Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Diversity
Despite it’s tolerance for diversity, the Ottoman Empire still taxes people for not being Muslim. This is some form of religious freedom, but obviously not complete religious freedom. It allows for all types of people, but it sets a clear bias for the Muslim community. It seems like a good political move because they want to accept people into their society so they can easily expand and gain loyalties, but at the same time they set up a clear power structure so Muslims are inherently more powerful than any other religion. The Mughal Empire was religiously diverse in a different way. They made their own religion so that everyone who was either Muslim or Hindu could easily follow it and made their political leader also the religious leader. This secured the loyalties of it’s people in both religions, without asking them to make a huge change in their religion. On the other hand, the Safavid Empire forced its inhabitants to convert to Islam. This tactic has it’s pros and cons. It allows all its people to feel more united because they have something in common and gives them the same moral codes, but it also can create the feeling of unrest if people don’t want to convert to Islam but are forced to. Diversity in general has many drawbacks along with benefits. With diversity inevitably comes some sort of conflict because of a difference in morals or traditions. However, diversity creates a more cultured environment and generally a more welcoming society. With that feeling of welcoming comes more people and that society can become more prosperous more easily.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with everything you have stated here. As you said, diversity is truly important to a society in bringing more cultural and general knowledge, especially when those empires were around and most exchanges of intelligence were oral. Diversity also creates a more welcoming society in which people are invited to be themselves and follow their personal beliefs, not what is pushed upon them by government or society in general. It would attract more people from around the world as America did (especially in the beginning, with its reputation as the land of the free).In general, I believe that the drawbacks that you mentioned are mostly present in societies that were NOT diverse and are still opening to the idea of a variety of cultures.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are certain drawbacks to diversity. Diversity plays a major role in the success of empires and modern day countries, and when it is non-exsistent like with the Safavid empire, there are going to be problems. I have to disagree with what you said about the fact that the Safavid leaders forced everyone to convert Islam made everyone united. I think that if anything, it made people less inclined to get along because no one likes to be forced into something.
ReplyDeleteI agree with almost all of this and think that you stated it very eloquently. However I agree with Taylor about the Safavid empire. I think that the people would not feel united by being forced to convert to Islam. They might feel loyalty to the Islam faith after it had been in their family for a few generations, but I think that they would still feel bitter towards the government for taking away their actual religion and belief set.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Safavid empire had a bad way of doing things. Forcing people to convert to Islam would only cause people to rebel against their leader, and doesn't seem like a very good way to unite people. Religion is a way of thinking, and people don't often just change their way of thinking. I think the Mughals had a good way of doing things, and it worked. However, it could have caused conflict as well because Akbar basically told his people to worship him instead of their own god.
ReplyDelete