Japan and Westerniztion

In class, we talked about how Japan westernized but China didn't. This was because Japan saw how the western ways were and how they worked pretty efficiently. Japan decided to westernize but in class we said "Japanese spirit, western things." They thought that they needed to keep their religion and faith but they decided to make some changes in their culture. China didn't change because they were very traditional and they thought that they had it all and the perfect life in a sense already. That is why they stopped Zheng He from exploring more of the world because they felt that there was nothing else they needed. The Chinese government was also split at the time and it was sort of chaotic because some wanted to adapt to part of the western policies but others strictly refused. Going back to Japan, the samurai also had to adapt which was hard but they made the switch. They lost their swords and had to deal with the new modernized state. The Meiji Restoration was also very important because they rose with reinstalling their emperor. Japan went up because of these changes while China went down because of no change.

All from class discussion

Sepoy Rebellion

I personally believe that the Sepoy rebellion was a nationalist effort. They took pride in their nation and wanted to overthrow the evil grasp that the British had over their gov't and their homeland. They noticed the horrible things that the British were doing to the citizens and knew they had to take action. They even went back to their old Mughal leader and asked them to lead the rebellion. During the Mughal Empire they had a lot of national pride and the Sepoy wanted to re-embrace their mug Hal heritage. 

Response to Elle's, "Muslims, Christians, and the Ottoman Empire."

Elle, a few comments on your investigation.

You began by asserting that Islam (specifically the Ottoman Empire) and Christianity became more strict and responsible as time passed. However, you provided no evidence to support your claim. Instead, you quickly moved on to discussing Columbus' explorations of the New World, and the harshness of devshirmes; neither of which relates at all to the development of responsibility or strictness in Christian or Muslim civilizations.

In fact, I would consider the kidnapping of young children to be an irresponsible act, yet it continued for roughly half of Ottoman history. The devshirme system only fell out of practice in the 17th century because these positions were only available to slaves, and those who were already at the upper echelon of society wanted to maintain political control within their own families (instead of giving away positions of power to slaves). Therefore, the Devshirme system fell apart due to a thirst for worsening the imbalance of power, not because the Ottomans strived to become a more responsible society.

Also, I find it difficult to accept your notion that an entity can become more responsible and strict simultaneously. When one becomes more responsible, strictness loses its purpose because they are sensible enough to make wise decisions. This concept is analogous to raising a child; as it grows up you don’t need to have as many rules for it, because it becomes more and more capable of taking care of itself.

Lastly, if you have evidence supporting the claim that the Ottoman Empire or Christianity (although due to its widespread nature and diversity, it could prove difficult to pinpoint its specific characteristics) became more strict and/or responsible as it developed through modern history, I’d love to hear it.