest of England in 1066 or the Seljuk Turks control of the Abbasid Empire in 1055.

In addition, the segment on Renaissance Italy also included much pointless information. For instance, discussing individual Renaissance paint colors and mentioning that “ultramarine was the most expensive” was completely irrelevant to the snapshot of the century as a whole. In fact, the whole section seemed fairly unnecessary. It did portray the culture and lifestyle of Italy at the time, but because it did not involve exploration or any other country outside of its borders, it was not really a beneficial choice for a TV series whose goal was to display a snapshot of the world in its entirety throughout the whole century. However, maybe instead of deleting all of the entertaining and cultural information (which does have some inherent value) presented by this segment, it could have been adapted to also incorporate the innovations of several other regions or have better explained the Renaissance’s relevance to the world outside of Italy.

Despite these small sections that could have been improved upon, the overall information presented was beneficial and interesting. These irrelevant sections were clearly added strictly for entertainment purposes, and while this may detract slightly from the series’ integrity as a historical documentary, it is understandable. Millennium was a series aired on TV. It had to have at least some sections with the sole purpose of captivating audiences, and as mentioned before, entertainment is not necessarily a bad thing as long as the whole series is not dedicated solely to it.

In conclusion, covering an entire millennium within ten episodes of about forty-five minutes in length while obtaining viewers and entertaining them is a very challenging task. However, CNN’s Millennium did a fairly good job. CNN misrepresented certain time periods by modernizing their graphics and stereotyped certain cultures and religions by using dramatic music and different lighting to portray them. Certain sections containing much cultural information were also given too much emphasis at certain points, and these precious minutes could have been used to introduce other more historical events. However, for the most part, events that were discussed were done so in appropriate amounts of detail. Another downside was the lack of clear thesis statements from episode to episode. Titling the episodes things such as “Century of the Scythe” or “Century of the Sword” seems like an intelligent way in which to connect episodes and represent individual centuries. However, the metaphors in these titles were not usually well represented. Despite this, Millennium’s organized format gave its episodes much clarity. It was also very informative, covering the stories of many countries and regions throughout an entire century. Finally, it was entertaining, using intense graphics, interesting quotes, and shocking statistics to captivate the viewer, and all of this made the series both interesting and informative, a very captivating representation of the historical world. For these reasons, while CNN’s Millennium has several clear flaws, overall it was an admirable presentation of world history.

* * *

Dr. Murnane

AP World History

CNN Millennium Paper

Schizophrenic Millennium: A Diagnosis

            CNN’s Millennium is a television series attempting to show a thousand years of global history. The series is segmented into ten different centuries. Each episode was given a clever metaphor that attempted to tie all the segments together within the episodes while also providing a central theme for the episode itself. Although it is obvious that CNN spent a lot of energy on the visuals of the program, it is time that should have been spent elsewhere. This effort could have been dedicated more toward the construction and organization of the overall series. As is, there are major defects in the program that cannot be covered up with fancy camera work. Millennium in a word is schizophrenic. Schizophrenia can be described as “…a severe mental disorder characterized by the following features: intellectual deterioration, disorganized speech and behavior… and… by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements”(Random House Dictionary). Millennium mixes incompatible entertainment elements with historical facts. Valuing entertainment over history, it contains inappropriate historical focus and inadequately develops central points within the series. In this sense, the show is “schizophrenic.” Putting entertainment over history is especially evident in the 11^th century and 12^th century episodes. In the 11^th Century, CNN closely follows Sei Shonagon and her Pillow Book, a literary work, instead of any specific historical events. This was followed by the 12^th century episode, which in which a segment focused on Gothic architecture- particularly on cathedrals- in Europe. Both of these segments focused on artistic aspects of the cultures instead of actual historical fact such as the political struggles in both regions at the time. In addition, the inappropriate historical focus is shown in the segments on Japan and European Christianity in an episode on the 11^th century. Neglecting the larger aspects of both of these societies, CNN emphasized the perspective of one woman, Sei Shonagon, and an individual religious group- Christians. Also, the inadequate development of their central theses is best shown in the entirety of the fourth episode, or the “Century of the Scythe,” where so many differing ideas are presented that it is impossible to siphon out one consolidating point. Viewers are given information on Egypt, Mali, Mongolia, Indonesia, and Europe with nothing to tie the information together into a coherent thesis. The whole show sacrificed so much history to the altar of entertainment that it was virtually impossible to reconcile the two into a concise series. Overall, CNN’s Millennium simply values entertainment over history, is historically inappropriate, and cannot seem to manage to stick to a central point, displaying schizophrenic tendencies.

Millennium was a very pleasing visual experience, however this attention to visual detail was not balanced with the point of the series––to impart a global knowledge of the last thousand years. The most striking evidence of this is in their depictions of the 11^th and 12^th Century. The 11^th century, or the “Century of the Sword” had beautiful cinematography, especially in the section on Japan; viewers were treated to colorful recreations of Japanese gardens. This segment was focused on depicting the Japanese court during the 11^th Century by using Sei Shonagon’s Pillow Book, a work of literature from the time that displays the Japanese court from the perspective of the Empress’ court lady. The segment was accented with quotes from the Pillow Book, and these quotes in turn were accompanied by artistic footage recreating the exact imagery she described. For example, while the narrator is reading a long list of items (such as duck eggs and the inside of a cat’s ear), CNN makes an effort to show exactly what is being described. However, the section lacked a global perspective (it was completely conducted through the viewpoint of an individual), and did not even mention the politics or events that occurred in Japan at that time outside of daily court life. For instance, there is no mention of the role of China in shaping Japanese culture, not of Buddhism, which was the major religion at the time. The series even leaves out information on Japan’s feudal social order. Admittedly, the quality and consistency of the video and audio feed is spectacular and captivating. However, although the pictures run smoothly and the transition of images was done wonderfully, this cannot be said of the transition of ideas. As it was titled “Century of the Sword,” viewers could expect to be given information on a century of violence. However, not only was the segment on Japan completely devoid of any mention of violence, but the ideas within the segment itself had no point and was incredibly poorly done. If CNN had made an effort to connect to this theme of violence, they could have mentioned the role of Samari in Japanese society, which would have fit the metaphor perfectly. However, a lot of the information that was presented within the segment was in the form of direct quotations from the Pillow Book that were not only taken completely out of context, but were never explained. This seems to be a theme in Millennium.

Millennium’s ideas as a whole are incredibly vague, as can be seen in the second episode, “Century of the Axe.”  The whole episode was full of gorgeous camera work, but the episode itself was very basic, with no effort to try and elaborate on the historical details. Although the episode states a central theme- focusing on how civilizations challenged nature and refashioned hostile environment, each segment lacks anything more than a vague connection to the narrator’s elaborate descriptions of trees. This can be seen in the segment on Gothic architecture. Although CNN touches briefly on the affect that Gothic architecture had on the world, it is not deeply delved into, and it seems that the scriptwriter was too lost in descriptions of the architecture and huge forests in Europe to focus on the impact of the architecture on European society. Indeed, the last segment in the episode was a counter example to the point that Millennium insisted they were making. Explicitly stated in their introduction to this episode, CNN was trying to show how civilizations challenged and refashioned nature. However, the segment on Australia was about how the aboriginal tribes left no mark on the land, how they bent to nature’s will, and cooperated instead of conquered the environment. A poorly done segment, it was a better rebuttal to the point CNN was attempting to make. Although all of these segments were accented with beautiful filming, the shoddily put-together scripts and historical research overpower the artistry. All the gorgeous artistic work in Millennium cannot cover up the blatant lack of appropriate focus, information, and global perspective that was promised and never delivered.

In addition to Millennium’s value of entertainment over history, the history actually presented in the series was inappropriately chosen. Again, an example is the subject of a lady-in-waiting’s perspective on Japan in “Century of the Sword,” as well as the segment on Christianity in Europe that appears in the same episode. Probably the point of this episode was to try and give an inside view on the politics of the Heian Era, which was completely dominated by the Fujiwara clan. In the 11^th century the Fujiwaras became hereditary dictators, who could throne and de-throne emperors at will. And while literature and poetry truly did flourish during this time period, there was more to Japan during the 11^th century than the way CNN describes it as full of nobles waxing poetic over the smallest details in daily life. Instead, the decline in food production and population growth led to the decline of the Fujiwara’s power and a fierce competition for resources among the ruling class began. This decline caused a power vacuum that led to military uprisings in the middle of the eleventh century. This struggle for succession led to the upstaging of one power after another and a rocky political, economic, and social era in Japan. The only glimpse we get of the political upheaval is: “The secluded world Sei Shonagon recorded did not last”(CNN), which is shoved hastily into the last few seconds of the segment and is not expounded on in any way. This complete disregard for historical fact continued on throughout the rest of Millennium as well.

For example, the section on Christianity in Europe showcases a close-minded portrayal of Europe, especially a rather narrow and insulting view of paganism. Christians in Europe are cast as the only source of civilization in an otherwise barbarian-littered landscape, while pagans are shown as the enemy to these pacifistic and beneficial settlers. This segment was almost a “Little Red Riding Hood” story, in which the sweet Christians venture into the dark forest of Europe and are preyed upon by pagan wolves. Not only is this demeaning to the cultures already in place before Christian domination of Europe, but it completely disregards historical truth.  In fact, during the 11^th century, the English ruling class was predominantly Christian. Furthermore, this ignores political struggles in the rest of Europe at the time, as well as Viking invasions that permeated Europe throughout most of the 11th century, and completely omitted the Crusades. One of the major events that CNN completely ignored was the Battle of Hastings in 1066, which was the last conquest of Britain by a foreign force. This was arguably one of the most important parts of the 11^th century in regards to the West, and was completely overlooked by CNN.  As in the Japan segment, the way that CNN’s Millennium focuses narrowly on certain vague events, and the way they depict specific religious groups is not the promised global perspective. In addition, CNN did not focus on presenting to its predominate audience when picking information to include in the show. Time limits are, understandably, a constraint when creating the show, yet cutting out nearly all politics in favor of architectural and cultural feats was not a good decision. The target audience is one made up of people who love history: historians, teachers, and maybe a student or two, so politics and the movements of people would be interesting. While it is understandable that CNN chose more widely appreciated topics, the appeal is somewhat lost for those who are mostly going to be watching Millennium. It can be said that the episode can be used to augment the study of world history, and yet even this outlook is doubtful. The show is cryptic, leaving sentences unexplained and thoughts half formed. It does a poor job of providing a global outlook and connecting the segments together within the episodes.

Another blatant flaw was the inadequate development of central points within the episodes. Each episode was presented with an overlying theme, which CNN regularly stated and then promptly ignored. For example, CNN’s depiction of the 14^th century, or the “Century of the Scythe,” was poorly done. The disjointed, choppy, and just badly put together quality of the whole episode was coupled with blatant deviation from the scythe or “death” theme. One section of the episode was focused on gold in Mali, and the prosperous trading that went on there, completely contrasting their thesis which proclaimed that the 14^th century was a time of death and suffering. Instead of sticking to their original topic of the Black Death, CNN went on in their second segment to divulge great nuggets of information on Mali’s wealth. While interesting, it had nothing to do with either the topic before it, nor the main idea of the episode: death. CNN tried for a weak connection when mentioning the military power of Mali, but quickly lost focus and kept up the dialogue about gold. The next segment deviated even more, managing to connect to the main theme, but having nothing to do with either the first or second topic, with detailed explanations of the devastation wrought by Timur, a Mongolian conqueror. It felt like a sequel to the 13^th Century’s episode, which focused on the rise of the Mongol Empire and their use of horses to augment trade, spread ideas, and revolutionize warfare. The mention of Timur in the 14^th Century therefore felt like a neat wrap up of this segment, but was in the wrong century. In addition, the connection to the theme was slightly negated by CNN’s hurried reassurances that Timur was also a builder, and an established patron of the arts, which vastly ruined the connection to the theme. The segment on Indonesia was also unconnected, with focus on Indonesia’s wealth, but not even an attempt to allude to the main theme. Instead, the segment focused on the way weather patterns allowed for prosperous trade, the Indonesian’s generosity, and how modern Indonesia still connects back to these roots. It was a completely different spin on anything CNN had presented before and should not have been in the episode at all.

Millennium as a whole can be diagnosed with schizophrenia, as the mental illness is “…a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements”(Random House Dictionary). The series is completely disorganized and quickly deteriorates as the show continues. In addition, the attempt to have historical fact and entertainment coexist absolutely devastated the series. CNN is first and foremost an entertainment industry, and they just could not consolidate the historical facts they needed to. The idea behind Millennium was good in theory but not in execution. A depiction of thousand years of history is a difficult task to undertake. However, the way Millennium approached the task was completely scattered, and the inconsistency of their history leaves the viewer skeptical about what they can believe. Entertainment and history simply could not find a common ground in the series.  This left the series not only with skewed values, but also with inappropriate historical focus, and inadequately developed central points that were never elaborated upon. In other words, CNN’s television series Millennium suffered from schizophrenia.

Allison Aghjayan
Dr. Murnane
AP World Civilizations II
November 23, 2010
..

Too Big for the Military to Defend:
Rome’s Inevitable Collapse Due to the Size of its Empire

.
Many factors caused the fall of the Roman Empire, but overexpansion was the catalyst that accelerated its decline. Among the minor factors contributing to Rome’s fall were population decrease, moral corruption and loss of territory. However, the major factor in Rome’s decline was its large size. Overexpansion made it hard for the emperors to support the empire, creating disunity and instability. Disunity and instability weakened the Roman military, leaving them vulnerable to the outside attacks that caused the fall of Rome. First, disunity resulted from overexpansion. Diocletian created disunity between the Eastern and Western empires when he split the territory in half in 286 CE (Markel, 51). This split left the Western half too weak to defend itself, contributing significantly to its fall (Elton). Also, overexpansion deepened the divide between Christians and Roman Pagans. Christianity’s peaceful doctrines rivaled Roman paganism’s violent attitude, decreasing people’s support of the military (Gibbon, 2). Second, overexpansion destabilized the currency and the government. Emperors who had to fund the massive empire made coins with less precious metal attempting to generate the necessary revenue. However, the resulting inflation made it impossible for legions and soldiers to afford the equipment they needed, leaving them weak. Moreover, instability in the government occurred when ambitious men vied for the emperorship causing civil wars, unrest and rivalries. Civil wars drained the available military resources needed to fend off an outside attack. In short, overexpansion led to disunity and instability, which weakened the military and caused the collapse of Rome.
Since Rome’s fall was multifaceted, there are both minor and major causes that added to Rome’s collapse. Among the minor causes were population decrease, moral corruption and loss of territory (Donn). First, the Roman population decreased because there were diseases and food shortages, making it difficult to manage farms and supply the military (Donn). Another minor cause was what may be seen as moral corruption. Romans invested time and money in brutal Gladiatorial fights and, “Emperors like Caligula and Nero became infamous for wasting money on lavish parties where guests drank and ate until they became sick” (http://www.rome.info, October 2, 2010). Finally, loss of certain strategic territories was a minor factor. For instance, when Rome lost its territory in northern Africa in 439 AD it exposed its coast along the Mediterranean Sea to raids. Also, The Western Empire lost some wealthy provinces to the Eastern Empire when the territory was split in 286 CE (Elton, 2). Although population decrease, moral corruption and loss of territory contributed to Rome’s decline, they are not major influences to the fall of Rome.
The main stimulus in the fall of Rome was its large size, which made it impossible for emperors to manage the empire. Rome became too big to defend, fund and govern. First, Rome’s territory was too large to defend because its borders extended over four thousand five hundred miles (Constable, 163). The frontiers had become too large for the outdated military to control and attacks, “occurred with alarming regularity along the length of the frontiers” (www.romanarmy.net, October 1, 2010). Second, because of the large size of the empire, Rome was unable to generate enough revenue to “… build new roads, to support the legionnaires, and to enable more growth” of the empire (Donn). Emperors tried to raise money by increasing taxes, but without the money generated by conquest, they were incapable of replenishing the empire’s treasury (Bartlett). Third, with a domain stretching from northern Europe to the Middle East, one man alone could not govern the entire Roman Empire. Decrees and laws sent out were enforced according to the interpretation of the governor of a province, and the emperor could not make sure the laws were followed. This deepened the disunity in the empire between people and the government in Rome (Donn). The large size of the Roman Empire prevented emperors from properly defending, funding and governing the empire, creating the weaknesses that allowed nomadic tribes to invade.
As a result of Rome’s large size, disunity was created between the Eastern and Western Empires and between people who practiced different religions. The first division, caused by overexpansion, was created when Emperor Diocletian and his successors split the empire into pieces, beginning in 286 CE (Markel, 51). The split created weakness in the western half because it no longer had the economic and military support of the eastern half of the Roman Empire (Donn). In fact, “…few transfers of money or troops [occurred] between the two parts (Elton, 2). The split of the empire left the Western Empire weak and susceptible to invaders. Similarly, there was conflict between the two halves of the empire. Not only because the western empire had a Latin influence and the eastern half had a Greek influence, meaning that they gradually developed different manners, interests and religions, but also because of the two different emperors in charge (Gibbon, 2). Discord between two emperors was most evident between the sons of Theodosius I, Arcadius and Honorius, who controlled the Eastern and Western empires. The Eastern Empire did little to help the Western Empire which was suffering from attacks. Even when the brothers were no longer in power, the Eastern Empire was always slow to aid the Western Empire (Gibbon, 2). The large size of the Roman Empire caused the split that left the western half too weak to defend itself, allowing nomadic tribes to invade and conquer Rome.
As Rome came to encompass many conquered peoples who had different cultures and religions, further divisions occurred. This divide between people was evident between Christianity and Roman Paganism. Christianity provided an entirely different belief system that sharply contrasted Roman Paganism, for instance it was monotheistic (Markel 66). Christianity threatened the devotion of people to the Roman Government and drew loyalty away from the state. Christianity valued peace and loyalty to God, unlike Roman Paganism that celebrated war heroes and violence. This, too, added to the military’s demise as Christians were less inclined to support military campaigns. The divide between Christianity and Roman paganism drew loyalty away from the government and the military, aiding Rome’s fall.
The Roman Empire’s large size not only created disunity but also instability. Instability was evident in the currency. Vast amounts of money were needed to finance the empire’s military and public works (Donn). However, not enough money could be generated because no more revenue was flowing in from conquests, and by the fourth century taxes had already been raised to crippling amounts (Kagan, 59).  Also, there was enormous inflation in the currency. Inflation was caused when emperors, starting with Emperor Nero, added less and less precious metal to coins in order to manufacture more money. However, they debased the currency and caused inflation, giving the coins less value (Gill). Since Roman coins no longer had the expected value, trade decreased and the empire generated even less money (Donn). Inflation also caused a shortage of money in military funding. Without payment, the legions collapsed, disbanded and were unable to defend their borders, allowing nomadic tribes to invade. Rome’s emperors were not able to generate the money necessary to fund the Empire’s many needs or combat inflation, inevitably leaving the empire vulnerable to invaders.
Instability also occurred in the government as a result of the empire being too large. Rome’s massive territory and wealth was tantalizing to ambitious military leaders and government officials, causing civil war as they vied for control (Elton). The first civil war was between 235 and 285 AD, where over twenty different emperors ruled, creating turmoil in the empire (Baker, 316). Diocletian’s reign ended the civil war, and he tried to make reforms but largely was unable to bring stability to the military or economy (Markel, 70). Again civil wars occurred in the, “fourth and fifth centuries. The frequent occasions on which the Roman army was forced to fight itself caused a constant drain of resources” (Elton). Some of the civil wars were Constantine versus Licinius in 316 AD and 324 AD, Theodosius I against Magnus Maximus and Eugenius from 383 to 388 AD and the Roman generals Aetius against Bonifatius in the fifth century (Elton). The civil wars within the empire did not support the economy, and only wasted money weakening the empire’s resistance to nomadic tribes and eventually leading to the empire being overrun by them.
Rome’s multifaceted fall cannot be attributed to one major cause coupled with smaller minor causes, but rather the Fall of Rome resulted from a chain of ‘cause and effect’ events and inter-related factors.  In this way, Rome did not fall merely because of its size, but collapsed due to the instability and disunity its size created. Disunity was evident because of the conflict between the Eastern and Western Empires and the split religious loyalties of the empire’s inhabitants. Similarly, instability was created in the currency due to the empire’s demand for money, and instability was a result the government’s civil wars.  The large size of the empire, disunity in the empire, and instability left the Roman military too weak to defend itself. Rome fell because its large size created disunity and instability within the empire, weakening the militaries resistance to the raids and attacks of nomadic tribes, eventually causing the empire’s downfall.

Works Cited
Baker, Simon. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. Random House Group
Company, 2007.

Bartlett, Bruce. “How Excessive government Killed Ancient Rome.”
The Cato Journal. The Cato Institute, 1994. Web. 30 Sep 2010. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html>.

“Changing Ethos and Strategy.” The Roman Military Research    Society. The Roman Military Research Society, 2008. Web. 1    Oct 2010. <http://www.romanarmy.net/Latearmy2.htm>.
Constable, Nick. Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome. New york, NY: Checkmark Books,
2003. Print.

Donn,Don . “ Emperor Valens and the Barbarians.”mrdonn.org.    Np., n.d. Web. 30 Sep 2010.     <http://rome.mrdonn.org/barbarians.html>.
Donn,Don . “The Roman Empire is Split into Two Pieces.”    mrdonn.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sep 2010.    <http://rome.mrdonn.org/twoempires.html>.
Elton, Hugh. “Late Antiquity in the Mediterranean.” ORB Online Reference Book. 1996.

“Fall of the Roman Empire.” Rome.info. Rome.info, 2009. Web. 26 Sep 2010.
<http://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/>.

Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Print.

Gill, N.S. “Economic Reasons for the Fall of Rome.” About.com:Ancient/Classical    History. The New York Times Company, 2010. Web. 26 Sep 2010.    <http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/fallromeeconomic/a/econoffall.htm>.

Kagan, Donald. The End of the Roman Empire. 3rd ed. Lexington:    D.C. Health and Company, 1992. Print.
Markel, Rita J. The Fall of the Roman Empire. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century    Books, 2008. Print.

“Why Did Rome Fall? (Overview).” World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-    CLIO, 2010. Web. 26 Sept. 2010. <http://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/>.

Kiana Nedele
AP World History
22 October 2009
.

The Fall of Rome: Death by Overexpansion

.

The many factors that led to Rome’s fall were serious indeed; however, they would have been easily countered and many may not have occurred without the main catalyst—overexpansion.  By the second century C.E., the empire had become huge and bloated and could grow no more.  From this one factor a myriad of others soon grew, including poor leadership, government debt, a weakened army, and civil unrest.  When outside factors appeared, such as disease and military competition, once-mighty Rome was unable to fend off the constant assaults.  As government control weakened, the policy became “every man for himself” as various generals set themselves up as regional rulers.  Battered inside and out, Rome could bear the pressure for only so long.  Overexpansion and the host of problems it caused combined to spell the death sentence for Roman civilization.

.

The Roman lust for power was potent, and as a result, they set out to systematically destroy all enemies.  Armies marched north, south, east, and west, conquering everyone in their paths, including Rome’s one true competitor in land and trade, the Phoenician colony of Carthage.  Prisoners of war were sent back to Rome in chains, profiting the booming slave trade and providing entertainment for the masses in the form of gladiatorial contests.  All lands and natural resources were seized by the government, providing the state with multiple sources of revenue.  By 180 C.E., Rome had reached its apex.  It was one of the largest and most powerful empires in the world.
.

A scant 50 years, later, however, Rome was already in the process of decline.  Glutted on the spoils of war, the empire simply could expand no farther.  The loss of new territories meant that there were no new sources of income for the country.  The slave trade, which now supplied almost all manual labor, was weakening.  Rome’s slave trade had been fueled by war, but now that the Romans were unable to conquer more territory, they had no prisoners to send home.  The empire had become too big for its former budget to cover the costs of maintenance, but with the loss of new revenue, there was no new budget to be had.  The additional costs of providing for the holiday circuses and paying for the building and upkeep of such edifices as the Emperor Domitian’s palace, which occupied the entire Palatine Hill, added even further strain to the government treasury.  Rome began to go into debt.

.

Military standards began to decline as well.  Manning all borders of the empire was a herculean venture that the empire could no longer afford.  With borders sometimes nearly a thousand miles away and no new land available for army pensions, citizens had little incentive to join the army.  Instead of the increase in recruits that would be necessary for continued upkeep of defenses, the Roman army was actually losing people.  As a result, mercenaries soon made up the main bulk of the army.  These men had no real loyalty to Rome, only to money.  Rome’s debt skyrocketed.  Less money was allocated to pay for weapons and armor.  Rome’s defense force was rapidly weakening, losing all of the qualities that had made it powerful.
.

Civil unrest also grew due to overexpansion and the ever-growing list of problems it created.  During the years during and immediately before Rome’s peak, Roman armies had been able to squash rebellions of up to 70,000 people.  However, as military standards went downhill, the army had a harder time putting down uprisings, and as this fact grew ever more apparent, rebels began taking more risks, drawing the army out and stretching it to its very limits.  People were more inclined to join uprisings as well; government debt had caused myriads of new taxes to be imposed and meant less public entertainment.  As hatred for the ruling classes grew, the government’s command slipped.  Rome was losing control.
.

Disease also helped stir up civil unrest and weakened military defense, worsening the effects of overexpansion.  Evidence of the bubonic plague and malaria along with other illnesses has been found in Roman remains.  Sickness meant the army lost significant numbers of soldiers and became even more ineffective than ever.  Outbreaks of disease also were probably seen as omens of what to come or as the gods’ judgment on the current government.  Many upper class citizens made their dislike for the common folk abundantly clear; plebeians could and did lie dying in the streets without any sort of government aid or even a decent burial.  Public resentment toward the upper classes probably increased greatly.
When outside forces such as the Visigoths and Huns arrived, Rome must have seemed easy pickings.  Constant attacks along the border wore down the already weakened army.  Roman generals often fought each other for control as they set themselves up as regional rulers, harbingers of Rome’s impending doom.  There was also little civilian support for the Roman rulers, and many villages joined the outside forces in bringing down the Roman government.
.

Rome’s doom was brought about by a combination of many factors, which weakened the internal structure so badly that when invaders arrived, they faced little or no opposition; in its heyday, there is little possibility that the Roman army would not have been able to utterly destroy these assailants.  Although the empire’s downfall was caused by many factors, it was precipitated by overexpansion, whose various effects multiplied and combined with outside problems to bring once-mighty Rome to its knees.

There is a blog assignment that goes along with this (click here).

Please email me re: your choice; first come, first serve. Thanks.

I. After winter break:

1. Ashe, Geoffrey. Gandhi. Rohit/ C period
2. Aczel, Riddle of the Compass. Divya/ C period
3. Stewart Allen, The Devil’s Cup.
   
4. Balfour, Sebastian. Castro: Profiles in Power
5. David Bodanis, E=MC2 (click here)
6. Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin.
7. Alfred Crosby, Ecological Imperialism.
8. Henrich Jacob, Six Thousand Years of Bread.
9. Mark Kurlansky, Salt.
   
10. John Keegan, History of Warfare.
11. William McNeill, Plagues and Peoples. (Allison, C period)
    
12. William McNeill, The Human Web (click here)
    
13. Menzies, Gavin. 1421: The Year China Discovered the Americas.
    
14. Giles Milton, Nathaniel’s Nutmeg.
    
15. Gately, Iain, Tabacco. Roxanne/ F period
16. Jonathan B. Tucker, Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox. Libby/C period
17. Hans Zinsser, Rats, Lice and History. Ann/ F period
    
18. Larry Zuckerman, The Potato. Natalie/ C period
19. Peter Bernstein, The Power of Gold .
20. Mark Boren, Student Resistance.
    
21. Norman Cantor, In the Wake of the Plague.
    
22. David Courtwright, Force of Habit.
23. Jeanette Farrell, Invisible Enemies,
    
24. Niall Ferguson, The Cash Nexus.
25. Barbara Freese, Coal.
    
26. Mark Kurlansky, Cod.
27. Mark Kurlansky, 1968 : The Year That Rocked the World. (Grant/F Period)
    
28. Victor Hanson, Carnage and Culture.
29. Mark Pendergrast, Uncommon Grounds.
    
30. Dava Sobol, Longitude.
31. J. George, The Crest of the Peacock.
32. Bhutto, Benizar,  Autobiography of Benizar Bhutto
33. Brown, Archie. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin.
34. Chang, Jung, The Unknown Story: Mao. Edlyn/ C period
35. Duiker, William. Ho Chi Minh.
36. Greenspan, Alan. The Age of Turbulence.
37. Herbert, Bix. Hirohito.
38. Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost Anita/ C period
39. Isaacson, Walter. Einstein.
40. Isaacson, Walter. Kissinger.
    
41. Martinez, Tomas. Santa Evita.
42. kidelsky, Robert. John Maynard Keynes.
43. Weatherford, Jack. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.
44. Buruma, Ian. Inventing Japan, 1853-1964.
45. Elkins, Caroline. Imperial Reckoning. Margaret/C period
46. Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy.(Anish/C period)
47. Shlaim, Avi. War and Peace in the Middle East.
48. Yergin, Daniel. The Prize.

I will explain this assignment in more detail in class. However, I strongly urge you to decide which book you want to read very quickly and plan accordingly–it is your responsibility to complete assignments on time (particularly in the case of presentations, where the whole class is expecting to hear from you on a scheduled day).

Puppets and History?

Vietnam

]]> http://murnaneapresources.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/the-vietnam-war-in-global-perspective/feed/ 0 Murnane http://murnaneapresources.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/dbq-rubric/ http://murnaneapresources.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/dbq-rubric/#comments Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:49:02 +0000 John Murnane http://murnaneapresources.wordpress.com/?p=24 ]]>

Jesse Zaitchik 

A cursory view of historical and current events might lead one to believe that the future of U.S.- China relations is rosy. A more critical, and informed view of these same facts, however, might lead an astute observer of U.S.- China relations to have a more pessimistic view of the future. The U.S and China have always had differences in their philosophical views and foreign policy, and they no longer have the common enemy of the USSR. Also, the Chinese economy is growing faster then any other, causing them to be less reliant on their economic connection with the U.S. Since President Nixon opened the door for renewed U.S.-China diplomacy, Americans have assumed that virtually all is well between the two countries. We assumed that Chinese needed us so much that they would never risk severing ties with the U.S. There are signs that we have misread Chinese intentions historically, are turning a blind eye to current signs of trouble, and will pay in the future for our naivete.

For centuries, China was the most powerful nation in the Far East. Long before Europeans made contact with China, China was the predominant economic and cultural power in the region. Before the late 1700′s, China had little contact with the West. As European nations pushed for more trade, China resisted the impact of foreigners, both culturally and economically. Because of China’s great natural resources, Western merchants and diplomats pressed the issue and tried to open trade. They realized that the only way that they could succeed in fully opening potential markets was to work at changing traditional Chinese trade laws and customs. It was not until the international narcotics trade flourished that the impediments to trade between the West and China diminished. The Opium War signaled an end to Chinese isolationism, as the British forced open Chinese markets to trade. What is equally important, however, is that the Treaty of Nanking (1842) and several subsequent treaties, were viewed as disgraceful by the Chinese. The Treaty of Nanking, which gave the British the island of Hong Kong as a colony and forced the Chinese to open five “treaty ports” for trade which became foreign settlements, brought closure to the Opium War. It was a treaty that clearly benefited Britain at the expense of the Chinese. According to the Chinese, it served as the beginning of a 100-year period of “unequal treaties” or the “century of dishonor.”

The Treaty of Wangshia, formed in 1844, is an example of a subsequent “unequal” treaty. Following China’s defeat in the Opium War, China was too weak to handle other western demands. The U.S. took advantage of the weakness of China by demanding that it should receive the same trading rights as the British and also that they should receive any privileges granted to other countries in the future. This granted the U.S. “favored nation status.” China referred to this demand of the U.S. as “jackal diplomacy,” expressing its belief that the U.S. was acting like a jackal, which feeds on the carrion after another animal makes a kill.

Another concession forced upon China by the West was that it must allow Christian missionaries to “spread the gospel.” Both Catholic and Protestant missionaries fought a “holy war’ against the “pagan” (i.e., non-Christian) religions of China. Eventually, Christianity seemed to be just another form of imperialism to many Chinese. In 1900, the Boxer Rebellion began. The Boxers were a “secret society” which encouraged attacks on foreign diplomats, missionaries and merchants. In June 1900, they killed the German Minister and then laid siege to a foreign settlement in Beijing. The Chinese government did not aid them and they were eventually squashed by an international army that included American Marines. Although the Boxers were a small group, their rebellion led to even greater sanctions by the west on China. China had to pay money and had to allow more foreign troops to be stationed on its soil. In the years leading up to World War I, then, a clear pattern of western imperialism and belittling of Chinese culture had emerged.

World War I caused a period of disarray, not only in Europe, but also in the Far East. China had to deal with its own internal struggles as well as resisting Japanese attempts to increase its imperialism in China. When Yuan Shih-k’ai died in 1916, it created a tremendous internal conflict. His death led to the collapse of the central government in China. The “warlords,” regional militarists, took over the provinces with their private armies. The “warlords,” however, were only concerned with their own interests. They taxed heavily and even received bribes from foreign countries. Simultaneously, the Chinese were fighting off the Japanese. The U.S. sided with the Chinese to help remove Japanese influence from China and prevent them from increasing its imperialism. Although, the two countries were allies during the war, it was after the war when Wilson formed the League of Nations that there was hope for the Chinese that the U.S. policy of imperialism would change. The League of Nations was formed on the premise that open economic competition would end the need for war and imperialism. Theoretically, Wilson believed that this “open door” policy would be good both for the West, which would continue to prosper, and to the developing countries who could improve their economies by selling goods on the open market. China’s hopes were dashed, however, when Wilson agreed to allow Japan into the League of Nations and he conceded control of Shantung province to them. China felt betrayed by this agreement, and it was in 1919 that the May 4th Movement began. This was a group of students who protested the U.S. Japan agreement. The May 4th Movement was the first anti-imperialist movement in modern China.

Shortly after the Russian Revolution, Chinese Communism began to take hold. China was clearly a country ripe for such ideas, and a growing Communist influence was growing. Chiang Kai-shek, however, was an ardent anti-Communist and he managed to take control of the government by 1925. He did not receive much aid or support from the U.S. at this time and, in fact, was initially supported by the Soviets. At the same time, Japan had been rising as a major power in the region since the end of the 18th century. By the late 1920′s, Japan was beginning to impose its will regarding Chinese politics. In 1931, the Japanese drove the Chinese out of the provinces in northeast China. The U.S., deep in an economic depression, did nothing. Until 1938, the U.S. would do nothing to help China except express its regret.

As World War II loomed, however, it became clear to the U.S. that it was in their interest to support Chiang and the Chinese in their struggle against Japan, who was allied with Germany and Italy. In 1937, Roosevelt finally went public with the U.S. position that it was important that China hold off Japanese aggression. The U.S. went all out to support Chiang, but did so in exchange for Chiang’s allegiance to the U.S. Chiang was still coping with internal struggles against the Communists. By 1944, Roosevelt knew he had to bring unity between the factions within China so that unified China could fight off Japan. He hoped that this unity would last after the war and that a Chinese Civil War could be avoided. U.S. support of Chiang, however, would not be forgotten by the Chinese Communists.

By the time of the “Cultural Revolution” and the victory of Mao over Chaing, almost two hundred years of history had made it nearly inevitable that the U.S. would be demonized. From President Tyler to President Truman, from the Treaty of Nanking to the Yalta Conference, the U.S. had only supported China when it was in its self-interest. U.S. imperialism had given way to U.S. leverage to use China against Japan, but China was never treated as an equal partner. After the Cultural Revolution, China again isolated itself and Mao did whatever he could to violently erase all the vestiges of Western imperialism and influence. The U.S. and China would not reestablish any diplomatic or economic relations until Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972.

However, much was occurring in the world during this time that had an impact in the short-term and long-term relationship between the two countries. After World War II, it became clearer to American politicians and to the American people that we had “lost” China. In August, 1949, the Truman administration issued the “China White Paper,” which presented the view that Chiang had brought defeat upon himself due to incompetence and corruption. A “Cover Letter” attached to the report (written by Dean Acheson, Secretary of State) ironically denounced the Chinese Communists for abandoning their “Chinese heritage” by announcing their “subservience to a foreign power, Russia.” Although it was true that Mao had said that he favored socialism over imperialism, the Cover Letter did not note that China had been, in essence, subservient to the West for over a century. Also, the U.S. made overtures to Japan hoping that they could turn Japan into a pro-American base in the Far East. Mao called the American policy toward China a “fraud” and in 1950 he signed a Friendship Treaty with Joseph Stalin and Russia. Although many American citizens were shocked by the reversal of fortune in China (thinking that China wanted to move toward a more Western style of life), the Chinese reaction to the “hypocrisy” of the U.S. policies toward China should not have been a surprise. By the end of 1950, the U.S. and China would be at war in Korea. In the Korean Conflict, the U.S. went to war to protect its interests in South Korea, Nationalist China, and French Indochina. Americans were told to be frightened of Communism, both overseas and at home. Senator Joseph McCarthy began his notorious attack on Communism in the U.S. by “rooting out” Communists who worked for the U.S. State Department. As the “Red Scare” escalated at home, so too did the conflict over Korea. Even after the end of the conflict, the Eisenhower administration chose to keep tensions high with China. His administration continued to provide support to Chiang and Taiwan and it started SEATO, a group of anti-Communist countries that bordered China. The administration also maintained a trade embargo against China. Eisenhower hoped to isolate China from all Western contact and, therefore, rely on the Soviet Union for economic help. Eisenhower believed that Russia was not equipped to provide the kind of help that China needed and that China would eventually get frustrated and return to the U.S. for help. The U.S. continued this anti-China policy throughout the 1950′s and 1960′s with restrictions in travel to China, the training of anti-Chinese terrorists, and CIA-sponsored raids against China.

Despite the aggressive nature of U.S. policy toward China, the bond between

China and the Soviet Union showed more and more stress over time. It became clear that the Chinese model of Communism was very different than the Soviet version, and Mao did not like that fact that China was treated as a poor cousin by the Soviets. At the same time that Chinese-Soviet relations showed strain, the U.S. and the Soviets were improving their relations gradually. The U.S. and Russia were at least attempting to come to agreements about arms control and they began to work together to control the growth of Chinese nuclear capability. An undercurrent of mutual fear existed between the Soviets and China, in large part due to their proximity. By the time of John F. Kennedy’s death in 1963, his administration believed that the Chinese-Soviet “monolith” had split apart. Then came the War in Vietnam.When many factors indicated that the U.S. and China might begin a dialogue, the conflict in Vietnam erupted. The French had occupied Vietnam for over a decade when the U.S. began giving them aid. The Chinese were supporting the rebel troops of Ho Chi Minh. In 1954, the French troops lost a major battle to the rebels. The Geneva Conference of 1954 split Vietnam in half, giving the North to the Communists and the South to the pro-French Vietnamese. There were elections scheduled for 1956 that were supposed to unify the country once again, but Ho Chi Minh did not support this plan, who believed that he should control all of Vietnam. The U.S. was trying to strengthen an anti-Communist government in South Vietnam. The U.S. began to espouse the “domino theory” of Communism, which stated that Communism would move from one vulnerable spot to an adjacent one on the globe and gradually gain power.

Keeping Vietnam, then, became very important. American involvement grew over the 1950′s and by the time Kennedy became President in 1961, Americans began to go to Vietnam as “advisors.” Ho Chi Minh began to be seen as a villain by Americans and the U.S. eventually sent thousands of troops to save South Vietnam from Communism. President Johnson escalated American involvement at least in part because he believed that “the shadow of China” was looming over Asia.

It was very ironic that the President who finally opened the door to U.S.-China diplomacy was Richard Nixon. He had become famous as ardent anti-Communist and, later, he supported that war in Vietnam. But by the time he became President, he understood that the relationship with China was a complicated one and that it was important to include China in diplomatic debate in the future. By 1972, Nixon had decided to deescalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam and to reestablish diplomatic relations with China. The increasing tensions between China and Russia helped move China toward discussion with Nixon and the U.S. After twenty years of blatant hostility, the U.S. and China began talking again about “peaceful coexistence.”

Over the course of the next two decades, the U.S. and China became involved in several joint ventures and appeared to be well on the way to peaceful coexistence. Nixon’s goal of “normalized relationships” between China and the U.S. seemed attainable. The illusion of shared values and goals was created because over most of these years the U.S. and China needed each other for various reasons. China needed the U.S. in order to improve its economy, to provide needed technology, and to buffer tensions with Russia. The U.S. was well aware of the huge potential market that China represented and also welcomed an ally (albeit a Communist one) against the Soviets on many issues.

It may be naive, however, to only look at the past twenty years of relatively stable and friendly relations to come to the conclusion that the U.S. and China will avoid major conflict. Over recent years there is evidence that many of the same tensions and differences between the two countries have never truly disappeared.

After China took over Hong Kong in 1996 they began to replace the democratically elected legislature with one that they have appointed. Also, China gave the police the power to ban demonstrations and they suspended several labor laws. China made it abundantly clear that they wanted to gain control of Taiwan, as well, and made inroads in Taiwan’s economy. China has given support to several enemies of the U.S. in recent years, including Iran, Sudan, and Nigeria. China has developed its nuclear arsenal over the past decades. Chinese officials have made statements that reflect the belief that the U.S. is the “enemy” of the Chinese people. By these actions, China has demonstrated that their goals and values do not reflect the goals and values of the U.S. As shown, the U.S. has already been engaged in three armed conflicts in order to prevent any domination of Asia by a superpower.

The U.S. has historically misread the intentions and aspirations of China. At times, the U.S. has wrongly believed that China wished to become Westernized and at other times the U.S. has overreacted to Chinese policy because of its phobia about Communism. It appears that the U.S. is currently misreading signs that China has divergent goals from its own. One would hope that as China makes aggressive economic and military moves in the region, the U.S. will not be blind to the potential for future political and military conflict

Matthew Echelman
Dr. John Murnane
AP World History Period D
March 4, 2008

Lord Ronaldshay’s remarks “that contact with Western thought and Western ideals has exercised a revivifying influence upon all the races of the East” exemplifies a familiar European perspective that is mostly erroneous. While it is undeniable that there have been some benefits to direct European presence in the latter half of 1763 to 1914, Lord Ronaldshay’s excerpt does not recognize the mistreatment of most native populaces. Initially, it is perhaps valid to say that European westernization was economically and culturally constructive, as it helped to modernize Eastern regions like Japan and India, centuries behind in technology. Nonetheless, this assistance erupted into an ultra-competitive race for power amongst the primary European world leaders. In turn, these subjugated Easterners were then repressed and their interests ignored, hence conflicting with Lord Ronaldshay’s testimonial. Upon looking at the Boxer Rebellion, Sepoy Mutiny, Belgian Congo, Urabi Revolt, and Hut Tax War, it is apparent that westernization was in most cases destructive and that he is simply wrongheaded in his outlook. The Chinese response to this exploitation, a policy the Westerners called “carving up the Chinese melon,” was the Boxer Rebellion. Similarly, in India and Sierra Leone, this same corrupt European governance occurred, though solely British, and was combated with the Sepoy Mutiny and Hut Tax War. Around the same time, problems with westernization were also arising in the Belgian Congo under King Leopold II, and all over Egypt with the Urabi Revolt. Thus, Lord Ronaldshay’s statements are faulty, seeing that there has not always been a “revivifying influence [with]…those that have come into the sharpest contact with [the West].”

As European westernization began, many Eastern regions “could see no flaw in the civilization or culture of the West” (Document 1), so therefore either openly consolidated with their ethical standards, like India, or had it imposed, as seen in Japan. With the introduction of railroads and educational facilities, European intervention greatly improved India’s public transportation system and achieved higher levels of literacy. However, due to the partitioning of India’s vast population over an immense region, these advancements had little effect. Whereas traditional unifying principles were crucial to Eastern morality, these innovative Western ideals stressed “the enfranchisement of the individual, the substitution of the right of private judgment in place of traditional authority, [and] the exaltation of duty over custom” (Document 1). Consequentially, Japan opted out of “the adoration of all things Western, [and to return to their]…time-honored ways and customs” (Document 1). Despite their original defiance, when Matthew Calbraith Perry disembarked on Japanese soil in 1854 and insisted that it reopen its borders, Japan willingly obliged. Rather than risking a fate alike China’s at the close of the Opium Wars, the Japanese thought submission and adaptation a more sensible alternative. Surprisingly, the outcome was infrastructural and technological growth at an outstanding pace, something not seen again until Germany’s recovery from World War I. This being the case, Lord Ronaldshay’s accounts are undoubtedly factual, since European westernization did help the East move away from its industrial and scientific standstill. Though these productive aspects were definitely witnessed, the subsequent European occupation resulted with Easterners “suffering from the oppression of the Western peoples” (Document 2). For this reason, all of Lord Ronaldshay’s supposed glorifications of the West are contradicted by European’s ethnocentric and hostile actions towards the East.

While China had once remained separate from Western trading networks, as soon as its precious goods gained awareness, the dominant European nations began claiming exclusive trading rights to certain parts of China. Shortly thereafter, China had been divided into Europeanized “spheres of influence,” even involving allegations to owning various Chinese districts. Furthermore, as this foreign influence continued to expand, and gradually gain control of all China’s exports, the Chinese economy fell into steady decline. Also, more cultural boundaries were crossed as the influx of Christian missionaries began finding converts for their alien religion. As retaliation, in 1899, a “movement against foreigners [developed called the Boxer Rebellion], and a tendency towards [instilling] the ideals of…‘the Chinese’” (Document 3). Unfortunately for China, the disturbance was suppressed by 1901, and the Europeans humiliated the imperial government with the partial terms of the Boxer Protocol. In relation to Lord Ronaldshay’s biased thinking that the West liberates the East, this progression in China emulates this European fallacy.
Situated also in Asia, India was another region to experience many years of chauvinistic European cruelty, as it instilled a corrupt leadership centered on racial discrimination. Although many countries had previously been involved in the Indian peninsula, Britain ultimately took charge. Following decades of British rule and increasing authority, the Indian government had steadily eroded into almost nothing. Completely disregarding Indian tradition and culture, by 1856, the British had abolished widow’s self-immolation and child marriages. Additionally, British regulations on agricultural crops, limited textile produce, and heavy taxation on the working class, rapidly diminished India’s financial prosperity. Before long, “everything English was [perceived as] good [and]…everything not English was to be viewed with suspicion” (Document 1). As these British restrictions persisted, Indians became enraged to the point of violence. Finally, in 1857, the Sepoy Mutiny transpired after legislature was passed requiring that innate Indian soldiers serve overseas, thereby losing caste. Despite an abrupt defeat, India’s message of resentment had been publicized to the world. In doing so, India overcame a stepping stone in toppling the British East India Company, a feat that would later lead to its independence. Hence, Lord Ronaldshay’s comments are once again proven to be inaccurate, since all this Indian bitterness for the British is a consequence of westernization.

Such relations did not improve whatsoever moving into Western Africa, as in Sierra Leone, endless European restrictions allowed its residents almost no liberties. In spite of the locals reluctantly obeying these biased laws, the Europeans exacerbated their burden as they then went on to “ill-use the natives” (Document 4). In order to continue funding the British administration, Britain decreed in 1893 that the people of Sierra Leone should be taxed on the size of their huts. This announcement came following other confinements like not being able to “keep slaves, nor have woman palaver, nor pledge human beings” (Document 4), so the Sierra Leoneans were outraged. With several tribal villages as military support, Bai Bureh, an indigenous born strategist, refused to recognize the hut tax Britain had enforced, and led his faction in an uprising against the British colonialists, known as the Hut Tax War of 1898. By the end of this quarrel, the Sierra Leoneans were victorious, and although Bai Bureh was eventually captured and exiled, Sierra Leon endured subsequent harmony. While this aggression surprisingly did conclude peacefully, the European’s strict policies brought havoc to Sierra Leone, a Western ruthlessness that hardly matches the “revivifying” assertion of Lord Ronaldshay.

Under King Leopold II, this level of brutality only was magnified in the Belgian Congo, where European management of the local population was so severe and inhumane that public pressure and diplomatic maneuvers eventually forced it to halt. Parallel to what had happened in China, the prominent European sovereign states gathered at the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 to regulate European colonization and trade in Africa. At the close of this meeting, Belgium had been ceded the Belgian Congo and thereby permitted King Leopold II to reign the land grant freely as his personal province. Immediately, in contrast to what Lord Ronaldshay might presume, Leopold II executed a gruesome rubber and ivory industry involving forced slave labor and excessive slaughtering of the natives. Furthermore, through constructing one-sided treaties, with his interests in favor, and in a language illegible to the indigenous inhabitants, Leopold II attained massive territorial additions to his domain. Clearly, this European callousness in the Belgian Congo conflicts with what Lord Ronaldshay dubs the Western revival of the East.
Though there was no radical abuse of human rights as seen in the Belgian Congo, Egypt was also undergoing political unrest while under European rule. In correspondence with the rise of British and French influence in Egyptian administration, economical and monetary difficulties started to surface. By 1879, the British bankers conducting monetary affairs had thrust Egypt into extreme financial debt. Also, in other employment fields of Egyptian business commerce, Europeans had monopolized the higher ranks, preventing the civil advancement of Egyptians, while heavily taxing the peasants. As a result, tensions over these unfair circumstances turned to bloodshed as the Egyptians rioted against their European management in the Urabi Revolt, and seized control. However, command over Egypt would later fall to the British once again, as its independence was not until 1922. Therefore, the westernization of Egypt corrupts what had been a fairly stable administration, achieving the absolute opposite of what Lord Ronaldshay declares truthful.

Thus, in correlation with all these negating instances concerning Lord Ronaldshay’s thesis that the West “has exercised a revivifying influence upon…the East,” it is safe to say that he was mostly incorrect. Of course, there are obviously advantages to adopting Westernization, like the technological developments of James Watts’ steam engine and Thomas Edison’s light bulb. Nonetheless, when judged against European’s corrupt and manipulative governing, there is no comparison. Part of his initial documentation stated that “what may be the final outcome of the collision [between the East and West]…it is impossible to foretell,” a logical assumption that should not have been preceded any further. However amiss he may have been from the facts, his outlook was seemingly shared with many Westerners alike, that without whom, the world would not be governed the way it is.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* While the provided documents do convey plenty of insight into the accounts of those of a wealthier status, such as a “prominent Indian, S. Banerjea” (Document 1), “Chinese leader Dr. Sun Yat-sen” (Document 2), and “an Englishman” (Document 3), more documents should be offered with the perspective of the working and poorer classes. This alteration is a necessity, since these more privileged persons are granted more autonomy, and thus might be biased in their reasoning. (Not enough information is given to infer the hierarchal standing of the individual of Document 4) Additionally, most of the documents are dated outside the time constraints of the question or are very close to end, such as in “1925” (Document 1), “1924” (Document 2), and “1906” (Document 3), meaning that other historical events during this superfluous period may influence the documentation. (Not enough information is given to infer the date of Document 4) Thus, documents dating from the remainder of the chronological restraints, sometime during 1839-1914, should be added.

http://worldhistoryap.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2023183%3ABlogPost%3A641