A Short History of the World
Author: H. G. Wells
From the beginnings of the Earth to World War I, in under 350 pages. No small feat. Wells has an eye for idea over simple fact, which is to say that he looks for the movements of ideas and ideologies that shape the actions of men instead of settling for just facts, which is not only (in my opinion) a good way of doing history but perhaps the only way to do so and keep it at a reasonable length.
What can we say about the shape of humanity over the last few thousand years? An ethics teacher of mine uses the word "disequilibrium" to describe the state where a person is presented with something he or she is not used to. One becomes interrupted, so to speak, as new ways of living or new alternatives to the same old questions are recognized. They can (and almost invariably do) cause difficulty and challenge as the way things were is never the same. But it is also how we grow. People are subject to new influences that can cause them to reevaluate the way they look at even the most fundamental points of life. Such an effect is a noteworthy achievement, obtainable by few means. The examples history provides us with consist of, among other things, new methods of communication and contact, conquest of others/by others and the resultant access to others, and the rare individual (like Jesus or Muhammed) who somehow has the power to shape a culture. An example of the first would be the printing press or the compass (which spread information and gave us the means to reach new lands, respectively), the second is demonstrated by those great empires and the court at an empire's respective height (an example I was not familiar enough with before this book was the Mongol conquest, which managed to link East and West at the court in Karakorum), and of course the third has already been exemplified.
What is interesting is that we are in an age where it seems that at least the first of these possibilities gives us the opportunity to open ourselves up like never before. We see the world daily, or at least are forced to acknowledge its presence, whereas a thousand years ago a village was the world for most. Yet at the same time I read an interesting article that, although not perfect, presents an interesting alternative route that many may be taking (it can be found here). What is of significance is the fact that, while we really do have access to all views, we are also capable of creating our own Internet "think tanks" (my ethics professor from before calls them "ideological tanks," which shall be explained presently). Instead of seeking information to find the uncompromising truth, we tend to find things that we agree with, and become less an less open to discussion as more and more opportunities to employ it are ignored. (And just for the record, my news sources are the New York Times, Fox News, Al Jazeera, and the BBC (and Xinhua on occasion), so I'll hear nothing about me not getting what views I can).
What is the result? I've heard it said before roughly along these lines: we have the power now to open our world like never before, yet we also have the power to shut it off like never before. Where the world goes depends on how we act upon that power. Here's hoping that we open ourselves up before we become a universal society of clan warfare.
In closing, sorry if it was expected that this would be a standard sort of book review; this series will be more along my usual lines of meditations taking me wherever they go. Not formal, but more interesting (and perhaps more productive) in my opinion.
From the beginnings of the Earth to World War I, in under 350 pages. No small feat. Wells has an eye for idea over simple fact, which is to say that he looks for the movements of ideas and ideologies that shape the actions of men instead of settling for just facts, which is not only (in my opinion) a good way of doing history but perhaps the only way to do so and keep it at a reasonable length.
What can we say about the shape of humanity over the last few thousand years? An ethics teacher of mine uses the word "disequilibrium" to describe the state where a person is presented with something he or she is not used to. One becomes interrupted, so to speak, as new ways of living or new alternatives to the same old questions are recognized. They can (and almost invariably do) cause difficulty and challenge as the way things were is never the same. But it is also how we grow. People are subject to new influences that can cause them to reevaluate the way they look at even the most fundamental points of life. Such an effect is a noteworthy achievement, obtainable by few means. The examples history provides us with consist of, among other things, new methods of communication and contact, conquest of others/by others and the resultant access to others, and the rare individual (like Jesus or Muhammed) who somehow has the power to shape a culture. An example of the first would be the printing press or the compass (which spread information and gave us the means to reach new lands, respectively), the second is demonstrated by those great empires and the court at an empire's respective height (an example I was not familiar enough with before this book was the Mongol conquest, which managed to link East and West at the court in Karakorum), and of course the third has already been exemplified.
What is interesting is that we are in an age where it seems that at least the first of these possibilities gives us the opportunity to open ourselves up like never before. We see the world daily, or at least are forced to acknowledge its presence, whereas a thousand years ago a village was the world for most. Yet at the same time I read an interesting article that, although not perfect, presents an interesting alternative route that many may be taking (it can be found here). What is of significance is the fact that, while we really do have access to all views, we are also capable of creating our own Internet "think tanks" (my ethics professor from before calls them "ideological tanks," which shall be explained presently). Instead of seeking information to find the uncompromising truth, we tend to find things that we agree with, and become less an less open to discussion as more and more opportunities to employ it are ignored. (And just for the record, my news sources are the New York Times, Fox News, Al Jazeera, and the BBC (and Xinhua on occasion), so I'll hear nothing about me not getting what views I can).
What is the result? I've heard it said before roughly along these lines: we have the power now to open our world like never before, yet we also have the power to shut it off like never before. Where the world goes depends on how we act upon that power. Here's hoping that we open ourselves up before we become a universal society of clan warfare.
In closing, sorry if it was expected that this would be a standard sort of book review; this series will be more along my usual lines of meditations taking me wherever they go. Not formal, but more interesting (and perhaps more productive) in my opinion.
posted by Derek at 8:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home