Author: Noah Golovan

Though in class this week we talked about two different topics, I found it interesting how much they came to be connected. Through the readings, as well as lectures, I can see how Urbanization has become interconnected with environmental damage in contemporary world history.

The population within the last 100 years has been extremely influential in how society functions and what we use our resources on. Looking at the  lecture about cities, a clear theme to me was that  the rapid urbanization and population growth  in cities proved to be very detrimental, as cities did not have the necessary tools to be equipped for this issue. Not only did this create massive hygiene and health issues, but it also very much increased pollution coming out of cities. This can be seen especially through  the United States use of cheap energy such as oil and coal, which very much pollute the globe. We can also see after affects through the  Mike Davis reading. The creation of slums  and Desakotas proved  an even higher sense of pollution because of the inefficient use of the land.

I found the modernist view very interesting because the goals that many urban planners had. It was interesting to see how urban planning, exemplified by Robert Moses was very much about the status quo. Looking at the city plans and pictures, like that of Brasilia, it was weird to see that if you follow the status quo of society it would be very efficient to live your life, but if you wanted to do anything else, it would be a daunting task.

Looking at rapid population growth   and how it relates to the environment was also very interesting. Though it makes common sense, the connection between population growth, energy use, and all the other trends of of the 20th century  was very interesting. I think the most abstract idea was the creation of the limited diet, that caused health issues like gluten allergies and celiacs disease. It can be crazy to think about how much society determines the state of our being. Overall, it was cool to see the interdependence of the two topics and how they impacted modern society.

My two sides of my family (mother and father) could not have had two different immigration/migration stories into the United States. My mothers family migrated to  the United States as early as the Mayflower, whereas my fathers family migrated in the early 1900s.  Due to lapses in information, I will be sticking to my fathers side, as I am more informed about his side.

My fathers family immigrated to Canada shortly before the breakout of World War 1. With the rise in antisemitism in Eastern Europe (Pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe), my family moved to the Americas for new economic opportunities as well as for the purpose of religious freedom. My Grandfather’s family immigrated from Austria to Toronto and my Grandmother’s family immigrated from Romania to Toronto. From there, both families immigrated to the United States by way of Cleveland, Ohio.

I think that my family’s immigration history can be connected very much to the theme of the persecution of Jews in Europe throughout a great portion of European history. This can also stem largely into a theme of migration as a result of religious persecution. We can see this not only through large migrations of Jews in WW2, but also through the large migrations of religious minorities to the British Colonies in the Americas. I think this  can be also connected to Israel’s declaration of Independence, as much of the reasoning for a Jewish state was because of the constant religious prosecution and horror that the Jews had to go through. My family is  just one instance of that. I will be forever greatful that they made such a sacrifice as I would probably not be here today if it was not for them.

1.) In terms of structure and content, the two declarations are very similar. Both groups talk about the importance of the area due to their religion as well as they talk about their histories of discrimination and displacement as a group. I thought it was interesting to see how both groups saw the land of Israel as a holy land and the land where their people were born. Their main argument for the right to said land was that of historical right and connection.

2.) Religion plays an enormous role in each document. It acts as a justification for their right to the land in which they want independence in. Religion also serves a a tool of unification for both of the groups as well. When you have a group such as the Jews or the Palestinians/Arabs, who have been constantly displaced and separated throughout  history, due to unjust instances of persecution and violence, there comes a time when are are a ton of different groups around the world who lead similar, but different lives because of where they are. However, their religion can bring them together under one nation. Thus,  both groups used religion to show the globe that they deserved a territory in which they could live their likes united and in peace.

3.) Both groups define themselves as a group of people with origins that date back to ancient times. They identify as  groups  who have been subject to harm and horror. They have been displaced as a result of political and religious violence. By having a Palestinian or Jewish state, these groups would be able to  unite their people once again.

4.) In their declaration the Jews don’t necessarily put any disdain onto the Palestinians. They argue that the Palestinians can live in Israel, free of discrimination based on religion or race. This is said in  hopes to preserve peace and unity among  the two groups. However, Palestinians, though they don’t explicitly say it, identify the Jews as blocking their path to unification and a free Palestinian state.

5.) Like previously stated, Jews view Palestinians as free and equal members of their society, safe from religious and ethnic intolerance. Palestinians, however, would like to  see a free  and separate state from Israel. They would like to separate themselves from Jewish rule, not interested in keeping a united  state where  they would rule over Jews.

Based on this weeks readings and lectures, one major thing stuck  out and interested me. That  was the fact that the way that Britain  controlled India was not necessarily  by putting excessive force into ruling, but rather using stereotypes to help fuel a class divide and make Indians  rule themselves.

I think that Cohn in “Colonialism and its forms of Government” very well explains the  reasonings behind liberalism fell in India. This was due to the fact that British forces attempted to change long-standing traditions and ideals in Indian society, which led to revolts such as the Sepoy massacre, which ended in bloodshed. I found it interesting that once the massacre occurred, the British saw it as a failure  in leadership and changed their entire scheme, now focussing on ruling based off Orientalism and Traditionalism. In class, I found it ironic that the rigid caste system that the British used was also used by the Indian society to their advantage as they could identify  themselves on a higher caste and  progress in life.

Finally,  I would like to recognize the theme that I have seen in class. This is the theme of colonized/imperialized areas and the turmoil that follows their imperialization. In the Gilmartin reading, we can see this turmoil through the partition of India and Pakistan and the current violence that is happening on the boarder. He discusses that because of British rule, there  was an  increase in divide between Muslims and Hindus which caused and still  causes a lot of religious based violence today.

Overall, I think that South  Asia is a very interesting region to look at because of the way in which it was colonized. It would be interesting to see what the outcomes would be if there was a continued and more direct rule on the part of Britain.

This writing was about the implications of ginseng, both geographically and economically. Author Kuriyama talks about the popularity of ginseng in East Asia due to its enriching effects on the body. He talks about how ginseng only grew in certain climates around the world and could only be found in a select few places. This would cause countries like Japan do spend major amounts of money in imports of ginseng as well as research how to grow ginseng in their territory. He also talks about how East Asians saw the root as a tool and medicine whereas it never caught on in countries like the United States because they saw the product as a commodity in which they could sell and make a profit off of. Finally he talks about the current standing of ginseng and how it has morphed into what it has become today.

Take Aways: Economy/Money has immense amounts of power, one resource caused a great deal of action around the world, whether if it was through exporting, importing or trying to find sources of their own. // Ginseng had immense effects on the the actions of many countries. It caused a lot of research and development as well as new products to develop (ie Kombu).

Noah, Lilly, Vu, Will, Jordan

1.) One essential concept to understanding the 20th-21st century is imperialism. Imperialism is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through military force, aggression, and coercive diplomacy. Imperialism was mainly used as a mechanism to extract resources and labor to grow the wealth and domain of imperial powers. Imperialism holds many implications to modern era. This can be seen through the conditions in many formal imperialized states. For example, in many African and Latin American states, there is much instance of political corruption, as well as social inequality and racial hierarchies. This is a result of lack of infrastructure left behind by imperial powers as well as the lingering affects of racism and a sense of social superiority. Imperialism can also be seen as a cause of war, as states were fighting for more domain and territory.

2.) In your opinion, to what degree was Latin American imperialism similar to that of African imperialism, and in what ways were they different?

Similar: Both used violence as a way to control indigenous populations; Both resource based economies; As a result, both experienced extreme poverty, as well as social and political tension

Differences: Latin America had a larger religious base,  More cultural syncretism, Latin America had more imported slavery/labor, A lot more politically motived (A result of communism) // Africa was used a lot more in proxy wars, used labor through indigenous populations, demographic political turmoil as a result of a greater surviving indigenous population