Chapters 3-6

The intro of chapter 3 compares the US with the Roman Empire and that historically, all empires collapse after they become overextended abroad, corrupt, and dictatorial at home. In many ways the US has become all of these things, with wars we are involved in abroad, spying on our own citizens using the excuse of terrorism as an reason to circumvent the law and strip our country of our privacy rights through the Patriot Act, and the many sex and money scandals of our elected officials. It does indeed make me wonder if we will end up like so many other empires. Putin seems to be gloating that he inherited Edward Snowden and many of the U.S.’ valuable secrets.

 Interesting too how the Roman empire was weakened by the influx of different ethnic and linguistic groups who controlled the weakening empire and eventually took over displacing the Roman emperor altogether, however the Chinese empire was disrupted by the nomadic peoples establishing “barbarian states,” but eventually assimilated into the culture and became ethnically Chinese.  I have read where it is much easier in countries that are homogeneous to establish laws and get everyone on the same page, and there is much more disagreement and debate in countries like the U.S. that have a large immigrant population. Not that I would want to live anywhere else, but relating it to history, this seems to prove accurate.

The discussion in Chapter 4 about religion and rationality was intriguing. The comparison of the rational, this-world focused Chinese and Greek philosophers, and the exploration of the unseen worlds by the Indian, Persian and Jewish intellectuals. All of them were seeking to define the meaning of life through spiritual or moral realm and all of these new ways of thinking focused on compassion. However, with the development of these new ways of thinking it also seemed to establish a ridged hierarchy and patriarchy. The Confucian answer of the moral example of superiors (men, wealth, age) to their inferiors (women, status, child) to show sincerity, benevolence and genuine concern towards those inferior to them, would automatically motivate the inferior to act with deference and obedience, turns my stomach a bit. I do agree though that gov’t officials should be chosen from those with good moral character and intellectual achievement, and not on aristocratic background (although it seems that only those from wealthy backgrounds could achieve the education necessary to achieve these positions in gov’t.) It also seems as though they were seeking work/life balance even back then with the discussion that a scholar-official pursue Confucianism during the day at his work, but behave more in the Daoist fashion when returning home at night.

I was hopeful when I began to read about the Buddhist belief that Buddha challenged the inequalities of the caste system, and also that he believed the possibility of “awakening” was available to all. But it goes on to discuss that with the formalization of Buddhism also came patriarchal rules and inequality, and it seems true of most  religions that once teachings were formalized, distilled, and mainstreamed, that class and gender inequality became entrenched.

In chapter 5 I was shocked to discover what an asshole Aristotle was! That women were just infertile males, and  passive receptacle of sperm, compared to domesticated animals or children, unable to be rational or participate in public life. I wish he was around to see our society today and the powerful women in it! I truly enjoyed reading about Pericles and Aspasia! What an enlightened man who could have taught Aristotle a few things about equality!

Chapter 6: The separate but equal definition of the Bantu people in Africa was promising to me and seemed to make for a more egalitarian society. It was less patriarchal  and they saw women as having equal value and as a valuable contributor. They also worshipped powerful female ancestral figures. It seems that  in all of these societies that once politics, and organized religion were introduced and established, women's status was degraded substantially. I was also disgusted by the amount of human sacrifice that went on in the Mesoamerican civilizations, along with their artistic renditions of these sacrifices.

Chapters 1 and 2

I have just completed reading chapter 1 and the amazing journey of homo sapiens through the Paleolithic era into the Agricultural era. I never felt like I knew enough about history, especially world history, to be able to argue my way out of a wet paper bag. After September 11, 2001, I have been much more curious about world history and learning the reasons why we are who we are, and the events that have formed our thinking and behaving. This first chapter has helped me understand the basics of early human history and the important milestones that helped us evolve and flourish. It is fascinating to think that the Paleolithic era was 96% of human history and that the Neolithic, Ancient, Classical and Modern histories are just a blip on the historical calendar. And that all of human life is merely seconds on the cosmic calendar. Makes me feel a bit insignificant, that life is truly fleeting, and that one day, really just milliseconds on the cosmic calendar from now, we will all be...I digress. It really is amazing though how long it took humans to migrate out of Africa and to develop simple technologies that moved them from a gatherer/hunter society into an agrarian society. Perhaps it was working well for them and they had the "if it ain't broke, why fix it" mentality. It seems that it worked well for male and female relationships in many areas as they both carried out equally important roles to help their kin survive and hopefully thrive. While still in other areas, the author talks about how female infanticide may have been practiced indicating a preference for male children. Some things haven't changed!
Chapter 2: The section on Hierarchies of Gender disturbed me and I keep thinking of the girls in Nigeria who where kidnapped only because they were being educated. For millennia in Paleolithic and agricultural communities, men and women for the most part were regarded as equal--their position and contributions equally important to the survival of their people--and then suddenly during the development of the First Civilizations women were seen as weak, in need of protection, and control because men feared women as potentially disruptive. What I really want to know is why and how women allowed this to happen to them? Was it sudden? Was it a gradual stripping away of their power? Did they just give in? Did men turn on women because they were afraid of women's connection with nature, something they could not understand or ever experience themselves? It is hard for me to imagine that mere muscle mass could determine superiority. Also, the unbalanced laws with regard to the punishment of women and men's sexual indiscretions is sickening, and still so prevalent today in so many countries.