Responding to the Thesis

"Large conversion only took place when powerful political, social, or economic incentives encourged it and even then it led universally to syncretism rather than outright adoption of foreign cultural tradition."
- Jerry Bently

This quote suggests that mass conversion can only take place if there are strong incentives by state or other people to do so. For the most part this is true. Throughout history, minor conversions to a religion have taken place as people hear directly from the creator of the religion or a missionary, but mass, country wide conversions only took place upon the embrace from a leader or important figure. Christianity, for example, only became hugely popular after Constantine himself converted, bringing with him much of Rome. Previous to his conversion, however, many Christians were persecuted and killed which gained a few followers but many saw this as the right course of action as the Christians were little more than a cult or sect. A similar story is told with Buddhism, Although Buddhism had growing power and members prior to the conversion of Ashoka, it was after this tipping point that much of India (followed by Asia, as the social and political incentives became greater as Ashoka sent out missionaries to convert neighbors) converted to Buddhism. After the death of Ashoka, Buddhism once again fell out of favor in India, proving the importance of having a figure head or important political figure embracing the religion (much like after the death of Muhammad, when many of the tribal leaders no longer felt a loyalty to Islam). Judiasm is somewhat of a paradox, since people were not allowed to convert to Judiasm, and therefore no amount of political or social pressures or incentives could lead one to become a Jew. There was social pressure to remain a Jew as many Jewish people wished to retain their Jewish ways by any means necessary, especially after the rise of Christianity.

The second part of this quote, the one stating that there was no mass adoption, but rather a syncretism is also true. Many religions were infact forced to change and adopt to suit the needs of new places they were introduced (as was the case of Buddhism in China). This ability of the religions themselves to change led to the people of these new regions to convert more willingly, with minimal resistance and less friction as they were able to indentify with some beliefs from their prior tradtion. In this way, the people were not, infact, adopting the "pure" form of the religion, but a changed form created to better identify with their beliefs, meaning that they did not whole heartedly adopt the completely seperate beliefs of a foreign people. One group that attempted to change this system was the Council of Nicea which attempted to unify all of the beliefs of Christianity so that all people in all conrners of the world would be taught the same thing.

Greeks Vs. Romans

On a grand scale, which of the two nations had a better fighting force? If the Greek army at its peak fought the Roman army at its peak in even numbers who would win? It seems as though the Romans have the advantage of time, giving them better technology, but I havn't heard of too many Roman battles where the odds were so against the Romans and yet they still claimed victory, as was the case many times with the Greeks. Also, there are many more famous Roman generals than Greek generals. Was this because the focus was more on leading city states? History seems to "show off" perticular elements of a culture as that culture wrote it down, giving credit to different people.

Just something to ponder over

Democracy?

In Venezuela, the proposal to alter the constitution to allow unlimited presidential terms, limitless state of emergency time, among other things, was shot down by a 51 to 49% vote. However, only 56% of the registered voters turned out. This says something about the way the people live in the country. Alt4hough Chavez has almost limitless power in his country, even his legions of followers did not fully support this new change. Instead of voting against it however, many of them decided to stay home. Many stated that it was out of fear of retaliation that they did not vote. Has Chavez's power become so much that it threatens the democracy as a whole, even without changing the way their system works. If fear of retaliation led to 44% of the voters not voting whatsoever, what does this say about the way the democracy in this country works? Dispite this, there is something to be said of the somewhat change to Socialism in Venezuela, which ironically is using the democratic process to slowly change their country into one of socialism. Do these people even want democracy?

Fact and Fiction

Although it might just be me, does anyone else find it odd that when comparing the stories of Korea's adoption of Buddhism, and Japan's adoption of Buddhism, Korea's seems much more fantastic. After the sacrificing himself in the name of Buddhism, the secretary evokes some sort of magic that causes the Earth to tremble and all sorts of magical happenings, which convince the King's advisers to convert to Buddhism. In Japan however, there is a much more reasonable change. The sending of the Buddha image and ideas to Japan, and the eventual finding of the shining log seem to be much more based in reality. Korea talks about magical dragons (as an important event in the life of Pophung), while Japan has no such stories related to Buddhism. Is this a cultural difference, or the difference between the "historians" translating the tales. Even in China, the monks are talked of doing magic tricks, as opposed to real magic. Was Korea simply more ingrained in fantasy?

Where I've been In Lyfe

Greece- Athens, Corfu, Crete, Santorini, Patmos
England- London
Germany- Berlin
Canada- Toronto
AMERICA!- All over

Why history pwnz

AP World pwnz all other subjects like n00bs because history the only subject that applies to everything (except maybe science).