The Crows

While reading about the Crows, I was struck by the fact that the U.S. government somewhat unintentionally, destroyed the Crow way of life. Obviously, the U.S. wanted to claim as much land as possible, and generally speaking, they were willing to go to just about any length to do so. This was propagated by Manifest Destiny, and seen as something that was God's will. Because of this, the U.S. government couldn't let the Native Americans maintain control of the land that they  once did, and so, by necessity, the Native Americans needed to go. For the Crows, who were nomadic, the borders for their tribe were the ones that they set up, and defended with their lives if need be, through the use of a coup stick. This was a defining feature of the Crows, literally what made them Crow Native Americans. By setting up parameters for the Native Americans, ones that other tribes could not pass (aside from peacefully or travelling), for fear of federal interventions, the U.S. nullified the use of the coup-sticks. The coup-sticks were useless because the U.S. decided whether or not something was a violation of their rights, and they could never move about in a nomadic fashion again. At least not really. So, in creating the boundaries for the Crow, the U.S. took away a part of their identity, lessened them as they saw themselves, which made the job of violating their human rights that much easier. At least that's the way I see it. What do you guys think?

Cognitive Dissonance and Confucius

This is a post that backtracks a little bit, going back to The Secular as Sacred. In the Analects, Confucius states that an individual should take every aspect of their life and attempt to make it sacred. That is to say, one should act out of duty, but take a sincere interest in what they are doing, and appreciate every facet of that act. It occurred to me in class today that this type of thought process is not dissimilar from cognitive recalibration, at least in regards to any possible cognitive dissonance one may have towards a duty they have.
Cognitive dissonance is the phenomenon which describes the disconnect between one's thoughts or sentiments about something, and their actual actions. So, if an individual really doesn't want to do something, say go to the gym, but ends up going, there is a disconnect with how they feel about the gym, and what they're doing. Another example of this would be if someone considers themselves a moral individual, but performs an immoral act, they will feel a disconnect, more easily described as guilt in this situation.

According to Confucius, performing dutifully and wholeheartedly will lead to happiness and a fulfilling life.  Without getting too much into it here, one way of reducing cognitive dissonance is to change one's opinion of whatever is causing it, namely adopting a more sincere and invested view of a particular act that one is engaged in. Essentially, Confucius had stumbled upon this idea of cognitive dissonance and recalibration millennia ago. Pretty interesting, if you ask me.

The Massacre of the Qurayzah

I enjoyed today's conversation about the different takes on the extermination of the Qurayzah. Not, of course, about the actual exterimation, which was an atrocious act, but rather the dialogue we had between what the author of The First Muslim, Hazleton, and Armstrong had to say about the subject. The former argued that it was an extreme measure, incredibly rare; it was a clear show of strength and a desperate move to quell any further resistance. Armstrong, on the other hand, argues a little more charitably, stating that, while it was still an atrocious act by today's standards, that type of act was not unheard of, and Muhammad did it more out of necessity. Moreover, Muhammad himself did not make the sentence himself (a technicality because his consent was still needed, but true nonetheless), but rather S'ad did. As professor Silliman stated today, this type of act was not a common practice, and the slaughter of close to 1000 people is not an easy act to carry out. What I wonder, though, is if this type of act may have been carried out on smaller scales; because there were so many Bedouin tribes at that point in time, I would assume that there were several smaller tribes, ones that could be wiped out without much resistance. If this could be the case, then the massacre of the men and selling of women and children into slavery might have been more acceptable, as Armstrong argues.

I only bring this up as a possibility, with the thought that the Qurayzah were simply a large and better known tribe, and as such, that type of sentence would not have been as acceptable. I'm just thinking of possibilities that would make Hazleton's and Armstrong's arguments reconciliable. What do you guys think?

Chapter 2

In chapter 2, Armstrong discusses the idea that Islam sees the Qu'ran as a message directly from God, and as such, experienced a something akin to transcendence each time they listened or read the Qu'ran. Unlike Christianity, Judaism also does this, with Hebrew being the sacred language of God. What I'm curious about, then, is why Islam decided revere in such a way. What I mean by this is that Islam came several hundred years after both Christianity and Judaism, and as far as we know, was influenced by both. It is quite clear, though, that Christianity reveres Jesus differently than Judaism does Moses or Islam does Muhammad. Jesus, to Christian, is literally god incarnate. At the same time, his sayings are not nearly as well documented, and the bible clearly follows a different path than either of the other holy books.With Judaism on one side and Christianity on the other, along with the significant impact of ancestral worship, why did Islam choose to emphasize the holy tongue like that of Hebrew, rather than the person or acts like Christianity?

Muhammad

First off, I would like to give credit to Karen Armstrong, whose writing is incredibly informative, but at the same time light and engaging. A Prophet for our Time reads more like a novel, but has the educational depth of a textbook.
The introduction and first chapter discuss Muhammad as an individual before he becomes the prophet, detailing what was his childhood and moving along until his experience on the mountain. Though he lost his parents, it seems as though Muhammad lived a relatively charmed life for the time, having individuals watch over him for a great portion of it, starting with his grandfather. I've yet to formulate an opinion on the information of the book, or find any glaring questions that it leaves me with, so I'll reiterate what we talked about in class, in the hopes that we can discuss it a little further here.
I was under the impression that Christianity and Judaism, though recognized as at least followings of god, were simply tolerated by the Muslims, and that Muslims thought them inferior or misguided in several ways. According to Armstrong, however, Muslims considered Christianity and Judaism as part of Islam, and that they were all essentially one and the same. In class we discussed how loyalty to one's tribe came above everything else, and that Muslims and, in this case, Arabs would do anything for their tribe. This meant giving one's life for it and ensuring that one never fights with his tribesmen. This is part of why Islam was so influential; it outlawed any fighting within the tribe if Islam. This supposedly worked while Muhammad was still alive, but when he died, this ideal began to die as well. After his death, the tribes began to expand the empire into Christian-held territories. My argument, or query, then, is centered around the idea that the Muslims that began to raid and kill Christians. It is no secret that there were several wars in which both Christians and Muslims were aggressors. Wouldn't this go against the beliefs of the Muslims to not kill any of their tribesmen, if Christianity was seen as a part of that?
Professor Silliman suggested that this all occurred after Muhammad's death, and he had no say over it. Silliman also proposed the idea that Muhammad was far too busy ensuring that his people weren't slaughtering themselves and creating a religion to really worry about Christianity and Judaism. As well, there were inherent necessities that Muslims had, and the only way they could obtain and fulfill those was to pillage. I understand these points completely, but I'm skeptical about the willingness of his followers to do so. Were they so far removed from Muhammad so soon after his death that they didn't realize they were going directly against his (and thus God's) word? Did they simply not care? This is a culture that has scholarly skepticism built into its very foundation, and yet the people subscribing to the religion didn't understand this violation of holy law?
I asked a lot of questions here, and I don't expect answers from all of them. I think, also, that professor Silliman did a very good job of defending their actions as necessary, and at this point we can only speculate on what really went on, but I am left with lingering doubt about the inconsistency of the religion and the actions of its people.

A Last Word on Confucius

Confucius argues for all individuals to practice Li, which he believes is the one true and just way to live life.  In that way, he agrees with the Taoists; there does seem to be some sort of correct way to live life. As Fingarette points out, the way for Confucius was to see secular and real situations as something that should be revered, be sacred (hence the title, The Secular as Sacred).  On a smaller scale, I think that this type of idea is great, and that we would all benefit from adopting that idea. At the same time, I don't know if I believe that the idea is so profound that it can literally rewrite the social contracts of the societies in which we live. I think that when it comes down to it, people are often faced with decisions that they can't possibly be okay with, and to approach it with a sense of recognition or actualization of it will not make it better. This relates largely to my last post, which postulated that individuals, when faced with two bad decisions, cannot possibly make a just or Li choice.  What do you guys think?

Confucius and Choice

Chapter two, discussing the Way, or Tao, states that Confucius does not see some sort of alternate path other than the Way of Li. According to what Fingarette states, Confucius didn't see choice as a factor of life; the idea that there is one path, and anything but that path is wrong, or at least a mistake from which we can learn. This seems all fine and dandy at first, what would be the best decision is simply the one that we should make, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Where this doesn't seem to make sense to me is in the case of a military coordinator. That is to say, if there is an individual, faced with no single good, just, or Jen decision but in which she or he must decide, what would be the Li thing to do? To simply say that which is the best out of the two would appeal to the western "psychological" aspect of choice; given this alternative or that alternative, what would be the best thing to do. This doesn't however, align with the Confucius ideology. If there are no good decisions, what is one to do? The Li method seems to fail in such situations.
Somewhat tangentially, it reminds me of Pascal's Wager; you are already part of the game, which do you choose-The existence of God? Or lack thereof? It's a little more loaded than this when one gets into it, but the idea is there. Again, this is a "choice," but it does seem to reflect the recognition of the Way, or non-Way of Confucianism. What do you guys think?