chapter 3

are we just like Rome ? I believe that we are not  Americans do not have the “conqueror’s mentality”
although there is great similarities I think people might get confused with similarities and interpreting them into ideas that we are the new roman empire .  Both claimed important political traditions such as the rule of law and fair government. Both believe that they were providing a much better government to those they conquered.,  Both established transnational trading systems. In the areas of the Roman imposed peace, they established road networks, a postal system, and commercial stability. Similarly, the U.S. has led the way in bringing about a global system of commerce and trade.
Both attracted substantial numbers of immigrants from other parts of the world.
 Rome often used local leaders to manage the local populations. The U.S. does the same.
Both are responsible for a “transnational language.” Latin in the case of Rome. English in the case of the U.S. Both experienced a movement to centralize political power. This centralization has been accompanied by a decline in the politics of participation and an increase in the politics of the spectacle. Games and pleasure took the place of a civic life. A few elite families tended to dominate the national political life. There is great similarities on to the question are we Rome but in real life America is no where near an empire.

          it still amazes me on how these empires evolved , like what made a ruler think of making one huge empires with different countries city's and states in one ? how did they know how to make an empire or who made the  "rules" for the empires its all unanswered questions that are not in the book which I think they should be .
     How did Mediterranean, middle east ,India , and china all developed there own political system what made them think of a political system ?
   the Persian empire interest me a lot because of how big it was , the Persian and the Indo-European they Persian empire's drew on previous examples of empires like Babylonian ad Assyrian empires, but it grew far from them with the size and splendor it reached from Egypt -India . how did they get it to expand that big and how did they keep everyone in check ?  when the kind died fires through out the land started to happen , why would they have a back up kind like a prince ? did they not think of that ahead of time  so they empire could still remain the same ?
   the Greco-Persian wars , why did the Greek and Persians always have conflict ? the Greek Ionia became under the Persian control as the empire extended , some Greeks found help and tried fighting the take over from the Persians . why was there even wars ? I think it should of just been if you wanted to be involved with a empire you should if not then don't be apart but I guess having peace all the time isn't really  that true , which I wish there was peace everywhere and no wars .

chapter 2 docs.

the mespotamia erra is very interesting to read about I must say,
the code of Hammurabi is very interesting like the punishments they had of they stole some type of crop or animal from the wealthy they would have to pay them or if they coudnt pay they would have to be killed that just blows my mind like why not make that person work for what they took from you or put them In jail if they had jail?  If they build a house for someone and the house caves in and kills the owner then person who built the house as well gets killed .. just wrong , a lot of the punishments had to do with death its almost like the just killed the person from doing wrong instead of trying to get them to do right , why is that ? what if the world was like that now do you think id=t would prevent all the crime that goes on now?
it kind of bother me that they really emphasized on the upper class and how they did and view things why didn't they put any of the middle or lower class in perspectives , what would happen if a poor person got stuff stolen from them by a wealthy person would the wealthy get just as bad punishment as the poor did ? its kind of injustice that they don't integrate all the classes in the documents.
I liked these documents better than chapter 1 it was far more interesting to read about all the laws .

Chapter 2.

the earliest civilization accrued 3500 B.C.E to 3000 B.C.E. in three places .. still confused on how civilization emerged ? and how are we so sure with the evidence in the texts are actual facts ?


china being described as a central state ruled by strong people (the ruler ruled from a mandate from heaven). He's called son of heaven  why was he called son of heaven?. they had a large powerful central govt. all of the first civilizations came from competing chiefdoms.

it amazed me that they formed all of the agriculture by just trying things out . they used what they could and basically started life,

the urban revolution really caught my attention because it just amazes me that they did all of this stuff starting anew era of agriculture and just forming everything off of that, like uruk building  the walls more than twenty feet , visible all around for miles .
 gender and equality , inequality came around after hierarchy soon came to regard normal and natural , there was now class , Upper class middle class and lower class, upper class enjoyed wealth in land or salaries they were able to avoid physical labor they had the finest of everything . they were distinguished by the clothing they wore they house they lived in and the manner of their burial. I think just because you have more wealth than everyone else should not make you better than everyone else I didn't realize back then its kind of they same as now where the people that have better things and more wealth walk around thinking they are the top dog of everyone and I think its so wrong .

its so wrong that gender started to play a huge role in everything now , men were know as superior to women and men had rights to to legal and property rights unknown to women ,what's so fair about that I know life is not fair but giving men the rights to own property and not women ? that's crap what do men have that women don't? sure they might seem like they work harder but in really women work just as hard just in different jobs .

This chapter really got me interested in the gender and equality part because I believe if you are man or women you should be able to anything you want there shouldn't be any specific jobs that women and men have.

documents.

are paleos more egalitarian then later socs, in wealth , status , power and gender?
I believe that they are not egalitarian in wealth , status and power and gender .
they have the power to heal with a trance-medicine is that power or status ? I think it could go for both because have the power to heal you have to go to a specific person to get healed but a lot of people do not want to get heal because it hurts , so again is that more power or status ? I think power because you have to have the courage to heal the people. "when you have lovers one brings you something , others bring you something else" (pg. 49) that is status to me because she is saying she has the power to have people bring her all sorts of different types of things , that means she is in higher status . in gender there is a lot of equality that I have found this one is the most fair to me because its not all up to the guys which most people believe that it is. "when you are women you don't just sit around " (49) both can heal...hurtful"(49) those quotes are saying in the things they do they don't just have one gender do them they have both gender doing everything . they are not egalitarian in wealth at all because the wealthier are stingy and basically don't care about the "bush people " which are people that do not have anything . " I have no goats I have no cattle I am a person who owns nothing ."(47) paleos are not egalitarian because they are not all equal.

chapter one fp,they way.

the view of gudo mahithat  was "we do not want cattle just wild animals to hunt and water that we can drink". it bothers me that they only want wild animals to hunt and eat when they could easily eat the cattle they raise. why go kill a wild animal when they are raising cattle so they could eat that? Hadza ? represented one of the very last people on earth to continue a way of life that was universal among human kind  , that is amazing to me that they found many different ways to survive . so wrong that the farmers , governments missionaries and now tourist invaded in on them . I wish that life was still like that where everyone had to go out and actually work to survive .so neat that they used everything they could around them to survive they made everything by hand with stones rather than metal items. why is it that humans adapt to there surroundings so easy ? that blows my mind !human beings began life in forest and deserts where they had to learn how to survive with the surroundings they had that is so cool because it was just in nature to them to just learn how to survive in the places they were.  I found it interesting that the Europeans that settled permanently found a society in which competition against men was expressed in one-on-one combat and in formalized but bloody battle because it relates to our men now they are always In competition with each other and sometimes need to show that they are better than one another by fighting . I thought these first two sections were very interesting because a lot of the stuff they talked about actual related to modern time some how . I cant wait to start reading deeper into the book .