History 104A, November 21: Where to From Here?


               I do have the exams.  I've been procrastinating giving them back.


          I mean today, I wasn't procrastinating grading them, but I had to get


          that tournament done.  And since I do them on weekends, the weekend is


          over and the papers are here.  Since only have a few hours, I did it


          the easy way, I flunked everybody.  No.  I didn't put any comments on


          them.  I'll try to go over them in class.  Obviously for some of you,


          as with last time, if you feel like you want some comments at the end


          of the class, just give them back to me and say, please comment, and I


          will give them back.  How were they in general terms?  So so.  I think


          we had more A's last time and they were a little better.  This time


          maybe the questions were a little trickier or more difficult.  They're


          within the range, so -- (passing them back).


               Okay.  Where are we at?  Let's go through the questions to give


          you a little basis of what I was looking for and hopefully that will


          help you get a better idea of why the grade was where it was good or




               Question A -- it really was a tough one.  I was trying to getting


          is what would tie it together.  The end of chapter six was basically


          the Hong dynasty, and then chapter seven and eight dealing with most


          of the world besides south or Central America.  It asked for outside


          of Europe; and therefore, there was definitely a section on Africa in


          there, in fact, a pretty good one.  And so I think a lot of people


          were hurt in getting their A's and wound up with B's or B pluses


          because they left out Africa or/and the Americas.  I didn't penalize



          you dramatically like say, hey, you left out one-fourth of the world;


          but I definitely had to take away some points in my head on the


          grades.  It makes a big difference not to cover the whole question.


          It was a tough one to prepare for.  I was a little disappointed that


          there wasn't more -- since the question did ask migration, trade, and


          spread of belief systems -- the book definitely had sections on the


          Saharan trade routes, the silk as well as the Indian Ocean as an


          international trade zone.  I would have thought that we would have had


          more dealing with those three areas for trade; and that was missing,


          although I think a couple of people at least mentioned the silk route.


          I would have touched a little more if you were you on the spread of


          Buddhism.  Some of you did.  I think that certainly was somewhat


          lacking.  Some of you went ahead and took the Muslim and the expansion


          of the Muslim religion and faith, and that was fine.  It gives a lot


          of leeway.  There's no one right to approach it.  Christianity was a


          little touchy because that's mostly Europe.  But certainly you could


          have brought that over into the Americas, but that's beyond our


          period.  It's after 1,000.  Although, you would have dealt with the


          Irish monk having gone, in the sixth century to the new world, at


          least the argument that he did.  It was a little difficult there.  And


          certainly the restoration perhaps of Hinduism in India could have been


          dealt with.  I think we sort of lacked that extra little umph to give


          it a solid A.  Any questions on the A essay?


               I think at least half of you took it.  And that was more than I


          think last time took the take home.



               Explain what the instructor meant by and develop the historical


          significance of each of the outlined title and subtitles that follow.


          I would have thought this was a little easier, but most people didn't


          take it.  I think one or two people did.  The sense of the universal


          truth was that sense that there was one faith, one God in simple


          terms.  Disruption would have been the disruption perhaps of the


          universality of Rome and then its renewal in the Christian church.


          And you could have dealt with that.  Now, revealed knowledge, what we


          were talking about there was that truth came and knowledge came


          through those individuals who God chose to select to give it to; and


          therefore, authority was the truth, the church fathers and developed


          it.  Faith and reason -- there we get into, if you had done it, it


          should have included the nominalist versus the rationalist.  The


          rationalists believes that knowledge was revealed only by God and that


          you accepted it through faith.  The nominalists believing that you


          searched it out by examination, that the universals came into being


          only because we saw the particulars versus the universals exists


          beyond humans and we understood the particulars based on having it


          revealed to us.  Guilded of course was the guild system tied to the


          university system tied to the educational system that I dealt with.


          The crusading spirit -- well, we spent time on the crusades and that


          spirit continued into some people, say the Don Quixote, the Spanish,


          the Portuguese continuing the crusades to the Americas.


               A number of people took C.  At least one person misread what I


          was saying here.  Dr. Kirshner said that he really has no love like



          other historians.  What I meant  by that is that other historians have


          a love for Rome.  I think my words wag a built fault.  It doesn't have


          a lot to do with the essay.  Of the ancient Romans five years of the


          republic, five years of the empire.  Okay.  I told you last time it


          was lacking once again this time -- date, dates, dates, general dates.


          I gave you 500 years, I gave you 500 years.  When is it 500 years from


          1500 to 2000 CE?  You need to get those in within just a few of them


          would make your essays be so much nicer to show me that you know the


          period.  You could have said from 500 BC or BCE to 500 AD or CE.  At


          least one person put down basically founding of the republic of Rome


          came with Brutus in the year 507 or 509 depending on who you read,


          BCE, and it is often given as 467 AD with Romulus Augustus sitting on


          the throne of Rome, being the last Roman empire removed.  Now, that


          tells me that you're writing history papers.  It's not a lot of ideas.


          It's not a lot of concepts, but it does become necessary even though


          the main thrust of the essay was like or dislike.


               Now again, I didn't take a lot off for why I didn't say I like


          it.  A few of you actually apparently just weren't sure, which makes


          me wonder if you ever listen to me, but you put in some of the reasons


          I said I didn't like the Romans and that was okay.  I sort of semi


          accepted it, so that at least it showed me you were listening, I think


          even if it didn't necessarily indicate, well, that's why Mr. Kirshner


          didn't really have a great love for ancient Rome.  One I started out


          talking about the two-faced God, Janus, and identified the hypocrisy


          that I found with a society identified that it keeps its doors closed



          during times of peace and its doors open in times of war, that it


          claimed peace but it was often at war even during the partial Romana.


          Hypocrisy, I talked and some of you put it in there about the founding


          of Rome of the one brother -- Romulus killing Remus, and then of


          course built on rape and pillage as a foundation.  You can have gone


          into such things as the dole, the coliseum, the gladiators, the


          slavery.  There were many things that would have touched on it.  What


          about what you found positive?  Yeah, there were a lot of positive


          things.  Ahmand always likes the military tactics.


          A    That's one of the reasons I listed for why you didn't like the


          war.  And I didn't talk about war being one of their positive aspects.


               THE PROFESSOR:  I noticed that.  I guess you were playing


          diplomat with me just in case I got pissed off.


          A    I just didn't think to put it.


               THE PROFESSOR:  I think I did figure out it was your handwriting.


          It looked sort of like your handwriting.


               The other elements, you could have certainly talked about Rome's


          ability to absolve all nationalities, the diversity in Rome itself


          certainly, that Roman citizenship was open not just to Italians.  You


          could have, in a sense, perhaps involved in Plebeians and said that


          this was positive because they had their own assembly.  But it could


          have been anything because you really did have a strong patrician


          class, to say the least, were aristocratic snobs and they play on that


          in the HBO special Rome.  You certainly could have dealt with the


          justice system in being codified a number of times, finally, in the



          2nd century, after the fall of Rome in the West, with Justians cove.


               I understand that Dr. Dardell, a history teacher, dances to the


          music.  He's so straight looking.  I never knew he was a dancer.


          A    He answers them too.


               THE PROFESSOR:  He picks them up and answers them?


          A    He'll take it from them and talk.


               THE PROFESSOR:  I like that, especially if it's a woman's phone.


          It's like when notes are passed around the classroom in high school,


          you read the notes.  I miss that.  That was the most fun in the world.


          A    What's the funniest note you ever found?


               THE PROFESSOR:  I don't real.  Remember, we're talking 70 years


          ago when I was teaching high school.


          A    You're not even 70 years old.


               THE PROFESSOR:  That's besides the point.


          Q    Why do people do that, they say that they're older than you


          really are?  Is it because you're surrounded by youth that you think,


          oh my God, he's so old?


               THE PROFESSOR:  I know what I was 100 years ago when I was young,


          I thought they were old.


          Q    So which one are you, 100 or 70?


               THE PROFESSOR:  No.  I taught 70 years ago, and I would have to


          be alive, so that would make me 100.


               Any other questions on the exam?  What was I talking about?


          A    Passing notes in high school.


               THE PROFESSOR:  No, no, no.  I meant about the material of



          course.  I'll never forget though my son when I was in high school, my


          oldest son had a fish bowl that he used to fill with the notes.  I was


          so tempted, but I really didn't not more than once I think.  Okay.


               Where am I at?  Where there any other questions about the exam?


          All right.  As I said, if there's a need for me to comment further on


          your papers, I'll be happy to be more throw thorough on it.  There


          where to from here is we've been talking about the waning, the


          transformation of medieval Europe.  Today what I'd like to talk about


          is what separates medieval Europe from quote/unquote modern Europe.


               As you already know historians are strange?


          A    You've proven that.


               THE PROFESSOR:  You've proven that yes.  They answer your phone,


          read your notes, dance in class, whatever, but we also are perhaps we


          do that because we're also very anal structured.  We need to have


          things in nice little boxes all in a row.  And therefore, we put these


          patterns of dates on and titles on issues.  I should say on history.


          We break it up into names and patterns that have very little validity.


          Tomorrow is of course one of those days when all history changed.


          Well, it had an impact on our lives but I'm not sure it created any


          tremendous movement.  But then again, there are those who see and set


          the specific date.  What is tomorrow's date?


          A    November 22nd.


               THE PROFESSOR:  And what happened?


          A    You have to give me the year.


               THE PROFESSOR:  November 22nd doesn't do it?



          A    No.


               THE PROFESSOR:  1963.


          A    Sputnik.


               THE PROFESSOR:  Russian did a skit.  When he was doing his comedy


          skits in school and he realized all these young women because nobody


          knew what December 7th was.


          A    Huh.


               THE PROFESSOR:  December 7th would be to us like September 11th


          may be or perhaps quote/unquote my generation we might say if I had a


          generation, 1963, November 22nd.


          A    Why don't you just tell us.  Obviously we don't know.


               THE PROFESSOR:  It was the assassination of John F. Kennedy.


          A    Oh.


               THE PROFESSOR:  Like December 7th which you did know.


          A    Yes, Pearl Harbor.


               THE PROFESSOR:  Yes.


          A    The date was kind of broad.  We needed a subject.


               THE PROFESSOR:  When you learn them in history, you don't need a


          subject such as 1492; right?  I just throw that out and everybody


          knows that was the Declaration of Independence; right?


          A    (laughing).  That was a date that we learned in elementary




               THE PROFESSOR:  All right.  So we got all these little poems that


          you do.  But in history, we end the middle ages in 1453 and we enter


          modern history.  Modern history in 1453 -- weird.  If modern history



          starts in the 1500s, what do we call our present history?  And


          historians refer to the history we are now living as contemporary




          Q    How come the year is so exact?


               THE PROFESSOR:  Well, in 1453 -- that's why I say historians are


          definitely anal in that way.  They use it because it was the year that


          Constantinople fell.  In other words, the Christian city fell to the


          Ottoman Turks having existed for over a thousand years as a Christian


          outpost constantly besieged.  Now why would that be the change in


          western or modern times?  Well, before -- let me deal with it then.


          In answering with that, it was believed at least the mythology, if you


          will, the history books, that all of a sudden trade stopped with the


          East.  It closed off the ports.  It prevented the Italian traders from


          getting silk and spices and other goodies from the East.  And so the


          argument is, starting in 1453, western Europe began to look for


          another way to get to the orient to get the goodies.  And the argument


          again being that it opened up a new round world with 1492 Columbus


          sailing the blue to prove that the world was round.  Now, we know


          today that of course geographers knew the world was round.  But again.


          A    Actually, it's more of an egg shape.


               THE PROFESSOR:  Yeah.  And if we keep it up, we're going to crack


          an egg.  I'm talking about the way the world is going.  Yes, you have


          that kind of a social science teacher.  Yes, it's spinning free in


          sort of an egg shape.  And Columbus was off by 3,000 miles, in any


          case, in his belief on the circumference of the Earth.



               However, once again, the myths of history create the reality.  If


          we believe it, it becomes real.  We're going to talk later to point


          out that the Portuguese actually began their journey around Africa


          starting in 1385 basically and certainly with Henry the navigator in


          1450 building certain pilot schools.  We certainly have gotten around


          basically the base of Africa or at least down to the base of Africa by


          1453, at least the Portuguese have.


               The point being that this new concept that the world is a world


          and it is round and that we need to go around the world to get our


          goodies or around Africa creates what's called the early modern period


          of the modern period.  That translates to that his historians talk


          about the period from the 16th century, 1500s, to the nineteenth


          century, 1800s, as early modern history, 1500 to 1700 actually to give


          you actual dates, as early modern history.  And 1700 to when as modern


          history.  When the when is a question.  For me, I would say that


          contemporary history began with World War II when I was in college.


          The question is today, where do we start contemporary history?  I


          would say probably with September 11th.  I think that had a tremendous


          change and awakening to the world that communism was gone and that


          there was another threat, fundamentalism, not just in the Muslim form,


          which is of course the main one perhaps, but in many forms, be it


          Christian, Jewish, or whatever, is that this is an attempt to revert


          the world back to the medieval period, getting rid of, if you will,


          the modern cultural, the modern technology world.  In other words, we


          have developed a world movement of Luddites.  Jeopardy -- what are



          Luddites?  At around the 1800 there was a movement in England by


          workers to destroy the mills and factories that had been inundated or


          taken over with technology, where jobs were being lost by the workers.


          They went out and became the Unibomber.  They began destroying the


          factories and the mills, and the movement was called Luddites, rage


          against the machine, if you will.  And that, I think, although again


          while we can say September 11th, obviously the movement of Luddites,


          the Unibomber, whomever, begin before 2001.  It was fairly predicable


          that with the fall of the Soviet Union's i.e. eastern Europeans,


          communism, with the elimination of communism in China, no matter what


          name they want to call it, and even Castro having the Pope come and


          talk in Cuba, the reality was that the left had failed and that the


          right, the desire to return to a past real or not was now


          predominating the world.  Translation, I grew up in a world looking to


          the left, the left being a political movements that want something new


          that look to a new society, to the betterment, to progress.  The


          themes of the enlightenment, the themes of the renaissance coming


          forth.  Men, people can do all things if they will, people making


          themselves out to be as good if not better than God because they can


          accomplish and not giving God credit for their values, for their


          abilities.  The world of the left looked to a new world.  The world of


          the right looks to the old world, to the past, and wants to restore


          those values from tradition.  And so basically from the end of World


          War II, if you will, until 1990, we were a world of the left.  In the


          1960s and early 70s, the word conservative was an evil word.  Today



          the word liberal has become an evil word, although the last election


          may have changed that a bit.


               One element that really distinguishes the medieval world from the


          modern world is nationalism.  The nation state emerging out of the


          medieval period continues to dominate.  We're living in a world of


          nations.  But once again, the fundamentalist movements, especially the


          Muslim movements, wants to return to the a world without nations, the


          religious unity.  Al Queda is made up of many different nationalities.


          They do not see a Jordan.  In fact, they'd like to eliminate it.  They


          do not see a Syria or a Saudi Arabia.  What they see is a Muslim world


          as they had in the 8th century to the 10th century CE.  The


          elimination then of national boundaries is the movement of the


          present.  Some see it from a different perspective.  The left would


          like to eliminate national boundaries and create a united federation


          of planets, but that may take a while yet until we get a Spock to be


          able to bring in the Romulans at least and the Clingons.  In the


          meantime, coming out of the medieval period I talked earlier about the


          lion versus the unicorn, how the unicorn symbolized universality of


          the church and the lion reflected the king, the monarchy, the selfish


          nation.  The lion being the enemy of the unicorn in heraldry in




               I pointed out that we have a myth because of that, that these


          nations came and were there forever.  Now, it is true that language


          existed but as I think I identified earlier, there was no unified


          Germany until 1871, a little over 130 years ago, I guess.  There was



          no Italy as a nation until 1870.  So we're talking about nations


          because we live in a concept, we are bounded in an idea that nations


          and nationalists are the world.  The United Nations today recognizes


          191 nations, I believe, as members.  The post office recognizes some


          260 nations.  Of course some of them are nations that are no larger


          than postage stamps.  Did I mention San Marino in this class before?


          Has anybody ever heard of San Marino?


          A    I heard that it's really tiny.


               THE PROFESSOR:  Yeah, postage stamp size.  Do you know where it




          A    No.


               THE PROFESSOR:  It a nation in the Apennines in Italy and


          it's independent.  I'm not sure exactly how large it is, probably


          about the size of Fremont, whose made most of its money historically


          from postage stamps, literally.


          A    Leichtenstein.


               THE PROFESSOR:  No.  That's another nation.  Many of the small


          nations make their money or did, until other countries like the U.S.


          began making colorful stamps, by selling postage stamps and sometimes


          violating copyrights.  They used to sell lots of Disney stamps that


          you could literally mail.  There are other little countries like


          Andorra.  Luxembourg is a little bit better.  Andorra is in the


          Pyrenees between Spain and France.  Yeah, there are lots of minor


          nations included a recognized independent nation the Vatican.  And in


          Rome, there is a less than a block where the Knights Templar



          have what is considered to be a separate nationality, national state,


          if you will.  They've got the independent of a nation.  The point


          being that when we view the world, we view it not in terms of the holy


          Roman empire, but of a France, a Spain, a Germany a Poland, a Hungary.


          In some recent years it has divided Czechoslovakia into the Czechs and


          into the Slovaks.  How far do we go to create the little lion cubs


          and?  The more we break apart into lion cubs rather than the lions,


          the more there is no conception of unity being it in world federalism


          or about it in the unity brought on by a religious faith or movement.


          Q    Was there -- because you said that Italy wasn't united as a


          nation -- was that a lot because of Spain sometimes being inseminate


          into the holy land empire through one of the Charles?


               THE PROFESSOR:  The Hapsburg family through Charles, you're


          right, became holy Roman emperor and also the king of Spain which also


          included, what's listed there as Roman principality, the two Sicilies


          as well as the Netherlands, including Holland, were all part of this


          holy Roman empire.  And Spain had nominal control over the two


          Sicilies.  But no, the Pope controlled the large number of states in


          central Italy.  Austria -- this was the Hapsburg under Charles


          included -- (see map) -- there were Italian cities into the area we


          call Yugoslavia in here but that's gone too.  And then we had Sardinia


          here, some of this area here was, within limitations, French.  And


          this under the Hapsburgs in Austria.  There was many reasons, many


          areas there that would prevent, although they spoke basically the same


          language within limitations, Italians sometimes have trouble



          understanding and talking with people from Venice.  But then again,


          while TV has brought us together, again 300 years ago, when I traveled


          to -- the south during college we used to go from New York to Fort


          Lauderdale to the beach.  And I got stopped by a cop in Georgia and he


          said (mumbled).  He was saying, "Are you all going to a fire?"  So


          again, language is, even in this country, sometimes more difficult to


          translate, forget the Brooklyn-ease.


               Another coming out of the medieval era into the modern era we


          also find, as I identified before, something we now call capitalism,


          and we touched on that earlier.  We find a faith in human beings, that


          men can do all things, people can do all things, if we will.  The


          medieval period of time is a period of community.  The center is the


          church.  And during medieval times, we see paintings and stained glass


          windows.  Very seldom do we know who the architects were or who drew


          the paintings or painted the paintings, who made the stained glass


          windows.  The individual identity was not always monks, although they


          were involved, or priests, there were many crafts people.  There were


          many who did their job.  I'm trying to think of a really great novel


          that shows those individuals coming into and building a cathedral, and


          I can't think of it right now.  Ken Follet (The Pillars of the Earth) is the author, I think.


          It will hit me.  Starting with what we call the renaissance in the


          15th century, 1400s, we begin to really see the individual coming


          forth, the individual, not only name appears, their work appear, they


          brag about it, and they even put their own pictures and drawings and


          sculptures, they put their own faces into things and more.  They begin



          to have their portrait painted, so the individual emerges as part of


          the modern world.  It has been a process for the last 20 years of


          education to talk about cooperation, working with community and


          eliminating individuality.  Again, it's a reversal to perhaps the


          desire to return to that past community spirit.  I'm not saying it's


          bad or good.  I'm just talking about some of the changes that have


          been taking place in this transitional era.  And I'm not sure where


          it's going to transition too.  Obviously, part of the reason for


          individuality and learning is -- and not the need of community -- is


          the printing press and literacy.  Education changes.  We move from


          authority being revealed knowledge to individuals believing that they


          can learn, they can study, and then find truth through what we call


          science.  Which translates to, we move from scholasticism to the


          beginnings of science to a world based in science.  And of course


          again, we're finding an attempt to eliminate that world of science


          through something known as intelligent design.  And the problem is


          that science, as I identified early in this semester, often see


          themselves now as the -- they're the ones who themselves have set up


          this refusal to open the door to possibilities that may not be


          acceptable probability -- I'm not saying that well.  They become


          dogmatic in simple terms.


          Q    Were we supposed to have a group meeting today?


               THE PROFESSOR:  Guess what?  Why did you wait until the last


          minute?  I guess I got carried away in my desire.  All right.  I'll


          give you the points for the group meeting unless you want have it





          Q    Do we have last class on Wednesday?


               THE PROFESSOR:  Why wouldn't be?  Gobble gobble is on Thursday.


          You prepare your turkeys and we'll see you Wednesday.