Lets study for Quiz #3 Questions 9 & 10

9) THE US SUPREME COURT'S JUNE 2013 RULINGS ON GAY MARRIAGE CASES REFLECT THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ENLIGHTENMENT IDEALS IN A WAY THAT ENLIGHTENMENT-ERA THINKERS THEMSELVES PROBABLY NEVER FORESAW. DISCUSS:

The Enlightenment-era thinkers could probably never have envisioned that their ideals of equality, liberty, freedom, human rights, and citizenship would be applied to same-sex marriage. This is a concept that has only recently been supported by a slim majority of Americans in the 21st century.  But these ideals are universal, democratic rights and have to do with the Humanist Philosophy of this worldly, as opposed to other worldly. There is a saying that you cannot prepare for everything, but you can prepare for anything.  There is no way anybody can see every possibility that the future might hold, but with these universal Enlightenment Ideals we can apply them to any possibility that might come about.

10) DISCUSS THE LONG TERM SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

Factory production mostly replaced small scale farms and artisans, with an emphasis on greater efficiency and output.  There was mass migrations to urban centers for wage labor, science was applied to production and assembly, export and trade increased, and capitalism and profit became paramount for business. The Industrial Revolution caused the creation of new social classes, including the working class and the middle class. The mass urban migration of young workers has created over-crowding, strained infrastructure, and pollution in the urban centers.  The capitalism created brought great wealth and world influence to the western world.

Lets study for Quiz #3 Questions 7 & 8

7) WHAT DOES STRAYER MEAN BY THE "ECHOES OF ATLANTIC REVOLUTION"?

The ideals that endured from these revolutions, including: equality, liberty, freedom, human rights, and citizenship have lived on, and the echoes can be heard in every revolution and political movement from the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street.  "Modern revolutionaries acted on the basis of Enlightenment ideas_that the structure of human societies was not forever ordained by God or tradition and that it was both possible and necessary to reconstruct those societies". (Strayer 2009)

8) HOW DID THE MOVE FROM TRADITIONAL FORMS OF PRODUCTION TO THE "CASH CROP" SYSTEM AFFECT AFRICANS UNDER COLONIAL RULE?

The Cash Crop system that the Europeans developed during colonial rule was for their own profit and export.  This system took away land and labor from the local food production farming and caused great hardships for the Africans under colonial rule.  They were forced to cultivate these cash crops for the colonizers and were punished in some cases with limb mutilation for missing quota goals.  Many colonies specialized in only a few cash crops and this created a unhealthy dependence when market prices dropped.

Lets study for Quiz # 3 Questions 5 & 6

5) WHAT WAS THE ROLE OF CAPITALISM IN STIMULATING THE EUROPEAN DESIRE FOR COLONIES?

The Europeans were looking for raw materials to feed their industrial revolution, (silver, gold, iron, timber, diamonds, etc.) and to exploit African and Asian peoples and resources to farm cash crops for profit and export.  Africa and Asia had the labor, markets and land resources that could be colonized, most often with superior firepower, and turned into hard labor export colonies with forced cultivation of cash export crops to feed the European capital markets.  The forced cultivation of cash crops was accomplished with iron fisted and brutal tactics of the colonizers, including beatings, mutilations, and death.  This for profit export farming took away land and labor for local food production and developed profits for the colonizing countries, and corporations.  

6) DISCUSS THE EVENTS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HAITIAN REVOLUTION.

This was the only successful Slave Rebellion, and it was motivated by the French and Atlantic Revolutions.  These revolutionary ideals included greater social equality, and national liberation from foreign rule. The revolution of the Haitian slaves helped bring an end to slavery elsewhere. "The dramatically successful Haitian Revolution was followed by three major rebellions in the British West Indies, all of which were harshly crushed, in the early 19th century.  The brutality in which the the revolts were suppressed appalled British public opinion.  Growing numbers of the British public came to feel that slavery was not only morally wrong, and economically inefficient, but also politically unwise". (Strayer 2009)

Let's study for Quiz #3 Questions #3 & #4

3) Both 1348 and 1492 can be seen as pivotal years in the transition to the Modern Era.  In what ways are these dates relevant?

1348 was the year the plague started in Europe which decimated a large portion of the population and subsequently ushered in a re-birth of classical Greek humanism, the focus on 'this worldly' as opposed to the 'other worldly' of the pre-plague era.  1492 was the year that, 'Columbus sailed the ocean blue', and discovered the Americas. This was the beginning of genuine globalization, growing European presence in world affairs, and the beginnings of elements of distinctly modern societies.

4) What was The Great Dying?  Why is a student of History more likely to encounter this term in a textbook published in 2009 than one published in 1969?

The Great Dying refers to the indigenous peoples of the Americas who died in incredible numbers upon exposure to European settlers/invaders.  It is now estimated that 90% of the indigenous population, or 60-80 million people of the Americas, died as a result of interaction with Europeans, by disease, war, and slave labor.  This fact was probably downplayed in previous textbooks from earlier generations which were written with a greater Eurocentric slant and prejudice.

Let's study for Quiz #3 Questions #1 & #2

1) What were the motives of Western European powers in colonizing the Americas?

We can start with the 3-G's:  Gold, God, and Glory. The Europeans were looking for treasure and hard currency to gain wealth and status so they could participate in the Indian Ocean trade, and they found Gold and Silver in South America.  Missionaries were looking to enlarge the realm of Christianity, and they brought the word of God to spread to the indigenous peoples of the New World.  They greatly expanded their numbers and built houses of worship everywhere they went.  Later Europeans would be drawn to the New World to worship God freely and without persecution.  Glory came to the Voyagers who were the first to discover the New World and claim it and all of its riches for their Kings and Countries.  As a Spanish Conquistador was quoted as saying, "we came here to serve God and the King, and also to get rich". (Strayer 2009)

2) Discuss the roots and development of Renaissance humanism.

Renaissance humanism came about two generations after the European plague of 1348 which decimated the population of Europe.  Renaissance humanism was focused on 'This Worldly', as opposed to the 'Other Worldly' of the pre-plague time.  This was a re-birth of the classical Greek Humanism.  This was a celebration of individual freedom and expression, and an opposition to authority.  The development came about with the expansion of trade, and increased prosperity and luxury. " Pioneers of Renaissance Humanism were inspired by the discovery and spread of important classical texts from ancient Greece and Rome which offered a different vision of life and humanity than what had been common during previous centuries of Christian domination". (http://atheism.about.com/od/abouthumanism/a/renaissance.htm)

Eurocentrism, ripples in the pond.

Eurocentrism,  was it the dominant cultural phenomenon of the Modern Era, or the over hyped history written by the victors of the industrial revolution?  Nothing in life happens in a bubble, everything effects everything else, there is always a ripple effect, an echo, a convergence of ideas.  It seems like everybody borrows from everybody else when it comes to culture, language, ideas, philosophies, and inventions.  We all like to take credit for our original ideas, but by the time of the modern era the world had shrunk significantly and most cultures had experienced the exchange of information and goods with at least one other culture, and in most cases more. Many times we take ideas, inventions, philosophies, or religions from other cultures and make them our own, with our own cultural flavor and spice.  This offshoot can seem like an original idea to the uninformed because it is news to them, and to those that might be more worldly and maybe previously exposed to a foreign idea, it might none the less feel brand new with some home cooking in the way of cultural shaping and transformation.  I think that this can be a beautiful synergy of the best practices and ideas, but like in writing, we have to give credit to the original source and show respect for those that came before us, and inspired and enlightened us.

Lets study for Quiz #2, questions 4,5.

4) In what sense did the Persian Empire bridge the Ancient and Classical worlds?

The Persian Empire formed around 560 BC at the very beginnings of the start of the Classical Era and the end of the Ancient Era. They built an empire that drew on an imperial system from the ancient civilizations of the Babylonian, and Assyrian Empires before them, but then far exceeded them in scope and wealth.

5)  Who were the seminal thinkers of the Classical period?  Write some details about one of them.

Some of the seminal thinkers of this period were: Confucius, Siddhartha, Socrates/Plato/Aristotle, and Jesus.
 Confucius was from China and lived during the sixth century.  He developed a philosophy that later became known as Confucianism.  This philosophy espoused social harmony through moral example, a secular outlook, the importance of education, and the family as the model of the state.  Confucius advocated unquestioning obedience and respect for ones parents and other senior family members.  Confucius sought to bring order from Chaos, in governing China. Using this model of deference and obedience of ones morally superiors, be it Father, older brother, husband, or political ruler/elite, he believed harmony would be the result. This philosophy of Confucianism has had a great impact on the culture and governing of China over hundreds of years and has survived in some forms into the modern era.

Let's study for Quiz # 2 Questions 1,2,3.

1) The Mongols got a bad rap.  In fact, they were a significant civilization that made long-term contributions to the evolution of the Eurasian world.  Discuss:

The Mongols were famous for their fighting prowess, superior hosrsemanship, and nomadic ways that made them a feared and respected culture.  In addition to this they were able to developed a stable civilization for 300 years that made contributions to the evolution of the Eurasian world.  The Mongols established a cosmopolitan capital city (Karakorum) and because of their religious tolerance built places of worship for the various religions. The Mongols had a central government which exchanged ambassadors with Persia and China, and they participated in trans-continental trade. They introduced a system of standardized weights and measures that impacted the trade of Eurasia.  Mongols developed the most extensive postal system at the time, and were able to bring the major civilizations of Eurasia,  Europe, China,  and the Islamic world into more direct contact with each other than in earlier times. They were very good at assimilating other cultures ideas about government, art, and language, and translated their official decrees into various languages.  Mongol culture was also more egalitarian the most with women and men possessing many of the same fighting and riding skills that made them a great invading army.

2) In what way does Islam highlight the reason why the entire period from 500 BC to 1400 AD should be considered the "Classical Era" from a World Historical point of view?

Islam's reign should be considered part of the Classical Era because it mirrored some of the other civilizations of the time with its trans-continental expansionism, and all encompassing religion, that included spiritual, personal and governmental codes of behavior.  Islam brought vast amounts of diverse peoples and cultures in Afro-Eurasia under one virtual roof that in many ways has endured into the modern era. Peoples from other cultures and continents wanted to be part of the Islamic empire. Like the other empires of the classical era, Islam made great strides in education and knowledge with advances in medicine, mathematics, and science, which developed across cultures.  Also The Islamic religion, similar to Catholicism under the Roman Empire, suffered a division which lasted into the modern era with Shiites and Sunnis on two opposing sides.

3) What were the Sand and Sea Roads?  Were they as significant as the Silk Road?

The Sand Road was the long distance trading route that linked North Africa and the Mediterranean with the interior of West Africa across the Sahara.  It was as significant as the Silk Road because, like the Silk Road, "the commercial networks had a transforming impact, stimulating and enriching West African civilization and connecting it to larger patterns of world history during the post classical era". (Strayer 2009)  The long distance trade of the Sea Roads across the Indian Ocean also had this trans-formative effect that the Sand and Silk exhibited with its impact giving rise to the East African civilization known as Swahili.

I am also intrigued by the what if questions.  What if this empire had moved farther north or south?  What if this culture had adopted Christianity versus Islam?  What if these peoples decided not to venture across vast oceans to look for a new world?   What if Mongol Pastoral peoples had been docile and lived in quiet obscurity?  What if this or that leader had lived longer or never had existed?  Life does seem to hang by a thread sometimes or turn on a dime.  What if Hitler had not come to power in Germany?  What if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor?  What if JFK had lived to serve two Presidential terms? I think that it is intriguing to play the what if game but it becomes a conundrum, circles within circles.  There is no real way to know the what ifs unless we could time travel and change events, although this could lead to a ripple effect and change other things farther along that we did not want different.  Everything is either pre-determined, or blind luck, or a logical conclusion to events that preceded them.  What if I had turned right instead of left that day?  Maybe I would not be writing this Blog right now!  If I believe in a greater power/God then the what ifs don't concern me as much because I could say it is Gods/Allah's will, not for mere mortal man to understand.  I can see how this would be more comforting that always asking Why/What if?

Chapter Eleven is titled, "The Worlds of Islam", but a better title might be, Islam takes over the World.  It seems incredible that a religion could spread so wide and so fast as Islam was able to do from 600-1500. The length and breadth of the Islamic culture and religion was referred to by Strayer as, "the first truly Global Civilization".  Act locally, and think globally would have summed up the vast civilizations and peoples that converted to Islam.  Again, I am intrigued by the practical reasons that peoples and cultures chose to follow certain religions, and to switch allegiances if the need arose, like the arrival of a conquering Army.  It makes sense that if a giant empire/civilization/culture is roaring across continents like Islam did in Afro-Eurasia, that your choice would be to get on the bus or be run over by it. On the other hand it sounds like people joined willingly, many feeling a comfort from the monotheistic teachings that were prominent in Judaism, and Christianity, Strayer referred to it as a "social conversion, the movement from one religiously defined social community to another".  Islam was indeed a religiously defined social community with its teachings of correct behavior, versus the emphasis in Christianity on correct beliefs.  I think this emphasis on correct behavior in regard to all aspects of ones life, including political, social, religious, and personal, made Islam a unifying force for these diverse peoples spread from as far away as Spain, on through North and West Africa all the way to India. This unifying force became a global network for the exchange of ideas, goods, and technologies that brought about a surge in science, medicine, philosophy, and Islamic scholarship.  The reach of Islam and its tenets of correct behavior resonate today with adherents all over the world, including America.

Take religion, politics, empire building, Popes, Kings, Despots, and throw in occasional marauding bands of knights,Vikings, and assorted pillagers, and you have yourself a great mini-series on the history of the world Part III, or as Strayer calls it, "The Worlds of European Christendom", Connected and Divided. It is fascinating to me that peoples, cultures, and civilizations had many different reasons why they ended up following certain religions versus others, and it seems that these reasons were more worldly than celestial.  Strayer talks about a unified identity that Orthodox Christianity brought to the emerging RUS civilization. To me it seems that there is always this interesting intersection of religious beliefs in the form of cultural identity passed down from the ruling elite to the masses for unified political expediency and control, versus the masses acquiescing to the wealth and protection afforded by the powerful rulers in society by adopting their religious beliefs. It seems that faith in a power greater than self starts with the present strata in your society and from there, over time, may lead to a belief in a power greater than man. During this period of European Christendom some leaders were viewed as demi-gods, or God appointed rulers as in the case of the Byzantine emperors.  There was no such thing as a separation of church and state, the church was government and vice versa. A few weeks ago I happened to find this eight part mini-series on netflix called, 'Arn: the Night Templar', which is set in Sweden and Norway during the Crusades.  One of the things that stood out to me was the fact that the Kings of these early, splintered, small republics, deferred to the church as the final say over matters of faith and state.  Now that I have read about this period from 500-1300 of European Christendom I have come to understand that the Church held great sway over every aspect of society, including governing the flock as well as spiritually guiding them.

China is an effective, centralized, and bureaucratic state, experiencing an economic revolution whose ripple effect makes a significant difference to the way other human beings make their livings throughout a large part of the world. (Strayer 2009)  Robert Strayer was not describing China in the twenty first century, he was referring to China around a thousand years ago!  I have to admit that I had no idea China was that advanced and such a world power so long ago.  Their ripple effect was surely felt throughout what Strayer referred to as, the civilized world, at the time.  Among other things the Chinese invented was paper and movable type, which allows me to write this, some one thousand years later.  Add to that list gunpowder, salt production by solar evaporation, and the magnetic compass and we start to get an idea why Europe was in the dark ages!  It is ironic today because I for one tend to view China as a immensely antiquated country that is finally modernizing at a maniacal rate, but that is clinging to a dying political model in communism.  Yet as history does indeed repeat itself, China is now a superpower with immense economic and military might, that allows it to shape the dialogue, and sit a the table (U.N. Security Council) with the other most powerful countries in the world, including the United States.

By land and sea they brought people, goods, religions, and diseases.  It seems like the movement of goods, by trade along the land and maritime silk road during the period between 500-1500 A.D., was more influential in its effect on cultures than the movement of peoples.  The propagation of Indian religions like Buddhism by the traders, along with their wares for sale, forever altered the landscape of these vast areas along this trade route. I think that it was more of a velvet revolution of philosophical ideas shared by this cultural elite of traders,  as opposed to the later missionary style of hammer and nail theology. What I mean by that is, I don't get the sense that anybody was proselytizing, as much as sharing ideas across the cultural divide.  The traders seem like an elite clique that had an advantage over their other more stay at home brethren, they got to live the exciting life of new adventures in exotic locales. This brotherhood of trade was a perfect breeding ground for the exchange of ideas. It also makes sense that those along the trade routes would want to show solidarity with their peers, and honor them by adopting, what would probably seem now like the popular new in thing, Buddhism.  These common beliefs among people spread far and wide, and the subsequent building of temples, monasteries, and icons must have further cemented these relationships and bonds of the traders.  Even today it sounds exciting and exotic to have lived during that time and have been a silk road trader/traveler, being at the forefront of discovering new goods, new ideas, new lands, and new peoples.  When I think of the scope of World trade today in the modern world, with airplanes, ships, trains, and trucks, other than the speed of travel, probably not that much has changed.  We are still seeing the propagation of new goods, new ideas, and new diseases spread around the world.  Maybe this is why when we travel we like to shop so much, this is our chance to experience the trade of goods and ideas with foreign cultures and peoples, even if the road is short, the difference can be quite profound.

The author invites you to consider whether you think that a proper balance was struck regarding the amount of pages devoted to certain peoples and civilizations in this section, and the book so far as a whole.  He also asks you think about what criteria might influence the study of certain cultures and civilizations, such as size, duration, religion, and changing world events.  I think as a North American it is refreshing to learn more about far off civilizations such as in Eurasia, Africa, Persia, etc.  Many of us have already been exposed to Western civilization and European history throughout our early school years so it is fascinating to learn more about these distant cultures and civilizations.  That being said, closer to home I find the Maya, Inca, and Aztec civilizations fascinating with their pyramids, death ball games, intricate water systems, and disappearing mystical nature.  Similar to these cultures I would like to learn more about the North American Mound Builders; I do not remember learning about this and it seems fascinating to know more about how they built these giant mounds, and for what purpose.

Slavery versus the caste system, it is difficult to ascertain which is worse.  On the one hand, if you were born into the lowest caste system in India (untouchable) you were relegated to the work that was considered unclean or polluting to the higher castes. These included but not limited to morticians, executioner's, tanners, sweepers, and other assorted manual laborers.  The person was not a slave in the sense that they were bought and sold by others, but they were a slave to system that would not let them rise higher in their station in this life, but hopefully the next.  The Romans on the other hand, by the time of Christ, built an empire that counted approximately 30-40% of its population as slaves. These slaves were mostly made up of prisoners from their many wars and conquests of other civilizations. Slaves were bought and sold and could be killed or assaulted by their owners at will, but could also in some cases buy their way out, and eventually live free and even own slaves themselves.  Slaves in the Roman empire worked in every aspect of life including holding important positions in government. They were also scholars, teachers, writers, and doctors.  Each system was an outgrowth of these two different and distinct cultures, and represented a method for exploiting people, that in my opinion,was both morally and ethically corrupt.  Not to mention cruel, debasing, inhuman, and a blight on each civilization.  Unfortunately, some forms of both of these systems endure today in areas around the globe, and are no less as dehumanizing.

It is amazing to think that the wealthy not paying their fair share of taxes goes back hundreds and even thousands of years. Back around the first century B.C. in China, peasant farmers became mired in debt due to increased taxation from the state as the population grew.  The peasants were then forced to sell their land to wealthier land owners to pay off their debts, and in most cases they were forced to become tenant farmers on their previously owned land.  Wealthy landowners(political power) found ways to avoid paying taxes (sounds familiar), thereby increasing the pressure on the poorer classes. This was like a vicious circle, the less taxes the wealthy paid, the more taxes were levied on the peasant landowners, and the more indebted they became, the more they were forced to sell their land to wealthier citizen's who then found ways to avoid paying taxes!  I think this lesson is applicable in today's society, those fortunate to have the most money should pay the most taxes, as they can afford it, and with as few loopholes as possible, and those who have the least should pay the least, so that they can have an opportunity to thrive, and maybe eventually move up into those higher tax brackets, which in the end turns into a positive circle of prosperity, and shared sacrifice.

The Greeks had a unique juxtaposition between believing in multiple gods and goddesses on the one hand, and the pursuit of the liberal arts steeped in wisdom and virtue, with a healthy dose of scientific examination, on the other.  The gods that ruled over man could be benevolent one moment and angry or jealous the next.  These male and female gods with their dramas, played out in the heavens and on earth,  rivaled the best melodramas ever written by and about mere mortals.  In contrast, the great Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle espoused a more down to earth philosophical belief based on the pursuit of wisdom, virtue, and scientific exploration.  One could wonder (me) whether the belief in multiple gods who intervened in human life was maybe a product of a precarious environment, as opposed to the deep philosophical meditations of the great Greek thinkers at the time, which could have been born of the human imagination, irrespective of the environment.

 The author poses the question, "are ideas generated by particular political, social, and economic conditions, or are they the product of creative human imagination independent of the material environment?"  I tend to lean to the former, as it seems to me that people turned to some form of belief system in higher beings, religion, or codified moral behaviorism to bring order to a disorderly society, and to find comfort and guidance in a unifying belief system.  Maybe the saying that, necessity is the mother of invention, carries some validity in that peoples all over the world were looking for some sort of comforting belief system to stem the tide of chaos and disunity.  Born from this upheaval are several traditions, beliefs, and religions that are still relevant in modern society, such as, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, Judaism, and Christianity.

Sometimes the modern day United States of America is compared to the ancient Roman Empire, with the dire predictions of a likewise fall or collapse. Whether that may be the case or not, we do know that historically, great civilizations, empires, republics, and states have been formed and created only to disappear or be incorporated into a newly formed entity.  I think that one of the comparisons that I was not previously aware of between the United States and the Roman Empire is the incorporation of so many diverse cultures and peoples into one great homogenized society. Like the Romans, the descendants of the original European settlers in the U.S. are the minority, and the myriad of other cultures and peoples who now make up the U.S. are the majority. Like the Romans, the U.S. offers a kind of slow or soft assimilation for peoples who speak other languages, practice other religions, and have different cultural norms and values.  I think compared to say the Chinese style, of a more forced assimilation of language and culture like in past empires and modern day Tibet, the Roman/U.S. model is preferable to create a free and healthy republic, that over generations will find the common thread of freedom as a unifying cultural force.

I remember seeing a movie called, "The 300", that was about a small army of Spartans fighting to the death,  holding off the great Persian Army in battle long enough for the rest of the Grecian troops to escape.  Because the Greek city-states practiced a form of early democracy and had some form of representative government and were independent of an all powerful ruler, they may have had a psychological advantage to battling for their way off life,  compared to the Persians who were ruled with an iron fist in the form of a supreme, god-like ruler.  In the modern era we may have comparisons to the democratic government led troops of WW2,  defeating the the aristocratic, fascist, and totalitarian ruled armies,  for nothing less than preserving their democratic way of life.

When people question why would it be important to study World History, one might answer, well most of the great societal issues that we grapple with today were relevant thousands of years ago.  Such as, urban versus rural lifestyle, ecology and the degradation of the land and water, class structures and the chasm between rich and poor, and gender equality and the role of women in a predominately male dominated society, to name a few.  Who could imagine that our ancestors from thousands of years ago grappled with these very issues that we still are working on today?  Not me!

I wonder, as the urban landscape developed and occupations became more specialized, would those who produced the food (agriculture), begin to resent the city folk, who maybe looked like they had an easier way of life?

Something that I find interesting is the similarities in the organization of various civilizations, even though geographically, these civilizations could be separated by vast distances of land, sea, and continents.

Reading about the neolithic or agricultural age,  I could not help but think of the slogan that goes something like, "act locally, think globally".  In different parts of the world agriculture and animal husbandry was being developed in the same time frame but the reasons for moving away from the hunter/gatherer culture, and the types of crops and animals involved, depended on the local conditions of each culture.

I have to say that I am impressed with the societies that the Paleolithic peoples built and maintained.  The comparison of the Chumash and the San culture is fascinating, and it is hard to pick one way over the other as superior since they both had their pros and cons.  Maybe the lesson for modern cultures is to look at the best practices of each and try to forge a new culture that both honors the past but leaves room for progress in the future.

The San culture seems to have really benefited from the design of tools that facilitated hunting and gathering.  I find it interesting to note the leisure time afforded to the hunter/gatherer lifestyle, it was not easy, but it seems to have given them time to be creative with stone art, and spiritual singing and dancing.

I thought that it was interesting to read that the Paleolithic societies of hunters/gatherers was probably more egalitarian than the later agricultural societies because of the nature of that type of lifestyle. There would be a sort of built in equality where everyone would have to pull together, like in a hunt for large mammals, or in the foraging and gathering of food stuffs. These Nomadic peoples would have to travel light, and unnecessary possessions would only slow one down and adversely affect survival.  It does not surprise me that these customs, that were carried into the 20th century with the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, would lead to a highly satisfying life in many regards.  If we look at modern 21st century society we are starting to see a small movement back towards a simpler way of life with less possessions, less striving for more just for the sake of it, and a new found respect for leisure time, and a certain quality of life associated with simple pleasures.  We have also seen the movement of equality of the genders since in most modern societies both women and men share in the gathering of assets for the household.

I think that the approach of examining World History using the three C's, comparison, connection, and change, definitely marks a more dynamic and meaningful way to study the past as opposed to rote memorization of names and dates that seemed to be more prevalent in past history courses.