PDP5: Hagakure

Author Bio: The author of this article is Yamoto Tsunetomo. Tsunetomo was a scribe to Nabeshima Mitsushige and when Mitsushige died, Tsunetomo was not allowed to comit suicide but instead became a Buddhist priest. Tsunetomo served his master until his master died in 1700. He was influenced by a Zen Buddhist monk and a Confucian scholar. He wrote this book for his own scribe so that the scribe could see the wisdom of the three generations of the Nabehsima family and the changed circumstances of the warrior class at the end of Japnas century civil war. Tsunetomo is a very reliable source because the details he is expressing in his story are from his own experiences.

Date/Context: This book was written in 1716. It was around the time when Tsunetomo's master had just died. It was written a hundred years after the start of the Tokugawa era, which is a time of relative peace. The samurai class was abandoning the ways of becoming a warrior and Turing more into an administrative class. Tsunetomo's master did not approve of the way in which the samurai had to comit suicide if their master had died. So his master and the edict of the Tokugawa Shogunate did not allow him to do so.

Summary: This article was about how a samurai should conduct themselves. It mentions to be a good samurai one must place his or her's importance into their masters. It doesn't matter what kind of person someone is as long as they are determined to think well of their master they would be considered a good samurai. A "retainer", as Tsunetomo used, must not be selfish and must be supportive of their lord and care for their lord's interest. Another way to be a superb retainer is to be loyal to your master, although it may seem like a difficult feat. The article also states that a retainer must not care about riches and honor, but must honor his lord to be a good retainer. If a samurai follows this code than he or she truly followed the Way of the Samurai all the way to their death.

Key Quotation: "The Way of the Samurai is found in death."

PDP 5: Letter to King George III

Author Bio: Emperor Ch'ien-lung wrote this letter to King George III in 1793 to express how he felt about the list of requests presented by the Macartney. The Mactarney wrote to the Ch'ien dynasty regarding trade extrnsion and envoy change, but the Ch'ien court found the requests ridiculous. Throughout Ch'ien-lung's response to King George III, he seems angry and flabbergasted as to how the Macartney's could have possibly imagined that the requests would somehow be suitable for the dynasty. His bias is mainly against the Macartneys, since their ideas of social peace seem to vary from the Ch'ien court's. He is very condescending in his piece, believing that China is superior to all countries surrounding it. He treats the foreigners as if they are below him. 

Date/Context: Written in 1793, this letter discusses the idea of different trade routes and conceptual ideas to help stabilize the economy and social activity of the ancient dynasty. It specifically talks about the request for possession of a small island near Chusan, the nation's worship of the lord of heaven, and the small sight of an area in Canton city, followed by Ch'ien-lung denying all of the requests. These requests made by the Macartneys demonstrate our understanding of countries and land features throughout the world and how the possession of them represent more power, and how following certain religions will help unify groups and connect people from different cultures. 

Summary: This article is a response to King George III's request for several items made by emperor Ch'ien-lung. King George wanted to expand the trade with China, which until then, could only be conducted by foreign traders through Canton while under strict regulations. Ch'ien-lung is opposed to all of the circumstances George requests, so he rights back describing why all of the situations are unfit for East Asia. First, the emperor says that he is flattered how the King took time to acknowledge these things and bring them to his attention. He offers numerous gifts at a banquet to honor the Macartney's and what they have recognized for China. Next, he says that he must decline his requests, because they do not align with all European actions, and that the Macartney's must adjust to China's superiority just as everyone else does. Ch'ien-lung then delves into an explanation of the different societies, and explains that there is such a difference in the laws and manner of the people in each community, so it would be practically impossible for there to be an adjustment where everyone is satisfied. The emperor explains that although it is an inconvience to them, they are going to have to accept that China already has established a powerful society with the rules in place, and it cannot be altered. Ch'ien-lung does not completely disregard King George's requests however, he sends an embassy across the sea bearing a memorial. This shows how the emperor chooses to still honor the fact that he requested these things, he just does not show enough respect to actually allow him his requests. Ch'ien-lung then goes into an explanation on the use of resources such as porcelain and silk, describing how important they are for european nations, and how once again, it is of the region's best interest for things to remain as is. Towards the end, the emperor brings up the three big requests asked by King George: a small island, worshiping heaven, and land in Canton City, followed by a description of why none of these requests can work. He issues a mandate on why each subject will not be suitable for the nation, and why the emperor cannot grant the Macartney's their wishes. Lastly, Ch'ien-lung explains the consequences if the family does not follow through with his decisions, and explains how once again he is in control of the most superior land in East Asia. 

Key quotation: "Our dynasty's majestic virtue has penetrated unto every country under Heaven, and Kings of all nations have offered their costly tribute by land and sea. As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on subjects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures." 

SJS 4: Africa's Gift to Europe

Source: Ankomah, Baffour. "Africa's Gift to Europe." New African 554 (2015): 71-77. 
     MasterFILE Premier. Web. 6 Apr. 2016. 

Authors credentials: Baffour Ankomah is a renowned African specialist who writes about the realities between developing Africa and Europe. He has written numerous articles on this relationship. He is an editor of the New Africa, a magazine, as the name implies, that seeks to provide real world insight of Africa.

Summary: Africa's Gift to Europe is an intriguing article that provides an expansive background into the Moorish Empire of Northwest Africa. It was, of course, responsible for establishing an Islamic Empire at the doorstep of Europe during the 15th century. The article compares the success of this black culture as having "put Southern Europe to the sword, conquered it, governed it, and brought it civilization." Not to be unmentioned, the Reconquista played a part in the article.

Analysis: While this may be an extreme view and bias to such subject, but it is important to realize the impact the Moors had on Europe. For a longtime, many historians have neglected to admit that the Moors were black, or the fact that they contributed to Europe's development. The article highlighted this gap in scholarly integrity.

SJS 4: "The rhetoric of death and destruction in the Thirty Years War"

Source:

Theibault, J. (1993). The Rhetoric of Death and Destruction in the Thirty Years War. Journal of Social History, 27(2), 271-290.

Author Credentials:

John Theibault received his B.A. in history from the University of California, Santa Cruz, Stevenson College in 1979. He then received a Ph.D. in history in 1987 from Johns Hopkins University then went to the University of Delaware where he received his MBA in 1999. He has taught and given lectures at many colleges including Richard Stockton College, Lehigh University, University of Oregon, Princeton University, and Loyola College. He has mainly taught and lectured about European history which shows that he is well-informed about the subject. He has also written many articles and books about early European history mostly in Germany about the Thirty Years War.

Summary:

In Germany during the Thirty Years War, which took place from 1618 to 1648, there were many descriptions of death and destruction. Since there were so many accounts written, the rest of the world became less interested. There was a debate about whether their accounts were accurate or if they were exaggerating. One writer, named S. H. Steinberg, argued that people were exaggerating the extent of the death and destruction in their villages but he did not give much evidence. He concluded that they were exaggerating in order to get their taxes reduced since they were calculated based on the size of the village. He also concluded that modern historians are very gullible and that they knew this so they used it to their advantage and exaggerated. Another writer named Beneck presumed that all of the accounts were true and the people were being honest. He believed that if there was evidence, the people were being honest while Steinberg believed that if there was no evidence given, the people were lying. This article seeks to understand what the war was like for the villagers of Germany in comparison to how it was transmitted. A man named Ludolf, who’s comment was included in the article, kept a parish register during this time which showed the extent of destruction and the suffering in the village. There were many thousands of accounts sent to attempt to create meaning and share their experiences. Once others began to become uninterested, they changed their vocabulary to get their attention. By 1627, all of the villages were known to be suffering but the Landgrave received so many supplications that they were not able to respond to all of them. In 1639 Amalie Elisabeth ordered a survey to be taken of all the villages in the territory which showed that they really were suffering and that there was a lot of death and destruction. For example, in Tilly, before the invasion in 1623, there were 172 hearths but after the invasion only 72 remained.

Analysis:

The author, John Thiebault, is arguing that the accounts of death and destruction in the villages in Germany are true and not exaggerated. I believe that he provides a significant amount of evidence to say so. He provides many examples of numbers and talks about many different accounts to show that many people were having similar experiences during the Thirty Years War. He talks about multiple different writers who criticize the war horrors including ones who say the people are exaggerating and ones who say the people are telling the truth. I believe that John Theibault is a reliable source due to his qualifications and the supporting evidence that he presents in this article.

SJS 4: An East-West Split of the EU?

Source: Gryzmala-Busse, Anna. "An East-West Split of the EU?" Current History: A Journal of Contemporary World Affairs 115.779 (2016): 89-94. Print.

Author Credentials: Anna Gryzmala-Busse has achieved a number of different appointments, which include the following: Faculty Associate, Center for Political Studies: Director of the Weiser Center for Emerging Democracies; Director of the Weiser Center for Europe and Russia; Ronald and Eileen Weiser Professor of the Department of Political Science. She received her Ph.D. in 1999 from Harvard University (Department of Government). She now has taken over as a professor in the department of Political Science at the University of Michigan. Her principal interests include political parties and political competition, state development and transformation, and post-communist politics.She often writes about and explores the paradoxical comebacks of communist successor parties and its impact on constraining rent-seeking, state theory, and the unintended consequences of the European Union enlargement. Thus, she often ventures her research into many areas that include political downfalls and similar structural changes that may occur in areas, mainly those in Europe. This creates a sort of bias where she will have a tendency to ignore issues that occur in other areas of the world and downsize them in order to strengthen her own arguments about more Eurocentric societies. Including in this article, which is primarily based on the European Union.

Summary: Anna Gryzmala-Busse’s article “An East-West Split of the EU?” discusses and seeks to identify the rift that is growing within the European Union between two factions; one being the newer former communist countries, and the other being the more well-established countries. The article begins by discussing the various differences in the “east” and “west” and the truth about the divide between them, that they are not simply political divisions, but also geographic and even social divisions. It then goes on to discuss how after World War II the western part of europe mostly ignored the communistic eastern part, in order to focus on rebuilding and fixing poverty, among with other situations. This allowed the eastern part to grow unchecked and to do what it pleased, also allowing the two parts to grow and develop very different creating very different political and economic regimes under which the two sides would function. This would create a permanent change in the european social system that Ken Jowitt, a political scientist, refers to as the “Leninist legacy.” These legacies would leave lasting effects and changes throughout europe that would cause fractures in the socioeconomic system of Europe, and more specifically the European Union. The next section is titled “Deference Deficit” and it discusses the numerous conflicts that have risen between the “older” and “newer” members of the european union. These conflicts did not always include warfare and bloodshed, but more often the discussion of foreign relations and ideas on religion and how it should be applied throughout europe. Generally, in debates such as this the eastern or older side does better due to its increased amount of experience in politics over the western or newer side. Although, on issues such as the Greek Financial Crisis, the decisions made were based upon each country's individual needs and opinions. Another example is the refugee crisis, which has divided the European Union based upon how each country feels about the refugees. The refugee crisis has put a considerably amount of strain on the alliances that previously existed as each country struggles to gain the upper hand, or just the ending to this that it desires. Therefore, at the moment the tensions between some parts of the EU are considerably high, although it will not split into two separate factions any time in the near future, and this is due to the self-serving nature of many of the countries in the Union.

Analysis: Anna Gryzmala-Busse’s article “An East-West Split of the EU?” considers more of the past history of the European Union and its two “factions,” the old or western part and the new or eastern part of Europe. Although it does not give a true answer to whether or not the European Union will split in the near future, it does provide a lot of evidence that would allow the reader to come to their own decision on whether or not it will occur. It provided many strong examples that describe the tensions that exist within the European Union, such as the Greek Financial Crisis, and the Refugee Crisis. These examples give insight into the differences between a variety of different countries as it describes how different countries reacted to each problem, therefore allowing inferences to be made about where the loyalties of each country lie, and from their the likelihood of the splitting up of the European Union. I believe that Anna Gryzmala-Busse is a reliable source as she is the head of many organizations that each pertain to the social,economic, and political divisions and associations that exist in europe, whilst also focusing specifically on areas that involve the cold-war paradigm, also since she is not truly involved in many of the matters she writes about it has a perspective that almost seems removed from the situation.

SJS 4: "Britain and Europe: The End of the Affair?"

SJS 4: “Britain and Europe: The End of the Affair?”

Source:  Matthijs, Matthias. "Britain and Europe: The End of the Affair?" Current History: A Journal of Contemporary World Affairs 113.761 (2014): 91-97. Print.

Author Credentials: Matthias Matthijs is Assistant Professor of International Political Economy at SAIS in Washington, DC. As a professor, he mainly focuses his courses in International Relations, International Economics and Comparative Politics. His main research focuses on economics, ideas on economic policy making, and the erosion of democratic legitimacy in advanced industrial states. He was bestowed a 2015 Johns Hopkins Catalyst Award for his work and was also awarded the Max M. Fisher Prize for Excellence in Teaching in 2011 and 2015. Aside from being a professor, Matthias Matthijs is also an editor and writer for many different articles and other documents that are mainly based on European politics and society.

Summary: This article begins by explaining that in the seventy plus years that Britain has been part of Europe, they have never fully committed to all of the policies of the European Union. Throughout the many years, there have been many different leaders that have all been unable to decide to fully commit to the policies of the EU. Each of these leaders took a different approach to how they handled the policies of the European Union and which policies they did not want Britain to follow completely. The first three post-war prime ministers preferred to deliberately keep their foreign policy focus away from Europe and more towards the wider world. When Edward Heath became prime minister of Britain, he believed that the country was better when working with other European countries with the reconstruction phase after World War II; “... who passionately believed that reconstruction and reconciliation had to go hand in hand with greater political unity.” He emphasized that Britain belonged to Europe and he eventually was able to make the country part of the European Union in 1973. Through the next couple years into the early 1980's, Britain spent it’s time dealing with economic issues in the country. With this, an exemption was made to the establishment of the European Monetary System of fixed exchange rates which Britain refused to join. The European Euro struggles as a currency and continues to grow the tension between Britain the the EU. The “Euro Crisis” has lasted for three years and any country that decides to remain in the European Union will most likely be regulated more then they already are. This is not what Britain wants from remaining part of the Union. David Cameron became the new leader when this situation was unfolding. He must make a decision on where he is going to lead Great Britain going forward from this situation. If Britain would decide to “cut off” from Europe, then it would still find that it is still part of Europe to some extent. This is because the continent can never truly be “cut off” and Britain will still be, “run by Europe.”

Analysis: Matthijs article clearly explains the situation that was taking place during the time period. This situation being Britain being pressured by the EU and having to make a decision soon on whether they must remain part of the union or split off and be “cut off” from the continent of Europe. The author explains this situation without taking a side on whether he thinks that Britain should remain part of the EU or not. Instead of taking a position on either side, he explains what is happening by using many details and events that took place in the past to give a further explanation on what is happening. By giving these background facts, it lays a better foundation for the readers to better understand the concepts and further understand how the situation is complicated and not easily solvable by choosing either of the two choices that Britain has been given.The information is presented in a very objective manner without opinions that may skew facts to one side or another.  Matthias Matthijs is a reliable source because of his extensive studies and research about the topic and European politics and economics in general.  

SJS 4: "A Social History of Calvinism"

Citation: Watt, Jeffery R. "Christ's Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of
     Calvinism (Book)." Canadian Journal of Histroy (2003): 368-71. Print.

Author Credentials: James R. Watt attended the University of Mississippi, and has written many books related to Europe during the 17th century time period. He wrote "Choosing Death: Suicide and Calvinism in Early Modern Geneva" and he edited "Modern Europe". He is now a History Professor and teaches, specifically, the Renaissance, Absolutism, and the Enlightenment. He specializes in European religion History and social trends of people during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Summary: In Phillip Benedict's book, he describes the beginning of Calvinism in the 1700's. Benedict was born in Zurich, Switzerland, and was inspired by Huldrych Swingli's views. He noted that in the 1520's the views of the majority of the people distinguished itself from Luther's reformation. In the 1540's the leading city was Geneva, which was a Calvinist city established by the Frenchman John Calvin. He created an independent system of church Consistory. In the second half of the sixteenth century, the reformation had drastically expanded, and attracted people from many different ethnic groups in the area. Then in the 17th century reformed Christian had been in disputes with the Roman Empire and disagreed over theology. Later in the 17th century, the Huguenots had to choose between converting to Catholicism or leaving the country. Calvinism was not tolerated during this period of time. Later in the document, Benedict analyzes the similarity of "confessionalization" between the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Catholic Reformations.


Analysis: John R. Watt made an argument that was in agreement with Phillip Benedict. Watt uses many examples from Benedict's book to provide evidence that Calvinism was played a major role in many areas throughout Europe. He strictly uses facts to explain how Calvinism affected social life during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He does not add any of his own opinion to the writing, because he analyzes what Phillip Benedict said about Calvinism. This text was a reliable source because of the fact that John R. Watt is a History Professor and specializes in European history of religion and social trends.