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.