The Classical Era in World History 500 B.C.E – 500 C.E

The Classical Era in World History 500 B.C.E – 500 C.E

     Can an Empire foster security, artistic endeavors, exchange of goods and services, mix cultures, expand ideas, and foster ingenuity without violence, oppression and exploitation? (Strayer 99) The Persians were known for the brutality of their God appointed kings, but then they were able to comprehend the value of respecting different cultures under their power. The example given in the book is that of Cyrus allowing the exiled Jews in Babylon to return to Jerusalem and rebuilt their temples. (Stryer 100) How is it that we can in one moment exhibit the insight of the power of the common good, and then at the same time want to conquer as many peoples as possible? Why do humans want to be better than each other? Where does that destructive competitive drive come from? It might seem that is started with the concept of mine and yours, but the San people of Southern Africa understood that concept of mine, and they also understood the destructive power it could foster if not held in check. Their technique of insulting the meat was useful in keeping the human ego in a healthy state. Is it a possibility that once people moved into civilizations and then empires they lost the ability to keep their egos in a healthy state? Did the beginning of the ability to conquer nature with agriculture also lead to the incessant desire to conquer others as well? I guess we as Homo sapiens concurred the other Homo species, but we do not have a record of how that happened. We do however have a record of how humans have treated each other at the start of the agricultural era and now through the second and third wave of civilizations.

     Back to the question of is it possible for an empire not to be an asshole? There is an example in the book of the Mauryan emperor Ashoka. He started out in the usual emperor fashion, but was able to see another way of ruling after witnessing much bloodshed. There was growth and ingenuity under his reign and he practiced peace. Too bad after his death, human nature returned to its destructive ways. (Strayer 120)

     Is the fluctuation of order turning into disorder to then becoming order again a necessary natural fluctuation in which growth occurs? The information on page 88 on shows how there was not any new technological or economic breakthroughs during these second and third wave civilizations for a few reasons: the land owning elite were cool with their reaping, peasants did not want to make anymore than necessary because it would just be stolen by the elite, and the merchants, the best chance at making change, were dominated and made to look suspicious. So, there was not much disorder to become order again. There was a status quo being upheld and everyone kind of played along. Spartacus had a good idea, but it was not for social change, just personal change. So, that could be a lesson right there: For things to change in life they must be attempted for more than just yourself.

     I don’t know is an empire or civilization for that matter has the ability to rule and prosper without exploiting people, land, resources, and other life along the way. The Empire of the United States surely is unable to.  (word count 564)

Journal Entry Number One: First Things First

Journal Entry Number One: First Things First

…as well as early attempts to impose meaning on the world through art, ritual and religion. (Strayer pg.5)

            Is this attempting to say that there is no inherent meaning to existence, only meaning that we impose upon existence? It reminds me of the philosophical question, “ If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Sound waves exist whether or not they are heard. So, is that a question of the inheritability of sound making waves, or the ears ability to hear those waves? That question always kind of bugged me for this reason; squirrels have ears, so they would hear it if  “no one” was around. I always took the “no one” in that question as encompassing only humans. If it did not only mean humans, I do not think the word “one” would have been used in "no one". Back to the original thought: if Homo sapiens did not inhabit the earth would life on this planet have meaning? My first reaction is to say duh. I truly believe that life and all of the other existence that exists out there in the Universe(s) has meaning that does not need us to impose anything upon it. But I think this is trying to say that maybe Homo erectus did not think about meaning, just dinner. So does meaning need to be comprehended for it to exist? Can meaning exist without being pointed out or recognized? For meaning to exist does the question why have to be asked first? I’m actually not up to thinking anymore about that question right now, but I am interested in thinking about it again soon, and I am very interested in what other people have to say. 

I was thinking about why historians have not written a lot about the Paleolithic time period and I thought that maybe some historians are propagandists for the non-nomadic life because that is where the money is. It was just a small thought.

Does anyone else thing that Native Americans have a slightly Asian facial structure, and if so, is that because their ancestors crossed the Bering Strait Land Mass from Asia? Also, I found it interesting that the people of the Americas did not really have any larger animals to domesticate (The Southern portion had the llama. Never trust a llama.). It made me think that might be why the Native Americans were still living more of a hunter/gatherer life style into the late Modern time period. They were not attempting to dominate nature but work with nature; that is more of a Paleolithic philosophy.

When I was reading about the Venus figurines, which had been found from Spain to Russia, I wondered when the collective consciousness developed? Was it when our brains became bigger in the Homo sapiens? Or was it present even as far back as the Homo habilis? Do you know?

It is mind blowing how fast we moved from being in communion with nature to attempting to dominate it. I wonder if because for 240,000 years (more if you consider Homo habilis a homie) nature had the upper hand and could kick our ass at will without much of a fight; I mean we had fire, some stones and a fur or two, but really we did not have a chance against her. That ice age must have sucked. So, I wonder if once the weather mellowed out and we could have a bit more control, we ran with it? The rate of change in our relationship with nature just feels to me like some pent up frustration was there and as soon as the climate was ripe… pounce. I just cannot wrap my mind around how drastic the nature/human relationship changed for most Homo sapiens. This change also goes hand in hand with our relationship to other Homo sapiens. The radical departure form a predominantly egalitarian construct to a class system happened with such ease. As Strayer states in the book, The Code of Hammurabi talks about slavery like they had been doing it forever, but it had only been 1500 years since the first civilizations began. Where did that way of interacting stem from? Mind-boggling.

2008... fingers crossed!