Last week, Sjamsu and I were on an official trip to Jogjakarta (we also met Ujang there). We had a chance to visit the Hindu temple of Prambanan, and watched the famous Ramayana dance. (Honestly, I think the plot is very ugly! Read my comment here).
During a non-so-important dinner conversation, we discussed one interesting irony. By 850 A.D., the highly civilized 'nenek moyang bangsa Indonesia' had already built such great building (as well as the more famous Borobudur temple). But we knew that it was the Europeans who later came and colonized the country. Why was it not the other way around? The same thing also applies to the great Egyptians, Babylons, Persians, or Indians.
Yes, colonialism was bad. Yes, before those Europeans came, the Makassars have sailed to Australia and built a colony in Madagascar (while the Chinese had done it earlier by ruling the East Asian water). But regardless of our moral philosophy, it was the European's renaissance and colonialism that set the history of the world today.
To explain the irony - if we consider the level of technology at that time, building temples like Prambanan was made possible by a massive resource (especially human) mobilization. That was possible if and only if you had an autocratic government. We won't have Prambanans and pyramids under democracy.
Moreover, if you a despotic leader whose power made almost everything possible by mobilizing resources, there is little or no incentives to educate your people. In fact, you don't want your people to be educated; you'd want knowledge to be a monopoly of the elite.
On the other hand, the end of state/church monopoly over many aspects of human activity in the middle age Europe had paved the way for scientific revolution. For better or worse, that was the reason why we can build Prambanan, but it was the Europeans who set our history.
Well said, it makes a lot of sense that most world wonders were built by authoritarian rulers. That's probably the only advantage. :)
ReplyDeleteI can't think of any other advantages. Can you?
"In fact, you don't want your people to be educated; you'd want knowledge to be a monopoly of the elite."
ReplyDeleteSounds like "intellectual property rights" ;)
Hi Mova -- welcome!
ReplyDeletefor me, it sounds more like "sovereignity" rather than IPR.
In fact, it was the invention of IPR (the earlier version of patent rights) that spurred inventions and knowledge spread in the post-enlightenment Europe.
Well said, indeed. However, coming from Ape, I was expecting a punchline along the lines of "...these days, wonders of the world are built by entreprenuers and innovators...". Or is that just to Friedman-ish? (Thomas L., not Milton)
ReplyDeleteWill, 1000 years from now, people say the same thing when they find the remnants of the high rise buildings that were once stood in the ancient city called New York?
ReplyDeleteAlso on:
"But we knew that it was the Europeans who later came and colonized the country. Why was it not the other way around? The same thing also applies to the great Egyptians, Babylons, Persians, or Indians."==> Ape, This is exactly the view made by the Chinese who have been arguing that China will rise peacefully and become a benign hegemon...:-) The tributary system of the great Chinese kingdoms in the past, the argument goes, was relatively peaceful unlike the agressive European (Western)colonial systems (In other words, the Chinese are trying to say that Westerners are inherently agressive, while China is not).