Blog on Chapter 3 Documents
Corrected Version of Blog:
The group of people I chose to blog about was the Xiongnu people, accounted for by Chinese historian Sima Qian in in the textbook.
One concept that struck me the most about the Xiongnu was their particular committment to loyalty. Their loyalty did not resonate with me in the sense that I agree with it, but rather I just found it so striking how much they value it. Loyalty in the context of the Xiongnu meant that the inferior must obey the superior. Nowadays, we consider loyalty to be a value among relationships with peers and the trust in friendships, so it contrasts with the context of loyalty in the culture and era of the Xiongnu people. One such example of this extreme dedication to loyalty of these people is found on page 144, where we learn that the ruler, Maodun, would behead his people if they "hesitated" and did not obey his orders He even "murdered his stepmother, his younger brother, and all the senior officers who refused to follow his commands" (Strayer, 144). The reason this appeals to me so much is because we would consider this very different in our modern day culture, and it is evident that the times have changed, as murder is a crime.
Another interesting point that led me to the Xiongnu was that Qian calls them "barbarians" (p 143). I think this is so striking because it contrasts so highly with our modern culture, and how if we were to use this term it would be considered offensive. However, in this time, Qian calls them barbarians because of their culture, which consists of living in "uncivilized areas," not farming, "no writing," and "wandering around" (pg. 143). This causes me to wonder how they were able to survive without these modern breakthroughs, especially communication, one that is so essential to survival.
A final point I found interesting on an overall level is that because the Xiongnu did not belong to one of the major civilizations, they do not receive much attention in textbooks, even though there is evidence for their culture. However, they are a really interesting people because they heavily contrast with the culture of the modern civilizations, as they were without language and agriculture. I appreciate that Strayer has a section on the Xiongnu because it opens up a new perspective on the concept of loyalty in historical times and makes us curious about life without certain breakthroughs, despite living in a world that has already made advancements.
2. Describing the "uncivilized": Both Tacitus and Sima Qian wrote about peoples living beyond the boundaries of "civilization." To what extent did they describe these peoples in a similar fashion?
When the authors of these sources of Working With Evidence, Roman historian Tacitus for Germania, and Chinese historian Sima Quan for Records of the Grand Historian, describe that the people live beyond the boundaries of "civilization," they do not mean to say that they are in the context of being "uncivilized" persons. Although the outsiders and civilians most likely perceived these people with threat and regarded them as "barbarians," what the authors really mean is that they are a traveling peoples, ready for development.
The "ancient Germanic-speaking peoples were never a single 'nation' but rather a collection of tribes, clans and chiefdoms," (Strayer, 140), as Tacitus validates in Germania: "It is well known that the nations of Germany have no cities, and that they do not even tolerate closely contiguous dwellings" (Strayer, 142). As for describing the Xiongnu, "pastoral nomads living to the north of China's Great Wall" (Strayer, 143), Sima Qian describes the Xiongnu as "barbarians...living in northern uncivilized areas and wandering around herding animals" (Strayer, 143).
On the most basic level, both authors describe these peoples as collective societies who do not belong to actual civilizations. Tacitus says that the Germans "have no cities" (Strayer, 142), and Qian says the Xiongnu are "barbarians" (Strayer, 143). While it is true that both authors agree their people do not belong to established civilizations, they vary in the "extent" to which they describe them. Tacitus is more gentle and subtle to describe the Germans, who were regarded as barbarians by the Romans (Strayer, 140), because he simply says they "have no cities" and that they "live scattered apart" (Strayer, 142), and he describes them more broadly, careful not to call them "nomads or barbarians." Qian, on the other hand, describe all the characteristics that qualify the Xiongnu as "barbarians," which he directly calls them, and says they wander around (Strayer, 143). Tacitus and Qian have similar ideas about the people, but Tacitus takes a softer approach to describe the Germans by describing their geography, and Qian takes a more direct approach to describe the Xiongnu by stating their everyday practices that validate their label of "barbarians."
The group of people I chose to blog about was the Xiongnu people, accounted for by Chinese historian Sima Qian in in the textbook.
One concept that struck me the most about the Xiongnu was their particular committment to loyalty. Their loyalty did not resonate with me in the sense that I agree with it, but rather I just found it so striking how much they value it. Loyalty in the context of the Xiongnu meant that the inferior must obey the superior. Nowadays, we consider loyalty to be a value among relationships with peers and the trust in friendships, so it contrasts with the context of loyalty in the culture and era of the Xiongnu people. One such example of this extreme dedication to loyalty of these people is found on page 144, where we learn that the ruler, Maodun, would behead his people if they "hesitated" and did not obey his orders He even "murdered his stepmother, his younger brother, and all the senior officers who refused to follow his commands" (Strayer, 144). The reason this appeals to me so much is because we would consider this very different in our modern day culture, and it is evident that the times have changed, as murder is a crime.
Another interesting point that led me to the Xiongnu was that Qian calls them "barbarians" (p 143). I think this is so striking because it contrasts so highly with our modern culture, and how if we were to use this term it would be considered offensive. However, in this time, Qian calls them barbarians because of their culture, which consists of living in "uncivilized areas," not farming, "no writing," and "wandering around" (pg. 143). This causes me to wonder how they were able to survive without these modern breakthroughs, especially communication, one that is so essential to survival.
A final point I found interesting on an overall level is that because the Xiongnu did not belong to one of the major civilizations, they do not receive much attention in textbooks, even though there is evidence for their culture. However, they are a really interesting people because they heavily contrast with the culture of the modern civilizations, as they were without language and agriculture. I appreciate that Strayer has a section on the Xiongnu because it opens up a new perspective on the concept of loyalty in historical times and makes us curious about life without certain breakthroughs, despite living in a world that has already made advancements.
2. Describing the "uncivilized": Both Tacitus and Sima Qian wrote about peoples living beyond the boundaries of "civilization." To what extent did they describe these peoples in a similar fashion?
When the authors of these sources of Working With Evidence, Roman historian Tacitus for Germania, and Chinese historian Sima Quan for Records of the Grand Historian, describe that the people live beyond the boundaries of "civilization," they do not mean to say that they are in the context of being "uncivilized" persons. Although the outsiders and civilians most likely perceived these people with threat and regarded them as "barbarians," what the authors really mean is that they are a traveling peoples, ready for development.
The "ancient Germanic-speaking peoples were never a single 'nation' but rather a collection of tribes, clans and chiefdoms," (Strayer, 140), as Tacitus validates in Germania: "It is well known that the nations of Germany have no cities, and that they do not even tolerate closely contiguous dwellings" (Strayer, 142). As for describing the Xiongnu, "pastoral nomads living to the north of China's Great Wall" (Strayer, 143), Sima Qian describes the Xiongnu as "barbarians...living in northern uncivilized areas and wandering around herding animals" (Strayer, 143).
On the most basic level, both authors describe these peoples as collective societies who do not belong to actual civilizations. Tacitus says that the Germans "have no cities" (Strayer, 142), and Qian says the Xiongnu are "barbarians" (Strayer, 143). While it is true that both authors agree their people do not belong to established civilizations, they vary in the "extent" to which they describe them. Tacitus is more gentle and subtle to describe the Germans, who were regarded as barbarians by the Romans (Strayer, 140), because he simply says they "have no cities" and that they "live scattered apart" (Strayer, 142), and he describes them more broadly, careful not to call them "nomads or barbarians." Qian, on the other hand, describe all the characteristics that qualify the Xiongnu as "barbarians," which he directly calls them, and says they wander around (Strayer, 143). Tacitus and Qian have similar ideas about the people, but Tacitus takes a softer approach to describe the Germans by describing their geography, and Qian takes a more direct approach to describe the Xiongnu by stating their everyday practices that validate their label of "barbarians."
Comments
Post a Comment