The rapid development and growth
when presented with the changing mentality of an era in Europe and Asia signifies
the adaptive ability and advantage of humanity. When presented with the
opportunity of the Industrial Revolution, countries compounded their advances
upon one another in order to form a time of great prosperity in the realm of
development. Industry and capitalism provided Europeans with a surplus of
goods, especially in the cotton-cloth field, and therefore permitted them entry
into the Asian-Indian trade circle that they had desperately wanted to enter
for years. Companies began to think in terms of individual gain, and therefore
saw the entry into Indian trade as an entry into a massive population of
consumers. Capitalists even sought to invest far from home, stimulating
economic growth worldwide. With monetary growth grew the desire of status for
countries as a whole, and thus was born the imperialist drive. The spheres of
influence suddenly became concerned for the conquering of not necessarily worthwhile
countries for the sake of bolstering their power stance. In these terms, the
great powers of the world such as Great Britain, France, and Germany, began to
use other lands purely for competition without consideration for the benefits
of the local residence as well as the people of the conquering countries. The
well-being became secondary to the nationalist ego, and therefore the desire to
hold power over these countries became unnecessary and morally wrong due to
their being no substantial capitalist growth for the countries on account of
such acquisitions.
On a topic different from the
imperialist mentality that consumed the countries of influence during the age
that directly followed the impact of the Industrial Revolution, the wording
within Strayer’s book reveals an ingrained masculine approach to history that I
have deemed ethically supporting inequality among genders. Granted, I typically
do not boast feminist beliefs for I do not believe one gender more privileged than
another (meaning I do not believe women superior to men, men superior to women,
I just believe people are people and we should stop categorizing and limiting
ourselves to stereotypes), but the wording of this textbook in a particular
passage has bothered me severely. I am a
logical, rational individual very capable of removing biased perceptions from
situations in order to deduce the objective meaning of information, and I
therefore do not believe my interpretation to be sensitive to the female sight.
Furthermore, in a section regarding the changing perceptions of Europeans with
the cultural expansions of the countries, Strayer writes, “Even as they held on
to their sense of religious superiority, Europeans nonetheless adopted many of
the ideas and techniques of more advanced societies. They held many aspects of
Chinese and Indian civilization in high regard; they freely mixed and mingled
with Asian and African elites and often married their women” (Strayer 563). I
included such a long text in order to ensure the understanding of exactly the
length and content of which Strayer must have been talking about only the men
of the time period in order for the final clause, “married their women” to
retain cogency. I have studied history throughout my entire life, and I
understand the oppression women endured before gaining equality within the
world. Therefore, I understand that men predominantly made the decisions and
held positions of political power and influence during this time period.
However, I believe that Strayer should have specified specific political
sanctions that encompassed only the male population instead of claiming that
the entire countries interests were male. In the manner by which this passage
was constructed, Strayer writes entirely from the male perspective and excludes
female desires and intents. He therefore excludes roughly fifty percent of the
history of this time period due to the fact that females compose roughly fifty
percent of the population. I can therefore conclude that his report is
inaccurate for the entire era, since we only glance at the male desire, not the
populace’s desire. We no longer ventured into a time that included countries,
but rather a time that was significant for men. I do not despise men in any
way, I must specify, but if Stayer thought to design his book in such a manner
then he should have categorized two sections: male perspective, female
perspective. I believe this take on history as inefficient however, since, as
stated before, humanity shares the same qualities and does not demand
segregation.
No comments:
Post a Comment