ch. 6 reading notes

I don't know if I agree with his anecdote about Bolivia and pretty much any other country in Latin America or Africa that uses its pre-colonial history as a rallying cry. That happens pretty often and the circumstances and fairly similar. Plus, if the choice is between using the time period before your ancestors were exploited by the Europeans or using the time period it was happening, I think it's pretty obvious which one you are going to go with politically.

I sincerely doubt population was the reason historians initially ignored Africa and the Americas. I'm pretty sure that has more to do with the fact that historians were European males that did not see the savages of Africa and Americas as having a culture or civilization to study.

Strayer is missing something huge about Africa by not talking about their special cows. Or the elephants? Who doesn't want to talk about elephants?

I do hope at some point Strayer will go into some detail about the rise of Islam in North Africa, because hearing the end of a civilization occurred due to Islam, but not understanding how exactly that happened is starting to irk.

Mesoamerica sounds a lot like Egypt spiritually and not just because they both built pyramids. They had a wide variety of gods, their leaders served as both a mediator between heaven and earth as well as a ruler. They both buried their leaders with sacrifices of animals and humans.

My question is how did the Chavin know about the Amazon basin if they were up in the mountains? And why are you not discussing the fact that they hung out in the Amazon River basin?

ch. 5 reading notes

According to the reading, China was the first meritocracy and bureaucracy. The two go hand in hand in many ways. Meritocracy opens up the labor pool more than choosing people for personal favors or heritage. Though the fact that education was a private institution clearly favors the upper classes.

I probably shouldn't be amused by the idea that China's governance fluctuates most often on account of peasant rebellions, but I can't dispel the image of torch-carrying, pitch-fork waving people on a rampage.

It's very interesting that the book claims the caste and sub caste system was the cause for a lack of empires in India. But having such a rigid social structure with all its rules fleshed out, it makes since that people did not require anything to bring them together, when they were together and portioned out so clearly and well-defined. They wouldn't need another structure that an empire would provide.

It doesn't surprise me that slavery was such a minor issue in China and India. They have huge populations. In Africa, there are three separate slave trades: Atlantic, Islamic and internal. And the reason Africans traded other groups was because Africa has been historically underpopulated. People worked in the condition of labor shortage. Their entire society was built on having as many people as possible, whether through natural increase from polygamy or the taking and enslaving of other peoples. China and India had plenty of laborers, so there was no need for forced labor.

It's nice that the book points out how inadequate Athenian democracy was. It may have been direct, but it was severely limited. Realistically, it was just a larger group of mainly wealthy men than Sparta. I think the biggest thing from Sparta is that death in battle and death in childbirth were viewed as equally honorable. Strayer tosses it away as still patriarchy but the fact that main thing men are viewed as valuable for was on the same level as what women were viewed as valuable for is huge. Most societies did not view reproduction as on the level with warriors. Sparta did.

Chapter Four Reading Notes

The picture on the front of the three major traditions in China living in harmony is one of the coolest things I have ever seen. Why can’t every other religion live in harmony? Look at how cute baby Buddha is. Look at how happy Uncle Confucius and Uncle Laozi are.

It’s interesting that Legalism lost its popularity and never really regained it from the brutality of the regime that used it. The rise of alternatives like Confucianism and Daoism probably didn’t help either.

It’s fascinating that Daoism saying the opposite of Confucianism still works in harmony with it as far as people are concerned. Everyone sees the strengths of both and doesn’t want to lose one in favor of the other, when they can be adapted to work together. That kind of societal compromise is pretty amazing.

Also Daoist paintings are really pretty. I’m noticing a pattern with Asian religions about combining not fighting each other.

The book very quickly throws out how the religious thought worked as part of society. I know it’s more important to give as in-depth an overview as possible, but this short-changes how the religion worked with the rest of the civilization.

Hinduism reinvents itself and then absorbs Buddhism. I hope we learn later how Buddhism spread and maintained a separate identity outside of India.

Not being mean or anything, but the original concept of God is kinda a jerk. Socrates: the original troll.

Kinda want to learn about the fanatic worship of the wine god Dionysus.

I do like that the chapter doesn’t focus solely on religions but the most important forms of thinking present at the time. It paints a more accurate picture and shows that people weren’t all fanatic religious nuts, they had other things going on and were probably more worried about their crops.

Author loses points for ignoring the fact that the rediscovery of Greek texts jumpstarted the Renaissance before the Scientific Revolution or Enlightenment.

I wish there was more information or even a television series about Jesus being a social activist and critic. It would be much cooler if the Church focused on how militant and rebellious their religious leader was at the time.