Part III of Before European Hegemony focuses on Asian trade routes. This section examines the sea routes of the South Indian coasts, the Strait of Malacca and China. The coasts of South India are positioned as a divider and connector for the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern areas with China. This geographic location allowed the Indians to set up many sea ports for foreign traders, however the Indians themselves did little traveling by sea. Rather, they were able to sustain themselves with their own rich resources and did not need to import many foreign goods.
The geographic location of the Strait of Malacca made it particularly susceptible to influences from the outside cultures of both India and China. The strait is described as an important area that allowed foreign trade to thrive and exist, however the kingdoms along the straight never gained the power to actually generate their own trade. The final chapter of this section discusses China and its power due to technological advancements. It is noted that China actually had a greater interest in trade than is popularly perceived. China served as a crucial geographic link in the world system as it completed the circle between the northern land routes and the Indian Ocean sea route.
I found the section about China’s technological advancements to be interesting. This section counters the notion that Europe’s “eventual triumph in the world arena” was due to their technological advancements. The section discusses China’s early sophistication in paper making, iron and steel work, weaponry and ship building techniques and suggests that China was indeed at least equal to and usually superior to the advancements in the Middle East and Europe.
In the conclusion chapter of the book, the author notes how the current world system (notably the United States) perpetuates international debt. This makes me wonder how debt worked in the thirteenth century world system we’ve been reading about. Did countries and regions experience international debt? Or was the monetary system not yet developed enough for this to be possible?
I am just going to give you my thoughts on your last comment about international debt--we all know from the wikipedia assignment that I am by no means an economic mastermind. I think in the 13th century countries did experience international debt but not in the same we they do today. I think the debt was more in terms of things other than money-like supplies, trading goods, and even military.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of today's debt, I think Abu-Lughod was referring to debt between nations and or international organizations like the World Bank, the Internal Monetary Fund, and the European Union, to name a few. Back in the 13th century, markets were not aligned even at a fraction to that of today's. More, markets like the Nikkei Index, Shanghai Stock Exchange,Hong Kong Stock exchange, nor any market index didn't merge until the late-20th century.
ReplyDeleteDebt back in the 13th century is a little bit harder to gauge and the ramifications were entirely different. Global capitalism, for the most part, has materialized itself in relation to culture and technology as well as the myriad factors that are encompasses in regards to modernity.
Debt in the past was not the same as it was today. Life was not about paper currency, it went beyond that. It is interesting to think about the things in our society in which paper currency is so important to fund, and how they impact if our country is strong and rich.
ReplyDeletethat is very interesting, I had not thought much about that at all until I read this. That then makes me wonder how many individuals were in debt then and how that was worked out as well, I'm sure it resembled nothing like today but I'd like to read more about it.
ReplyDelete