Typical Day at Work

Want to tear the walls down.  Chewing on nails.  Now phone, and I have to stop.

List of my top transfer choices

Please know that intellectually I understand the big lie this list entails.  I will never be "going away" to attend college, and I especially won't be going to any of these schools.  But I possess an uncanny ability to deceive myself into thinking - feeling is a better word - that I am somebody I am not.  My problem is that I want to attend any of these fine institutions mainly because I want to be "a college student".  Not because I have any goal I am working towards, or even because I want to learn new things.  Well, actually I do have a desire to learn things, but you know what I mean.  It is the way I have always been; never able to accept that I am just a guy that has a job and then dies.  Some might say that is noble, refusing to be pinned down and all that.  But it's really just childish and selfish.  And it has led me to a faithless attitude and outlook on life.  I know that I am not who I want to be, and frankly I despise whatever creator made this.  Look, this has went from a cheery, optomistic (imaginary actually) post into a dig at "God" (which, I can do all day really).  So, here is the top 5 schools I would like to transfer too.  They are in order of first choice to final choice.

1. William and Mary - Williamsburg, VA
     Love the history of this school and its location in a beautiful, almost surreal, movie-set sorta town.

2.  University of Virginia - Charlottesville, VA
     This is the first school I looked at when I decided that I wanted to go to the Eastern Seaboard.  The
     English program here is stellar.  And, suprisingly, it is actually a tough place to get in, especially as a
     transfer.

3.  Georgetown University - Washington, D.C.
     Don't really know why Georgetown.  It is out east, and being in the center of our nation's capital is not to
     shabby either.  Not to mention the proximity to historical areas.

4.  College of Charleston - Charleston, SC
     The history of Charleston is what appeals to me.  It is a smaller public university, which is better or worse,
     I don't know.  But the admission requirements aren't nearly as strict as the top three schools.  This might
     just be where I end up (in my fantasy world that is).

5.  Auburn University - Auburn, GA
     This was my first choice when I began to consider transferring anywhere.  I love Tiger football for one,
     although the recent recruiting revelations have soured me a bit.  Also, the name "Auburn" has always
     piqued an inquisitive tickle in me.  The first time I heard of Auburn, way back when, I was just, I don't
     know, curious.  Like maybe it meant something in my life that I hadn't yet realized.  Sort of like something
     an old buddy of mine told me when we were tripping on some acid.  He said that he recalled being a
     child and, for a reason still unknown to him at the time, he heard his father mention L.S.D.  He obviously 
     had no idea what that meant, but he said that the letters just swam in his brain, covered him like a warm
     familiar blanket.  Strange.

Reforms of Peter the Great

     When Peter the Great came to power in 1682 Russia had been experiencing social turmoil for a hundred years.  Traditionally an epitome of absolutist government, Russia was in the midst of grueling struggles between members of the noble class when Peter reestablished the uncompromising rule that Moscow was known for.  He immediately set upon instituting sweeping reforms that were meant to strengthen the power of the state and military.  Peter’s motivations came from the internal and external conflicts that had marked Russia for a century since the death of the last absolutist ruler, Ivan the Terrible.  After Ivan’s heir died with no son of his own to pass the crown to, violence and bloodshed erupted in the court of Moscow as claimants to the throne fought for the right to govern.  Eventually a dynasty was established in the person of Michael Romanov, but the turmoil didn’t end.  Again, murder marked the behavior of Michael’s descendants while religious conflicts and social revolts all prevented Russia from consolidating its vast territories.  This was the environment that Peter grew up in, even witnessing firsthand as a child the horrific violence that defined the times.  And while many dispute the “greatness” of Peter, none can deny the determination he exhibited in the reforms he put in place.

          The major reforms Peter brought to Russia during his reign all served one basic purpose; to strengthen and build the state and military, while at the same time bringing the motherland into the Western European fold.  After a year-and-a-half tour of Europe, Peter came back with many ideas on how to modernize the army and organize the government.  His first goal was to crush what he conceived to be his most immediate foreign threat, Sweden.  After an embarrassing early defeat in what would be a two decade campaign, Peter set upon his quest for absolute state power and military excellence.  He required every nobleman to serve the state for life – either in the army or the civil bureaucracy.    He also built many new schools and universities to supply the government with skilled and educated persons, again for the purpose of strengthening the state, not because of any benevolent intentions.  The peasantry was also affected as commoners were required to serve longer tours in the army while at the same time paying higher taxes at home.  Eventually Russia was able to subdue Sweden and make minor territorial gains, but Peter’s goals had been accomplished; he had consolidated power, strengthened the armed forces, and with his new capital in the north, St. Petersburg, established the Romanov court as an example of fine culture along the lines Versailles. 

          When judging if Peter’s reforms were positive or not, it is important to separate our own contemporary moral definition  of the term from that of what Peter himself considered positive.  There is no doubt that what he did was effective in regards to his intentions.  He brought Russia to the center of the European power-sphere, a fact that would become evident through the Seven Years War all the way up to World War II.  But all of his reforms had elements of tyranny.  For one, serfdom increased under Peter’s rule as he built new factories and mines that these people were forced to labor in.  Nobles from the upper class were subjected to this tyranny as well - they were forced to serve Russia for life and were even told how to dress and shave their beards, while their young sons were made to leave home for five years to attend academy.  Most tragic though is draft Peter inflicted upon the peasantry.  Sadly, as one historian has said, “[t]he departure of a drafted peasant boy was celebrated by his family and village almost like a funeral, since the recruit was drafted for life".

The development of urban medieval Europe

          The origin of medieval cities can be traced to three main developments in the High Middle Ages; a rise in population, increased agricultural output, and political stabilization.  The last two points necessarily contributed to the first.  Greater food production meant that lager peasant families could sustain themselves, and a centralization of power meant that less lives were taken in wars for power.  Interestingly, a growing population created a scenario that would at first look like a crisis.  That being, there quickly arose a situation where available land became sparse.  But the ingenuity and adaptability of the people in the Middle Ages led to new opportunities for urban development.  Sons who did not have land handed down to them found new ways to survive by becoming artisans and merchants.  This development was so profound and consequential that the textbook tells us that a whole new class of citizenry arose.  One that was not agricultural or rural.

City walls had to be rebuilt
every few decades as the
city grew

          As this new class of citizens grew they sought out more lucrative places to do business.  Towns had existed for many years in Europe.  They may have started as fortifications, old Roman army camps, or religious settlements around cathedrals and monasteries.  Although small, and in some cases backwater, these collections of people provided merchants with opportunities for trade and banking, while giving artisans a customer base where they could sell the goods they made.  Many of these infant cities were positioned on established trade routes.  The relative peace and stability present meant that long distance trade thrived, contributing to the growth of these towns and in turn the merchants and crafters began to accumulate a lot of wealth.

          The consequences of the rise of cities in Europe were both economic and cultural.  Trade and crafting guilds formed and expanded, bringing new members n and developing them through a meticulous and time consuming training process.  Families that only a short time before would have been tied to a fief now were becoming independent and business oriented, even dynastic in some cases.  A completely agricultural society and economy changed rapidly into one of industry and commerce.  Culturally, liberty and freedom became ideas and eventually realities for city-dwellers.  As merchants became more powerful they were able to establish their cities as independent of the Lords whose land they sat on.  People started to reckon citizenship in regards to the towns they lived in.  Once they came to enjoy these rights, they were free of the status and obligations of a serf. 

          The developing urban society in the High Middle Ages presented problems for the Church of Rome, which had adapted itself to an agrarian social and economic order.  At the time, much of the Magistracy was composed of feudal nobility , so many bishops and priests saw cities as a threat to the standing order.  The new economy centered around commerce and trade also presented issues that the Church was not prepared for – the constantly changing policy on usury is an example of this.  Urban clergymen often indulged themselves in the luxuries mercantile cities provided, and the monasteries that provided true spiritual guidance were set away from the crowded towns, preferring to stay in isolation.  These factors led to many heretical groups forming in medieval towns.  People began to turn away from sacramental religion and instead formed more individualistic ideas on salvation.  The Church’s response to this rising heresy came in the form of new religious orders.  Saints Francis and Dominic founded new movements that focused on outward expression of love of God – juxtaposed against the inner isolation of monasticism at the time.  These Friars embraced the city-folk, reaching out and preaching directly to sinners instead of shunning them like most of the clergy would do.  Friars also embraced poverty, taking up begging to support themselves.  The poor, urban-centered methods of these groups brought a new face to the Church, one that the people more openly took too.  Eventually the Magistracy would recruit these Friars to carry out inquisitions all over Europe, aggressively – even violently at times – stamping out heresy throughout Christendom.

Motives behind the Crusades

Knights Templar a.k.a.
Freemasons (wink..wink..)

          The primary motives for the Crusades were religious convictions, opportunity for adventure, stemming violence at home, and economic benefits including new fiefs and lands.  Examining each motive individually, we can see that one did not necessarily take precedent over the others, but instead, each was part of a broad mosaic, with certain groups giving weight to specific reasons that benefitted them the most.

          Religion can be considered a primary reason for the Crusades among many involved, while at the same time secondary to others.  There were many pious bishops and priests that used their own zeal to motivate warriors and knights who in turn felt their own holy duty to “take the cross”.  There were also undoubtedly many bishops and priests who sought vassals to gain new holdings for them, using religious language to shroud more selfish motivations.  The Crusades lasted for two-hundred years.  It is hard to believe that economic reasons alone could sustain such an endeavor, especially considering that a whole continent participated.  What unified Europe was Christianity.  And it was through Christianity that generations of families went to war in the east.  This is not to say that religion was the only motive for everyone involved.  In fact, many – maybe even most – saw an opportunity for vast material gain, and for some it was just a matter of having something to do.
          Late marriage habits among men in the Middle Ages meant that there was a lot of restless testosterone present Christian Europe.  This translated into violence between neighbors and even amongst families.  Young men who were trained to fight found themselves with no real way to express their identities.  This setting provided for two other motivations to partake in the Crusades.  No. 1; Kings and Lords happily sent these anxious fighters to the east, giving them a real war and a real enemy.  No. 2; The warriors in turn gladly accepted the call out of little more than a need to feel excitement and adventure.
          It is also impossible to think about any conflict in the history of humanity without considering the economic motivating factors, and in this the Crusades were no different.  The most obvious of these is land and the agricultural wealth that comes with it.  Opportunistic nobleman saw in the east fresh chances to gain new fiefs, and by fighting hard and winning glory for their Lord or King, their chances at being granted more holdings increased.  Even the commoners at home found ways to achieve economic gain.  Nobles often put up ground as collateral for loans from members of the middle-class, and if they didn’t make it back these working folks could gain new wealth and move up the social ladder very quickly.

Saladin, hero of the Muslims.
Also, great-great-great-great-great
great-great-great-great grandfather
of Osama Bin-Laden

          One of the main consequences of the Crusades was the migration of Europeans to the east.  Although the manors and pseudo-states they formed in Palestine and Syria were eventually taken back by the Muslims, remnants of the lives these people established still remain.  The commercial ties they formed proved to be more lasting, with Muslim and European (especially Italian) merchants continuing to do business well into later centuries.  There were also truly unfortunate consequences; namely, the bitterness established between Muslims and Christians, and the treatment Jews received.

          In Western Europe Jews were viewed with increasing disdain.  They were often referred to as “Christ killers” and were accused of using the Eucharist in their own counter-rituals.  Christian merchants saw their Jewish counterparts as a threat to business and in turn spewed accusations at them that led to blood rivalries.  Eventually, Jews would be altogether expelled from England and France. 
          The effort to conquer and convert Muslims permeated Christianity throughout history, and the effects of the Crusades can be seen in contemporary society.  Just recently, President George W. Bush’s use of the term “crusade” to describe the United States’ war on terror caused an outcry among many Arabs as they saw America’s actions as just another holy war being perpetrated against them.  The Jewish people are also again caught up in the legacy of the Middle Ages.  The modern state of Israel is seen by many middle-eastern states as a twentieth-century manifestation of the Crusades.  So even today the two-hundred year Holy War burns in the consciousness of many people, and the legacy of the Crusades can be gleaned in such contemporary terms as infidel, Zionism, and terrorism.

The rise of Christianity

          The explosive growth of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire cannot be adequately explained without understanding the person of Paul of Tarsus and the part he played in its spread.  For most of his life Paul was a strict observant Jew who even persecuted Christians immediately following the death of Jesus.  But on a journey to Damascus he converted to the movement he fought so hard to put down, giving the followers of Christ the single most important moment in regards to the spread of their beliefs.

Paul preaching in Athens, or Rome,
or Corinth, or Chicago.

          Paul was the perfect person to bring the new religion to a Greco-Roman world where paganism had been entrenched for centuries, and the techniques he used to present it helped it seamlessly unfurl across the Mediterranean.  He was wealthy, educated, and, most importantly, fully Hellenized.  In the enormous Empire, where hundreds of cultures thrived in relative social autonomy, the filler that held everything together under ingenious Roman political administration was Hellenism.  The fact that Paul was so well versed in the intellectual traditions of ancient Greece meant that, to those he preached to, Christianity wasn’t just another back-country religion.  He spoke to the people with ideas they understood.  The textbook notes that he stressed the common humanity in Christ’s teachings in order to take advantage of the Stoicism present in Athens.  Paul also often used a formal approach to preaching; he first met with community leaders before going to the people.  Paul brought the message of Christ to Jews and Gentiles alike, as well as being completely open to preaching salvation to women as easily as men.  The foundation he built allowed for subsequent missionaries to exploit the contacts he made and use families and their contacts to convert new followers.  When Christianity gained a foothold in Rome, the highly sophisticated transportation network in place meant that missionaries had easy access to the rest of the empire, not to mention the thousands of yearly visitors sure to come to the capital of the civilized world.

          The people of the Roman world took to the teachings of Christ for many reasons.  The message of universality that Paul presented fit in well with the empire’s own political philosophy of oneness.  But the main reason was that the lessons of Jesus, and Paul’s interpretations of them, struck a chord in the hearts of the working class men and women.  Jesus promised his followers a paradise to come, and this appealed to the hard life of a Roman commoner.  Also, Christianity offered the people a sense of community and belonging that was often missed in a system of ruling class taxation.

If not for Jesus, this awesome
tat would not exist.

          By the time of Constantine, Christianity had developed into a full blown religion, complete with rituals, organization, and hierarchy.  But it was Constantine’s own actions that brought the faith into the mainstream.  He did this by openly proclaiming the religion legitimate, and also by banning any further persecutions of Christians.  This paved the way for Theodosius to make Christianity the official religion of the empire at the end of the fourth century.  While this fit in nicely in the east where the faith was more grounded and monarchies more easily accepted, in the west much of the population struggled with the transition from a pagan principate to a theocratic autocracy.  Arguments and confrontations developed among the faithful over the nature of Christ and his teachings – disputes that didn’t exist in the much more flexible polytheism of ancient Rome.  This in turn weakened the empire and gave way to barbarian invasions.  And although Christianity would even triumph here, among the pagans to the north, the western Roman Empire became a casualty in its ever expanding sphere of influence.

Fundamentals of Greek Democracy

"Everyone must pee over there!"

       When thinking about ancient Greek democracy, especially in relation to our own in the United States, the first characteristic that needs to be acknowledged is that democracy in Greece meant “rule by citizens”.  This might not seem so relevant at first – what democracy of any age allowed non-citizens to participate? – but the discrepancy arises in who was considered a citizen, and how the democracy worked for all Greeks with this stipulation in mind.

          Only 10 to 20 percent of Greeks in any given polis were actually citizens, a privilege that was restricted to adult males who had been a part of the polis for an extended period of time.  But within this group, the democracy in ancient Greece was astoundingly energetic as all “citizens” shared equal participation in the government.

          Major features of Greek democracy took shape in Athens under the direction of Cleisthenes in 508 B.C.  He organized the government from the bottom up, creating what he termed demes to act as the foundation.  Demes were small, local bodies that kept records of citizenship.  The demes were then grouped into ten tribes that handled basic administration duties.  A legislative body was formed that included an assembly of all citizens (called a boule) and a separate council of five hundred members (called the ecclesia).  This structure is very similar to the bicameral legislature of our own government.  Another interesting aspect was that even though the system was designed for all citizens to participate, the demands of daily life meant that some relegated their power to others which gave rise to bureaucracies that handled everything from legal to military matters.  In this we also see a basic form of representative government.

          An evident weakness in Athenian democracy is the lack of separation between powers.  Greek democratic government amounted to one large legislative branch that enforced and interpreted its own laws.  Theoretically this presents an obvious conflict of interests and could easily allow a person or group of people to manipulate the system for their own ends.

Inaccurate interpretation of
Greek citizens

          When compared to 21^st century democracy it is a stretch to consider ancient Athens a true democratic polis.  For the 20 percent who could participate, the system was very fair and widely inclusive.  But by not allowing the other 80 percent that made Greek life possible - like women, immigrants, and of course slaves – through modern eyes Athenian democracy appears more like a giant oligarchy.  But it cannot be denied that the setting stones for modern republicanism were crafted in this ancient society.  And it is impossible to overlook the revolution in art and philosophy that gave rise to modern thought which developed within this system.

Social features of "The Code of Hammurabi"







Original cuneiform tablet of the Code

           “The Code of Hammurabi” is a set of laws put forth by the ancient Babylonian king, Hammurabi.  Covering everything from proper marriage behavior to property statutes, the Code was Hammurabi’s way of governing his people with fairness.  The main reasons behind the Code had to do chiefly with Hammurabi’s own desire to rule as a just and good king.  In his own words, Hammurabi wanted “to establish law and justice in the language of the land, thereby promoting the welfare of the people.”  He was not a ruler concerned with using fear and intimidation to keep his subjects in line.  Instead he wanted to see his people live together in a peaceful, functioning society .

          The two striking features of the Code were that the law differed according to the social status and gender of the offender, and that it demanded that the punishment fit the crime, (i.e. “an eye for an eye”).  To the modern reader living in a democratic society, there are obviously some social discrepancies in these.  First, the fact that the law subscribed different punishments when the offender was of a higher class than the victim shows how the upper castes of Babylonian society were considered superior to those below them.  Although the lower classes were afforded some recompense, they did not get that same “eye for an eye” justice unless the offender belonged to their same social category.  Also, while women were afforded rights under the law, there were many laws they were expected to follow that men were not.  

          An example of these two main features can be found in laws 125, 197, and 198.  First, in relation to the second feature, law 125 states: “If any one place his property with another for safe keeping, and there, either through thieves or robbers, his property and the property of the other man be lost, the owner of the house, through whose neglect the loss took place, shall compensate the owner for all that was given to him in charge.  But the owner of the house shall try to follow up and recover his property, and take it away from the thief.”   This pertains to what can possibly be considered banking.  The depositor was afforded his rights under the law to receive exactly what he lost due to the negligence of the person he deposited his property with (whom he probably paid a fee to).  There were no excessive law suits, nor was there a federal insurance program.  If you lost somebody’s property, you paid it back to them.

Ancient bust of the King



          An example of the first feature can be found in the consecutive laws, 197, and 198.  Law 197 reads: “If he break another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken.”  Then the next law, 198, says: “If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.”  Taken together, we can see the discrepancy in the nouns that are used.  First, a ‘man’ committing a crime against another ‘man’ will receive the same consequence as punishment.  But when a ‘man’ commits the same crime against a ‘freed man’, who is of a lower class, then he walks away with bones intact, but his purse a little lighter.

          Are the laws in the “Code of Hammurabi” fair and just?  To modern civilized people probably not.  Based on our understanding of human rights today, most people would probably look at the Code and consider it unfair and biased, which it is.  But put into the context of Mesopotamian society, the laws seem uncannily fair and just.  Being that Babylon was a society organized heavily around a caste system, the fact that it even allots protections for the lower classes, including slaves, is quite intriguing.  What the Code tells us about Mesopotamian civilization is that it was so structurally divided.  It is a great example of how the power brokers in ancient times relied so heavily on the oppressed accepting their roles and duly performing their duties within the class they were born.  It also shows us how organized and advanced the economy was, with all its edicts and laws regulating trade and commerce.