Last Blog!!!

Feminism

For most of us in America, the idea of feminism conjurers up visions of women with hairy armpits running around the streets burning their bras and talking about free love.  I don't shave and i don't always wear a bra (mainly because my figure doesn't require me to), but this isn't done with a conscious thought about feminism or to prove that women do not have to live by any societal norm.  i have my own reasons why I don't do those things, but reading this chapter makes me wonder if my ability to wear a tank top with my armpit hair and without a bra comes from the feminists of the past.  I grew up, and am still a part of, the punk rock "scene" and many of the punk women that I have admired in my formative years and today are definitely feminists in their own right. Breaking with cultural norms and standing on their own as strong, independent women.  So maybe since they have already taken a stand on so many feminist issues, i have the luxury not to have to think about it as much....and maybe sometimes i take that for granted....

 Kim Gordon of Sonic Youth

Kathleen Hanna of Bikini Kill

                                                                                              making a statement about derogatory slang                                                                                               used to marginalize women 

Also, reading this chapter made it clear to me that the feminist movement presented itself differently depending on the needs of the women involved in the movement. And that, as with many movements, opinions differed about which issues were of greatest importance.

In the West, the feminist movement that had died out in the 1920's began to resurface in the U.S. and Europe.  The books, "The Second Sex" by French author Simone de Beauvoir and "The Feminine Mystique" by American author Betty Firedan spurred the movement and spoke to women who had felt oppressed by asking them to demand control of their bodies and focus on the education and employment of women and focus on obtaining equal rights for women in all areas.  A more radical branch of the feminist movement in America became known as "women's liberation" and followers of this movement felt that women had been exploited throughout history by a patriarchal system.  These women preferred to take personal action to correct this rather than the political lobbying done by the equal rights feminists.  They did this by tossing stink bombs during the Miss America contest of 1968 and by throwing tweezers, high heeled shoes, bras, and other "articles of oppression" into a Freedom Trashcan.  They also discussed the idea that free love, lesbianism, and celibacy should be held in the same respect as heterosexual marriage.  The African American women of this time held a different view of feminism.  They did want to segregate themselves from the African American men, and instead joined these men to fight against racism and poverty.  

For women in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, feminism was much different for it focused on topics not related to gender issues.  These topics included colonialism, racism, political oppression, and revolution.  These women criticized western feminism for being too focused on sexuality and not paying enough attention to motherhood, marriage, and poverty.  They also felt that the western feminist's view of genital mutilation and polygamy was damaging to their culture, who had held these practices as cultural traditions.  Instead of focusing on issues of sexuality, the women of Africa at this time created small associations of women to aid each other in times of need.  These groups had a combined total membership of more than 1 million by the late 1980's.  

In Chile in the late 1900's, women mobilized against the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet who ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990.  During Pinochet's reign, women were seen as invisible in the public realm and this may have been to their benefit in this situation.  Women were able to organize themselves despite the military regime of the country, and this women's movement crossed all lines of social class and political affiliation.  The women of Chile brought attention to the use of torture and to the "disappearance" of those who opposed Pinochet's regime.  These women also started soup kitchens, craft workshops, and shopping collectives with the goal of promoting the economic status of families in Chile.  Middle-class Chilean women fought for, "democracy in the country and in the home". (p. 1153) The women's movement in Chile was a very important part of the national protesting the eventually brought Chile to democratic government in 1990. 

Proving that the feminist movement is not a thing of the past, as recently as 2004 the women of Morocco stood up to claim a greater sense of equality.  Before 2004, Morocco's Family Law Code defined women as minors, making them subservient to their husbands.  In 2004, Morocco's feminist movement, aided by some supported men and their liberal king, the Family Law Code was changed so that is recognized women as equal to their husbands.  This granted them the ability to initiate divorce and to claim custody of a child.  

Feminism was recognized as a global movement when the United Nations declared 1975 as International Women's Year and the next 10 years as the Decade for women.  In 2006, 183 nations (but not the U.S...what?!) ratified a UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.  But this attention on international women's rights revealed the different ideas people of different countries and cultures had regarding the issue.  Muslim delegates at the Beijing Conference in 1995 opposed the idea of women receive equal inheritance as men because Islamic Law states that sons should receive twice as much as daughters.  But the women of Africa felt that equal inheritance was important for the survival of young girls orphaned by AIDS.  There were also women who disagreed with the idea of feminism because they felt it eroded the "proper" relationship between men and women, and family life.  Westernized feminism did not go over well with Muslim women for they felt it was offensive.  The feminist movement actually incited a movement of religious revivalism among some Muslim women that required them to wear the veil and lead restrictive lives.  Both Muslim and Catholic countries did not appreciate the feminist movement's insistence on reproductive rights, including abortion rights and access to birth control.  

So, the feminist idea of equal rights for all people has changed to reflect the values of women in different countries and with different cultures.  I will continue to admire women who stand up for what they believe is right for their lives, despite pressure from men, government, and even other women. 

Legacies of the Great War

Perhaps one of the most famous wars in world history was World War 1, otherwise known as the Great War.  This war began in 1914 after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and ended in 1919 with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.  WWI affected most of the world in very immediate ways, such as the deaths of many soldiers, expansion of the authority of government during wartime, and the idea that all people should contribute to the war effort in some way.  Women went to work to replace the men that were in battle and labor unions suspended their strikes so they could produce goods during wartime.  It is easy to think that these types of things happening as a result of the war, but there were many other long-term "legacies" left because of WWI.  

Before WWI, the citizens of European countries and America had been moved by the ideas of the Enlightenment to make changes in their government and in their personal lives.  Some of the values that came from this were progress, tolerance, and rationality.  After WWI, people felt that actions taken place during the war laughed in the face of these values and turned some of the Enlightenment ideas on their heads.  Previously, science and technology seemed to be only capable of generating good and helping the people evolve.  Now it had been seen that when science and technology are used against an opponent, the consequence was deadly.  The immense number of deaths and bloodshed showed that there was very little tolerance among the different countries, and how could one rationalize the slaughter of so many?  WWI left a bad taste in people's mouths and led then to become disillusioned with their societies and their governments.  

After a time when women worked in factories to support their families and the war effort, there was a government effort made to get society back to traditional family values.  This was very difficult for both men and women.  The soldiers returning from war had seen and experienced the unimaginable and it was hard for them to step right back in to their role as husband, father, and provider for their families.  Some governments set up housing projects to help ease these men back into family life.  The governments of America and Europe urged women to leave the workforce so that they would not be competing for men's jobs.  Many probably don't know this, but Mother's Day was created as a reaction to WWI.  Mother's Day is a holiday created by the French authorities to encourage women to have more children to replace all the people who died in the war.

Despite the the urging of people to return to more traditional gender-based roles, society had changed.  Women went back to fighting for the right to vote, and were granted this right in Britain, the U.S., Germany, the Soviet Union, Hungary, and Poland.  It is thought that this right was granted partially as a way to pay back women for their sacrifices during the war.  Women also began to step away from tradition by smoking, drinking, cutting their hair short, and being more open with their sexuality.  Also, consumerism exploded and people became more enamored with popular culture because they were able to hear music from other countries on the radio and movies made in Hollywood were shown across the world.  

WWI showed the world that the United States held a lot of resources with its manpower and financial holdings.  The United States had shown its power during WWI as the country had much to do with the defeat of Germany. 

 WWI may have also been a contributing factor to the start of WWII only 20 years after WWI ended.  In the Treaty of Versailles, Germany lost its colonies and %15 of its European territory.  Germany also was forced to take the responsibility for the outbreak of WWI, pay reparations, and had its military forces restricted.  One of WWI's German soldiers said in 1922, "It cannot be that two million Germans should have fallen in vain...No, we do not pardon, we demand-vengeance." (p 989)  That soldier was Adolf Hitler, and we all know what he did to enact that vengeance.  

It may sound cliche to say that if we do not learn from the past, we are bound to repeat it, but sometimes cliches hold some truth.  While World War III has never officially broken out, there are so many war-torn countries right now and the end result of these wars will be...what?  Power, money, oil? The ability to claim that, "our country is stronger than your country".  And the price of war seems to get bigger with each advancement of science and technology.  Now we live in fear of a nuclear holocaust-because it is a possibility.  In my humble opinion, it is time for the megalomaniacs of this world to take a step back a realize that war doesn't really solve anything.  It just creates more conflict and more battles to fight.  I would have thought that in this day and age we would have moved past the idea the idea of war, but maybe the desire to fight and the desire to win are part of the human condition. 

American Revolution?

Every child in America learns about the American Revolution in which the first 13 colonies of our nation fought for, and won, independence from British rule.  Of course this was a big step in the progression of the United States to becoming what it is today, but the reading this week left me wondering if calling it a "revolution" is somewhat of a misnomer.

For most of the 17th and 18th centuries, the British colonies in North America were technically ruled by Britain, but were fortunate enough to have a certain amount of freedom from it's ruling country as Britain was in the middle of dealing with it's own internal conflicts and conflicts with France.  The colonists became a kind of self governing body, but continued to remain a part of the British Empire because it granted them protection in war and access to British markets.  

As the conflicts with France drained the British treasury, Britain began imposing new taxes and tariffs on the colonies in order to make some of this money back.  This challenged the colonies' economic interests and the autonomy that they had once had.  The colonist had based much of their self governing tactics on ideas from the Enlightenment; "popular sovereignty, natural rights, and consent of the governed" (p.786-787) and Britain's attempt at being an imperial power over the colonies was in opposition to these ideas, so the colonist went to war, and by 1781 the succeeded in becoming independent from Britain.  

The problem I find in calling this a "revolution" is that nothing very revolutionary happened after this war was over.  The point of gaining independence from Britain was that the colonies would be able to continue to govern themselves as they had before Britain began imposing new taxes and tariffs, which they did.  Even before the revolution, the colonies held that, "No legal distinctions differentiated clergy, aristocracy, and commoners...All free men enjoyed the same status before the law...These conditions made for less poverty, more economic opportunity, fewer social differences, and easier relationships among the classes than in Europe." (p.786)  These ideas were certainly new for the time, but they did not arise out of the war and/or independence from Britain.  The ideas and values held by the colonists were already in place. 

So, is it correct to say that this war and independence from Britain was actually a revolution? 

According to www.merriam-webster.com, a revolution is;

"a :  a sudden, radical, or complete change

b :  a fundamental change in political organization; especially :  the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed

c :  activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation

d :  a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something :  a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution>

e :  a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>"

From this definition of the word, we can (kind of) say that the American Revolution of the 18th century was a revolution based on point b.  The colonist did renounce Britain and their ruling body, but they had already been governing themselves for some time.  The only thing that changed was that after 1781, it was then official that Britain was no longer in charge of the colonies.  

But, if we look to point a from the definition, the American Revolution does not meet this requirement.  There were no sudden, radical, or complete changes in the ways the people of the colonies lived their lives.  The American Revolution made it possible for these people to continue to govern themselves as they had been doing for some time.  So, it seems that nothing really revolutionary happened within the colonies.

It is my opinion that the American Revolution was not so much of a revolution as it was a complete liberation from British rule, especially in comparison to some of the other revolutions we have studied.  The true revolutionary aspects of colonial life happened well before 1781.  But I may be in the minority here because other countries at this time felt that the (now) United States were the, "hope and model of the human race" (p.787).

Either way, this revolution/liberation/emancipation of the United States from Britain used insight gained from the Enlightenment to inspire future revolutions and also began the breakdown of Europe's New World Empire.  Even today it represents the  idea that people could can successfully rise up against an oppressive ruling body.

The Columbus Exchange

When I was a child, I remember celebrating Columbus day, learning about how he discovered America, and learning about everything that Columbus and the other pilgrims brought to the Native Americans.  Well, in the past 20-25 years, a lot has changed about how we view Columbus and the pilgrims.  Columbus day is no longer a real holiday and we acknowledge that Columbus did not discover America.  We still talk about what Columbus and the pilgrims brought to the Americas, but we recognize that it was not all Thanksgiving dinners or giving the Native Americans the "gift" of civilization. Today, we talk about the Columbus Exchange.

The term, Columbus Exchange, refers to the "network of communication, migration, trade, disease, and the transfer of plants and animals, all generated by Europeans colonial empires in the Americas." (p.625)  One of the main reasons that Europeans were able to colonize the Americas is that they brought with them diseases to which the natives had no immunity.  This diseases killed off large numbers of native people and after only a few decades, the European population outnumbers the native population in many areas.  In pre-Columbian  America, the population of the Western Hemisphere was around 60-80 million.  Once the Europeans arrived, the numbers of Native Americans that died because of these diseases was up to 90% in some areas.  Perhaps the worst part of this scenario is that, being that that Europeans were largely Christian, they believed that this great dies off was "the good hands of God's work" (p. 623)  They felt that they were superior to the Native Americans and, therefore, God was working to kill the Native people off so that he could make room for the Europeans to expand their empire.  To this day, the size and strength of Native American tribes have never completely recovered.

On the brighter side, Europeans also brought with them useful items.  They brought plants such as sugarcane, grapes, and many other vegetables and fruit.  These plants took hold in their new environment and the made it possible for the people to eat a largely European diet.  The Europeans also brought animals the multiplied quickly because they had no natural predators in the Americas.  These horses, pigs, cattle, goats, and sheep gave rise to ranching economies and a cowboy culture.  The Native Americans changed their hunting techniques, and many abandoned the crops they were growing, because they could now hunt on horseback.  This new emphasis on hunting created a more male dominated culture among the Native Americans.

The crops such as corn potatoes, and cassava that had already been grown in the Americas were sent back to the Eastern Hemisphere.  These foods are calorie dense and inexpensive and made possible the population growth of the modern area.  The corn, peanuts, and sweet potatoes sent to China also created a population boom.  Corn became very popular in Africa because it was an inexpensive way to feed people who were traveling the transatlantic trade routes.  Stimulants from America like tobacco and chocolate became very popular in China.  

Like most aspects of human history, the story of the Columbus exchange has some positives and some negatives.  It is funny to me that in my lifetime I have seen a huge shift in the way people perceive Columbus.  He has gone from being a hero to being responsible for destroying the environment and lifestyle of the native peoples.  Either way we look at it, the Columbus exchange was an important factor in creating the global network we know today.  Without Columbus' accidental "discovery", we could possibly live in a world in which people from different areas of the planet could not trade and communicate.  Maybe we wouldn't have made both corn and cows such a large part of the American diet.  The Columbus exchange helped create a world with a more global capacity for interaction among all people.  

Why Change?

In doing my reading for this week, I found myself often asking why some certain civilizations chose to live the way that they did.  Why were the citizens of the Mongol Empire so at ease with violence and conquering by killing.  Why did some feel content living like Paleolithic man as hunter-gatherers?  Why did some agricultural societies choose not to industrialize like many around them had done?  

In 1206 A.D., the Mongol tribal assembly recognized Chinggis Khan as the supreme leader of the Great Mongol Nation.  Khan was set on expanding the Mongolian Empire, and he achieved his goal.  The problem is that expansion of the Mongolian Empire was brought about by war, mass killings, executions, and burning of cities carried out by Khan and his army.  Khan gained the reputation of being a ruthless leader who, with his army, destroyed every settlement he came upon.  The Mongolian Empire succeeded at becoming the largest land based empire in human history, but my question is about Khan's, and his army's, motivation for expanding in this way.

It would be easy to say that Khan was a leader filled with greed and sought expansion by any means necessary, but Khan has been recording as saying that he was motivated to unite the world into one entity.  Most who seek to unite all people do not usually kill many of those people or burn their cities to the ground.  Why did Khan think that his tactics would unite the planet?  And what of his army?  Did they see nothing wrong with Khan's plan?  Perhaps Khan was such a charismatic leader that he led his people to believe they were doing what was right for themselves and for the rest of the world.  Recently, we have seen a war that many did not agree with, but continues to rage on.  Maybe Khan's army was simply doing what they were told to do by their leader out of respect for their empire, as we see many soldiers do today.  Or maybe they continued to fight because they knew they would be protected under Khan's leadership.

In the fifteen century, people in all of Australia, much of Siberia, and parts of Africa were choosing to live in similar ways to that of Paleolithic man.  Many still led a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and chose not to develop an agricultural system.  All this despite the fact that the majority of the world was living in much more industrialized communities.  What caused these people to choose to live in fairly primitive ways when most of the world had long since abandoned such practices?  As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".  The people who continued a largely Paleolithic lifestyle lived in areas with an abundance of food from plant and animal sources.  These people did not need agriculture to obtain what they required.  So, maybe they felt that since they had access to everything they needed for survival, there was no point in "advancing" they way most of the world had.  Or maybe they simply preferred their uncomplicated lifestyle free of war, class struggles, or the demands of a hierarchy.  To be honest, I don't blame them.  Their way of living, although more physically arduous than others, seems to have been much more peaceful and calm. It seems as though these fifteen century Paleolithic people were just Type B personalities, happy to live with lower levels of stress, in a Type A world.

Similar to the fifteenth century Paleolithic peoples, the Igbo and the Iroquois people, of West Africa and America respectively, decided not to go the way of the mainstream during the fifteenth century.  They did develop an agricultural system, but that was where they drew the line.  Both the Igbo and the Iroquois avoided becoming part of an empire or civilization, and the Igbo people were even proud and boasted that they had no kings.  The Igbo and Iroquois lived in small communities and did not have a political authority, class systems, and gender inequality.  They continued to live as their ancestors had, and it seems logical to follow the traditions of one's elders, but part of me wonders why these people were content to live this way while most others were always on the hunt for greater innovation.  Didn't they want the conveniences that the people within more evolved civilizations had?  What about the safety offered to citizens of an empire?  It is conceivable that the Igbo and the Iroquois were communities so steeped in tradition that a departure from their way of life would be seen as a betrayal to their ancestors, but wasn't this the case for all people at one time?  I wonder why many abandoned their ways of living in search of something better while some small groups decided against this.

I (obviously) will never know the answers to these questions for sure, but perhaps the answer lies in a part of the human condition.  Humans simply do not always like to change or challenge what they consider to be the norm.  Khan's army may have fought wars over expanding the Mongolian empire because they felt loyalty to their leader, and that they would be protected by him.  The people who retained a Paleolithic lifestyle could have felt that they had everything they needed and, therefore, had no cause to change.  The agriculturalists of the fifteenth century could have felt so strongly tied to their traditions they decided to resist becoming part of a larger civilization.  As humans, when we are comfortable with our situation, we often prefer things to remain the same, even if "the same" means violent, more physically taxing, and without modern conveniences.  But where would we as humans be now if it were for those few who were not afraid to break out of the status quo?

An Age of Accelerating Connections

The Silk Roads

As human civilizations continued to grow and expand, so did the idea of importing and exporting goods to and from distant lands.  This evolution of trade was the beginnings of what we now call the "global economy" and had significant consequences during the Classical era that have carried over into modern time.  The people of 500-1500 A.D. had greater interaction with others from different types of societies and cultures than had ever been seen.  The outcome of these interactions was sometimes good, sometimes bad, but always meaningful to how humans, and societies, continued to evolve.

Of the many developments the people of this time created to be able to transport their goods across the globe, the trade routes organized during this time were very important.  Three of these trade routes are were the Silk Roads, the Sea Roads, and the Sand Roads.  I am choosing to focus on the Silk Roads at this time because I find it fascinating that so much of human history was altered simply because some wealthy people wanted to wear fancy clothes.

The Silk Roads consisted of a network of exchange routes among the people of Eurasia during the seventh and eighth centuries, and then again in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and is named after one of the highly prized goods that passed along these routes: silk.  The Silk Roads relied on relay trade in which the product being moved is passed through the hands of many people, each at different points along the journey from where it was produced to where it was being delivered.  Since so many people were involved in this type of trade, the Silk Road was more prosperous when a large and powerful state, such as he Byzantine Empire or the Tang Dynasty, offered the merchants and traders protection along their journey.  his benefited both the state and the merchants because the merchants could safely deliver their wares and the state's economy prospered.

Silk was one of the most important goods that traveled these trade networks at this time because it was highly valued and, therefore was one of the few items that could make enough of a profit to compensate the high cost of sending it across Eurasia. Silk was highly coveted by elite and high-ranking people of Eurasia because it was used as a fashion statement and marked their status, as only the wealthy could afford such a product.  Silk was also used as a form of currency among some groups of people.  An interesting fact about the demand for silk was that women in China were in charge of making it for centuries and because of this, Chinese women were now in large contributors to the economy of their household.

As I said, along with the good came the bad.  With the travel of goods such as silk along the Silk Roads, disease traveled along as well.  At this time, each society had a distinct set of diseases that were often found within their own society.  The people of each society had discovered ways of coping with these diseases and had sometime become immune to them.  When traveling along the Silk Roads, people from different areas met, and many were infected with a disease that their own society was not accustomed to dealing with.  This produced outbreaks of disease and death, sometimes killing enough people from a certain area to weaken an entire state, and perhaps be a contributing factor to political collapse.

Along with changing the destinies of empires and dynasties, the Silk Roads actually changed Buddhism.  That's right, wealthy people's demand for fine clothing had the power to change a religion.  The merchants that traveled along the Silk Roads in India often were Buddhist, favoring its universal message to that of Hinduism that had strong ties to the caste system.  As these Buddhist merchants made their way along the Silk Roads and told the people they met through relay trade and spread Buddha's message.  The more wealthy merchants even created monasteries that were used as rest-stops for traveling people.  While people found shelter at these stops along their long journey, they learned of Buddhism and many converted.  Because of the fact that the more wealthy Buddhist merchants were able to meet with so many people, the religion changed from one that rejected the material world to one that embraced prospering from others and receiving, and accepting, gifts.  Buddha himself had never claimed to be a god or divine in any way, but, like a bad game of "telephone", this idea was lost along the Silk Roads.  Buddha was being seen by his new followers as a deity.  The gods of other religions seen along the Silk Roads were being incorporated into the religion as bodhisattvas, or one who could help the people reach enlightenment.

Today it is a given that commerce and trade happen in a global way and that each culture can have a direct impact on another.  One can find the distinctly American notion of fast food at McDonalds locations around the world, and I personally have chanted in Sanskrit to Hindu gods in my yoga classes in Redwood City.  To step back in time and think about how, for most of human history, people had little, if any, contact with others who had different ideas, cultural norms, and religions, one can see how quickly trade changed all of this.  First, trade and commerce connected people living nearby each other, and then connected people all over the world.  This influence that trade creates is still seen in the world today.  And just like in 1500 A.D., some of it is good, some is bad, but all of it is meaningful.

The "Golden Age" of China; Apparently Gold Only Glitters for Men

The Song Dynasty is considered to be the "golden age" of China because during this dynasty, China was wealthier than it had ever been due to a greater industrialization of goods, booming population, and highly commercialized society.  But the Song Dynasty also marks a time of great oppression of women.  With the development of the Silk Roads, women became large contributors to the economy because they were the ones producing the silk, but as the technology in China increased, women were being taking out of their roles as silk producers and were no longer seen as vital to China's economic success.

It is said that the rise of Confucianism had much to do with the subordination of women because of the Confucian idea that women should be subservient to men and that men and women should be kept separate in all aspects of life.  Women were seen to be a distraction to men in their quest for an introspective life.  Women in the Song Dynasty were taught to be docile and delicate

The best example of a method used to keep women meek and obedient was the prominence of foot binding performed in China during this time.  The term foot binding refers to the process of tightly wrapping a young girl's foot, so much so that the foot bones are broken.  This was done because it aligned with the Chinese ideal of female beauty at the time, which is to say small and frail.  It also served to keep women stuck in their homes because walking with bound feet was extremely painful.

The mothers of young girls were usually the one to perform the foot binding on their daughters.  People of today might be repulsed to think that a mother could do this to her own daughter, but we have to think of this in terms of the context of the time.  Mothers would do this "for" their daughters to increase the chance that she find a respectable husband.  The girls themselves saw foot binding as a rite of passage and were excited about the idea of wearing the fancy slippers that came along with small feet, which are ideas written about be women poets of the time.  Foot binding was also a way to distinguish an elite woman from the "barbarians" that did not take part in this practice.

It may seem to us now that the actual "barbarians" were those who supported the practice of foot binding and had their daughters go through this so-called rite of passage before they were old enough to think for themselves.  In actuality, this is just another example of basing a woman's worth on her physical appearance, which is something that still occurs today.  Woman of today often go to drastic measures to have their bodies match the current standard of female beauty.  Today we may not bind our feet, but many do go on extreme diets or exercise in excess to achieve the desired svelte physique, or spend hours (and millions of dollars a year) with makeup and hair products to make ourselves more attractive, and, when this doe not seem to be enough, we have plastic surgery-surgery! on purpose!  The mothers of today are no more innocent than those of the Song Dynasty.  Mothers teach their daughter how to look, and act if they want to find a husband, and often cause their daughters to have a negative self image.  "Do you really think you should  have that piece of cake?"  "You were cursed with my nose/hips/thighs/ect."  Foot binding is just another example of what has been going on for centuries, and what will most likely continue on for centuries to come, just in its own shape and form.

Early Classical Era

Early Classical Era

In chapter 3, Strayer begins his discussion on the Second-Wave civilizations that appeared from 500 B.C.E. through 500 C.E.  Even though the first of human history's civilizations had collapsed or were absorbed into larger empires, the Second-Wave civilizations, that had taken shape,  the idea of forming into civilizations was a notion that was spreading across the globe at this time.  These Second-Wave civilizations were similar to the first civilizations in the sense that they all came into being, expanded, and then collapsed for one reason or another, and their continued to be segregation between the upper and lower classes of each civilization.  The main differences between the first civilizations and this Second-Wave were that the populations of the Second-Wave civilizations were larger and grew much more quickly.  Also,the growth of what became known as empires was a new phenomenon in these civilizations.  An empire is classified as being a state with political power that ruled over varied types  of people.  Empires usually have a history of political or cultural oppression towards some, if not most of these people.   

Most empires did not have direct contact with one another as they were spread out across the globe.  In our own "information age", we are able to find out what is happening across the globe within a matter of seconds.  Thus, ideas spread quickly and it is no surprise when groups of people adopt ideas that are working for others in another part of the world.  It is quite astonishing that the civilizations of the Early Classical era, not having much, or any, knowledge about what was happening in places far removed from them, have so many parallels.  This begs the question that we have asked in class about the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras.  How and why did the groups of people living without direct knowledge of each other's practices and lifestyles form in societies with so many similarities at around the same time in human history?  Did the evolution of the human brain cause people to think and act in very similar ways at around the same time?

The empire that intrigued me the most while reading was the Roman empire.  Rome began as an impoverished city-state but later flourished to include much of the Mediterranean.  Rome was once ruled by a king, but around 509 B.C.E. the Romans did away with the monarchy in favor of a republic in which the wealthy class were in control of the empire.  Though the wealthy were in charge, the lower-class citizens, known as plebeians, were offered protection through a written code of law and the plebeians were allowed to participate in public policy making.  The Romans believed that their citizens enjoyed more freedoms than any of the surrounding empires.  In reflecting on the discussion from our last class meeting, it occurred to me that Rome may be an example of an empire that was trying to maintain a civilization that was orderly, but not oppressive. 

Another interesting aspect of the Roman empire is that this idea of a republic, and their expansion into Europe, Africa, and Asia, was entirely innovative. The Romans continued to grow their empire mainly out of concern for it.  Each time a new region was taken under control of the Romans, it left the empire with new vulnerabilities.  The Roman's answer to this was to take control of another region.  This idea that conquests were the only way to maintain their power caused them to invest in their army which was well organized.  

Although the Roman empire claimed to give its citizens more freedoms than any other, women were left out of this equation. Being that was Rome was a civilization driving by conquests, it became a warrior society in which masculinity was prized.  A Roman man had complete control of his wife, children, and slaves.  Women's role in society was to bear strong young men who could one day become a soldier for the Roman army.  Eventually the women of the upper-class were granted more freedoms but, paradoxically, this freedom for the wealthy women of Rome took place when more and more women from other empires were being brought into Rome as slaves.  

What started out as an empire dedicated to a society with more liberty than any other, ultimately could not maintain these values as the empire continued to expand.  There was an ever increasing divide between the upper and lower classes and civil war broke out between the traditionalists and those who had just come in to wealth and power.  The emperor Octavian came into power and it was clear that Rome had discarded its previous ideal of a republican empire.  This makes me wonder why it is so prevalent throughout human history that societies whose original intent was liberty for its people often fall victim to greed and a hunger for power.  Animal communities, even those with a clear leader, are not oppressive to those in their own tribe.  Again I think about the human brain and consider that maybe it is our superior prefrontal cortex, which make us distinctly human, may also give rise to a need for power over others.  

With more advanced cities. states, and agriculture came increasing, and differing, thoughts about spirituality.  This makes sense because people's physiological needs and their need for safety were being met and they could then begin to explore their personal need to be included in something larger than themselves and to search for answers to the question of, "why are we here?".  I was excited to see that Strayer had included Zoroastrianism in this conversation of the history of human spirituality.  Zoroastrianism is the first monotheistic religion, yet it is often left out of history books because of the fact that it did not spread as far or last as long as many of the more commonly known religions.  

Zoroastrianism was prominent in Persian from 558-330 B.C.E during the Achaemenid dynasty.  The Persian prophet, Zarathustra, denounced Persian polytheism and claimed that a benevolent deity named Ahura Mazda was the only god and following Ahura Mazda would lead the people to paradise in the the afterlife.  Similarly to the Christian God's struggle against Satan, Ahura Mazda fought against an evil being called Angra Mainyu.  Ahura Mazda won in his battle against Angra Mainyu and Zoroastrianism emphasized that all humans must do the same and win their personal battle against evil.  

Zoroastrianism was not a missionary religion and, therefore, did not spread very far outside of Persia.  When Alexander the Great and  his Greek army invaded Persia, they destroyed Zoroastrian temples and burned the sacred writings.  The religion was able to survive this hardship until the arrival of Islam as an Arab empire began to thrive in the region.  

Though Zoroastrianism did not take hold of a large population of believers, remnants of the religion of survived in other traditions, due in large part to the Jews who were in the Persian empire during the time of Zoroastrianism's prominence.  These include the idea of a struggle between good and evil, a last judgement, a savior, and the end of the world. These notions became part of the Jewish tradition as well as Christianity and Islam.   

As I said, I have never read about Zoroastrianism in any of my history textbooks even though this religion laid the groundwork for the major monotheistic religious traditions.  This sparks a thought about what should and/or should not be included in history teachings.  Obviously, not every single minor achievement humans have ever made can be included into a 10 week course.  There is simply not enough time to cover everything.  This problem will persist and become even greater as human history continues on and changes and innovations occur more and more rapidly.  Unless the students of the future are required to read books that are thousands and thousands of pages long (or take up too many bytes on their handheld personal devices), teachers and historians will be forced to pick and choose what they deem to be the most important.  How much of human history will our predecessors learn about, and how much of it will be lost?