Promises, Promises

Filed Under college studies, history, lil things, questions | Leave a Comment

I’m a bit loose with my “promises” I think. And believe me, I’m painfully aware of it. It’s so easy to say, “I’ll do that,” or “I’ll be there,” and worse, “I’ll call you later,” and then just … not. Here’s a quote from A Concise History of the Middle East:

Pre-Islamic poetry embodied the Arab code of virtue, the muruwwah: bravery in battle, patience in misfortune, persistence in revenge (the only justice possible at a time when no governments existed), protection of the weak, defiance toward the strong, hospitality to the visitor (even a total stranger), generosity to the poor, loyalty to the tribe, and fidelity in keeping promises. These were the moral principles that people needed in order to survive in the desert, and the verses helped to fix the muruwwah in their minds.”

I imagine that back when bartering was more common than currency, keeping one’s promise was crucial. If your neighbor promised you dates or lambs or milk for next month, and didn’t give them to you, you could starve! If your brother in law promised to journey with you several villages over, and flaked out, you could be susceptible to raiders. Today, the millions of casual broken promises we’re all used to are annoying and can screw us up a bit, but they won’t likely cause death from starvation or lack of protection.

To give another one’s word - and to keep it, always: has it gone the way of chivalry? To be replaced with what: the art of making excuses?

Popularity: 16% [?]

Feb

1

Death in a Classroom

Filed Under college studies, history, rants | 4 Comments

I had no idea that the history of the Middle East could be so dull. I say this as we enter the final two hours of today’s class - (it’s 24 hours of lecture over three days). The professor is exceedingly nice, but his style of teaching is not engaging, the syllabus was unclear (and inaccurate), what he’s telling us is all written (better) in the book he assigned (Goldschmidt and Davidson’s A Concise History of the Middle East), and he does not invite any kind of critical thinking about the subject.

Right now I have a powerful need to graduate, and get my frickin degree, so that I can teach Islamic history!

Maybe it’s just the hormones talking. I do seem prone to feelings of rage and impatience recently. But in all seriousness, this classroom feels like the Nazgûl passed through here. Jeezus.

*****

Side note: there is a classmate here who looks almost exactly like Chalice Chick. They even have the same voice. This is the most interesting thing about my class.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Jan

11

More on Money as Debt (from the 18th C.)

Filed Under books, capitalism, class, college studies, happiness, history, questions, quotes | 3 Comments

Never say never, indeed. It’s nearly 4 in the morning, and I’m delighting over pamphlets from 1720 about an ill-managed public land bank experiment in Massachusetts. Having just watched Money as Debt sheds some light on the subject, as did the 1953 article The Land-Bank System in the American Colonies (courtesy of JSTOR).

The best thing is that my professor (the class is Muckraking: Activists’ Role in History) provided us with a format that links passages from the Colman pamphlet to another that refutes it (by a fellow named Wigglesworth).

Colman is in despair about the middle class landowners who have taken out paper currency loans against their estates through the public land banks; they are now in dire straits because there isn’t enough paper money in circulation to pay off the debts with interest. While I sympathize with Colman (but disagree with his faith in the private bank), one of Wigglesworth’s responses is what I want to note here (emphasis is mine):

For it is easie to see, that if we had never trusted one another, the worst Husbands of us all could not have spent more than we earnt ; for when we must pay ready Mony for every thing we buy, we can’t buy more than we earn Mony to pay for; unless we borrow Mony at Interest to support our Extravagance; a thing which but few would have been so foolish as to have done. Indeed when Debts are already contracted, Do but set up a Bank to borrow of, and we have found from sad experience already, that men will be ready enough to mortgage their Estates for mony to pay their Debts. But (I say again) where Debts were not before contracted, few men would have been so foolish, as to borrow Mony at Interest to provide needless Fineries and Gew-Gaws for their Families. The Folly of so few could not have affected the Country.

Oh wow; does any of this sound familiar?

I am fascinated by these papers, and also by the fact that in our society today - 290 years later - we are encouraged as a people to buy more in order to spur the economy, to take out more loans, to spend, and spend, and spend. That is our “role” as consumer-citizens. And yet, as individuals, we are shamed and chastised if unable to pay on our debts; then we are irresponsible, foolish, and greedy.

And while that may be the case (though, not necessarily), what then, is the vice? Is the vice to borrow money (at interest) in the first place, for things we can get by without? Or is the vice to fall into a situation where one cannot pay on the money borrowed?

Popularity: 37% [?]